Common sense suggests that educating people about gun safety will help avoid accidental deaths. Developed with the help of teachers, law enforcement specialists, and psychologists, to name a few, the Eddie Eagle program has been taught to more than 26 million children K-3rd grade Eddie.
Finally, some believe those who are concealed carriers can help stop crime, and there are situations where a concealed carry permit holder who was present as a crime unfolded did help to deter or prevent the crime. Unfortunately, not all people who have guns for self defense are sufficiently trained to act quickly and safely to stop a crime, and their firearms are sometimes used accidentally against innocents.
Training requirements vary greatly from state to state, but one possibility is a national concealed carry law that would establish uniform requirements. How can our nation respect the culture of hunting and shooting sports in some states, while other areas face high levels of urban gun violence? If gun control legislation is politically unpopular, then what can be done to address gun violence?
While some proposals remain either too controversial, or ineffective, there is more consensus around gun control legislation that focuses on criminals and how they get their guns. Better laws and enforcement tools around trafficking and straw purchasing, preventing theft, ensuring background checks for all purchases, and education could make a difference.
Guns are an important part of our history. Guns can be used for sport, for protection, and they can hold sentimental value like other prized objects. But they can also be used to hurt innocent people. Owning a gun is a right that carries a heavy responsibility. Because of the inherent risk involved in owning and using guns, citizens who choose to own guns must be responsible in exercising their constitutional rights. Today, too many citizens on both sides of the debate demonize the other side.
Our communities need to find space for open and honest dialogue. This is an issue that needs respect. All citizens need to listen to both sides with an open mind and address the best arguments across the spectrum to find effective solutions. Flintoff, Corey, and James Glynn.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Ridgeway, Greg, Glenn L. Strategies for Disrupting Illegal Firearm Markets: A Case Study of Los Angeles. The Individual Rights and Civic Responsibility: The Right to Bear Arms. Rosen Publishing Group, William Young Birch and Abraham Small, Madison and judicial review; Marshall really screwed the Republic with that one. The other Thomas Jefferson believed that any one branch having final say as to the constitutionality of a law would simply devolve, in time, into tyranny.
For the most part, very factual, and the instances where the author is injecting his own opinion are noted as such, or are offered up as questions to the reader. Without facts to back it up, this paragraph needs to be modified. There is little to no evidence of an armed intervener making an already felonious situation worse. Thank you, that is what I attempted to say, below, with less clarity. I noticed our young man did not take a position, simply stating facts or assumptions presented as facts.
Some adult research will do him well, and he should start from a neutral position if he wishes to come to a rational decision. Young man, you have a future, here! Do not accept lies, find out for yourself.
Try addressing that on your next dissertation. It was looking very good until that point. Concealed carriers absolutely knock it out of the park in terms of self defense. CCW holders are more accurate than police and are less likely to shoot the wrong target.
CCers shooting the wrong target? LEOs shooting the wrong target? The number of citizens shot but not killed by LEOs has to be in the thousands. Why not all violence? Is getting killed by a gun somehow worse than being killed by a knife, bat, or bare hands?
This has been one of the key tenets of our gun-rights arguments. Stop talking about gun violence and start talking about all violence. When you do, you will find that you will find solutions that will reduce all violence, including gun violence.
Until you do, the best you can do is cause gun violence to change into other forms of violence, with no reduction or even an increase in violence overall.
This is supported by several examples around the world. Oh, damn, I did not think of that. I want to know what grade that paper got. It fails to take a clear stance in any regard. It also fails to provide strong evidence in support of a view point. As far as a strictly essay grade? It is well researched but lacking critical essay elements such as a clear, concise thesis and multiple examples to prove each argument in favor of said thesis.
As a research paper? The research is good and it does provide a balanced statement of the facts. This is not coming from a teacher but someone who took university level essay courses. So depending on the school, system and views of the teacher they could grade higher or lower. It does need a rewrite. There are good examples, but it needs a thesis. Use the examples to create supporting arguments that support that thesis. Here is a good source: I take some issue with the last paragraph.
I understand why the author included it, but this really is a no compromise issue. Anymore than we should have a dialogue about making a state religion, banning newspapers or quartering soldiers in private homes.
Any change comes from us, not culture warriors and people that hate and despise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It is important to have those who understand guns and the Constitution in the dialogue so that we can avoid blind alleys, ineffective proposals and, of course, infringements on the rights of the innocent.
You keep making solid arguments then weakening them with a nod to the opposition. An example would be background checks. On a different note, not everything needs legislation. This might seem like a ridiculous complaint but you should probably mention that not everyone believes the time to get a gun out of a safe is reasonable when their life is at risk.
The anti crowd strongly believe that to be true, but even the smallest amount of thought proves it to be untrue. Are we talking about commas? I have heard all manner of different commas. Which is right seems to not make a difference to me. He forgot Dredd Scott.
Freedom of religion is an individual right. Freedom of speech is an individual right. Freedom of the press is an individual right. Freedom to assemble is an individual right.
Freedom to petition the government is an individual right. Freedom from having troops quartered in your house is an individual right. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is an individual right. The right to due process is an individual right.
Freedom from double jeopardy is an individual right. Freedom from self-incrimination is an individual right. Freedom from eminent domain claims without just compensation is an individual right. The right to a speedy trial is an individual right. The right to a public trial is an individual right. The right to a jury trial is an individual right.
The right to confront witnesses is an individual right. The right to counsel is an individual right. Freedom from excessive bail is an individual right. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is an individual right. But it amazes me that some people think that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, but that it is a collective right!
One key problem with universal background checks is in the enforcement of that requirement. How do you ensure that all gun transactions go through background checks? The only effective way is through gun registration, which has been abused many times in the past by governments. Amazing how one goes to an anti gun website that actually shows the failure of gun control, especially registration. Explain again with any logic how one gets the criminals to register their guns, is it like a buy back with blanket amnesty, do tell?
Anyone who uses the term gun violence is claiming a gun is alive and the root cause of violence, only the clinically insane do that! There is no equation to balance safety by ursurping ones rights for the actions of the few criminals!
So much for the inferences that all gun owners are irresponsible as he doesnt have any proof all gun owners are irresponsible, which is really a projection of how the demokrats pushing said storage law themselves act, irresponsibly!
Why should gun owners compromise anymore with a minority group who is so selfish, intolerant, and promoting the lie of gun control of only the law abiding reduces violence by the bad guys, which it never has and never will? Why does he refuse to acknowledge the 1. Why does he refuse to acknowledge that Why does he not know of the NICS operations reports showing an average of only 45 bad guys prosecuted per year? Why does he refuse to acknowledge the government studies and data demonstrating Why does he infer all gun owners are untrained when the government data demonstrate if that were true that the numbers fo collateral shootings would skyrocket?
Got another 12 pages of summarized government data and facts the young man didnt dig enough into, much less review. You do know that most Americans have around a 90 IQ? Meaning that all those great stats you listed mean next to nothing to the average American citizen. Gotta find a way to dumb it down so the flouride drinking mouth-breathers will get on board.
The kid is Damn fine first effort. But as he wanted to post his opinion in public, why should we sugar coat it and encourage the direction of his work that is so obviously lacking? But for high school, no, unless it was for like half his grade in some course, no. My wife is a teacher of 31 years, and has had several students of exceptional ability, but they are not perfect, and they as a rule have all taken constructive critiicism and correction of their naievette better than most.
So I have NO problem treating someone who wants to post their opinion in public as an adult, which I did! It was a high school research paper, not a doctoral thesis. He hit the highlights and the most pertinent information on an infinitely broad topic. I also think he was trying to write it as objectively as he could. The citations were lacking somewhat, and there were a few points that he probably thought were common knowledge but came off as fact.
The concealed carry part was abysmal. Content aside this kid needs a writing tutor. Creativity is lacking in his word choice, bland structuring, very little to get and hold attention. Good start, young man. Dig a little deeper into U. My last point on your paper. Owning firearms is not about hunting or shooting sports cultures.
Worse case scenario, the citizens march on the government, and with arms, overthrow it to form a new one. The gun, at times, is the closest tool. Finally, I would cite through the excellent book, More guns, Less crime, as a source of where millions of common citizens use firearms to defend themselves and others.
It happens a lot. This was decently written and well-researched, but after your introductory section, which raised the issue as an important moral, philosophical, and political question, you buried us under a bunch of varied data and conflicting case histories, and at the end did not come to any sort of definite conclusion.
Constitution and further described in the Militia act of But to address the core of the issue, being armed is a way of being powerful. The larger question that you bring up and then dance around, and then refuse to answer is about how power is supposed to be distributed in our Republic. Young man, that was excellent! A realistic and well researched commentary!
The only thing missing was experience. I could be all manner of educational here, but let me, for the moment, just address the following:. Why not give us some actual figures on whether, in a given and actual situation, the legally carried firearm was effectively used to stop a crime, or used accidentally against innocents. That is, IMHO, a common lie used to inflame anti-gun activists.
How often does either event occur? It IS important, 10, used to prevent crime vs. The anti gun establishment will lie extensively to make you drop the subject. I say, go to the FBI figures, do some research outside the biased sources you seem to be using. But, again, for an year-old, this was really exceptional. I am 68, and I respect your attempt. Actually, you hit the nail right on the head, sir.
Overall this is a good paper, especially from a high schooler. As Jarhead notes there are a few areas that would ideally need further research and expansion. For instance, this paper does not seem to be making any argument, merely providing a generally history.
On the other hand, if an argument for or against gun-control was intended then there is a lot of data that would need to be added. As a high school research paper: However, I will point out a couple key assumptions you included, probably without thinking about them. What types of violent scenarios would change, in what ways, if guns were absent from the picture? What is the point that you are trying to convey?
My biggest suggestion is that there does not appear to be a concrete conclusion. If the assignment is intended to be a history lesson, it is acceptable to follow the historical thread and look at how things have changed over time and why, but then the current concluding paragraphs are unnecessary and counterproductive.
If it is intended to be an opinion piece i. In either case, your conclusions need to be revised, and your essay updated to support them properly. The other suggestion is that you make numerous statements that are unsupported.
What evidence do you have to support that view? Is there data that you can point to? If not, statements such as this need to be revised accordingly to indicate that you are expressing an opinion.
Keep in mind these things apply to all good essay writing. These rights were established by our founding fathers in our Constitution and its amendments.
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms and, as many of you know, is currently under attack by our government. I live in the country. Hunting is a common activity for many people in my area. While I do not hunt, many of my friends and family enjoy the thrill of a good day hunting.
Some use the meat they obtain through hunting to feed their families during the winter months. For these hunters, gun safety is important and is taught to them during early childhood. Even though I am not a hunter, I know how to safely store and handle a gun.
If guns were taking away, this harmless recreational activity would be stripped from these people. If guns start to be regulated, where will it end? First, ammunition is regulated. Then, guns must be registered. Before we know it, the citizens will not be allowed to have guns of any kind. Now you may believe this is a little extreme and that I am jumping to conclusions; however, I am just comparing gun regulation to the pattern that occurs with government involvement.
Healthcare is an excellent example. In the beginning, the government stepped in on a low-scale level and made small changes that grew and grew until the government completely reformed and took over healthcare. I believe the same thing could happen to guns.
I was saddened by the events that happened in both Newtown and Aurora. These were tragic events and the lives that were taking can never be replaced. I give my condolences to the families of the victims. I do believe that having rounds of ammunition is excessive for any civilian. I think that something must be done to prevent these tragic events from continuing, but it was not the guns who had the idea to walk into an elementary school and kill young, innocent children, it was the man behind the gun.
To blame the gun is like blaming the car in a drunk driving accident. The gun is not the problem. Also it must be considered that the guns in the Newtown shooting were stolen guns, a gun registry would not have made any difference in this situation. Also the same day as the shooting, another school was attacked and several students were killed by a man who used a knife as his weapon. Sadly, we cannot remove every weapon in the world from those who have it in their mind to kill.
I wish I knew the answer to this problem, but I do not. My opinion on gun rights, I do know.
An essay or paper on The Gun Rights. Gun Control Is Really Gun Abolition! At about three in the morning, a family residing in decent neighborhood outside of Los Angeles peacefully slept one night.
In a pivotal decision and a victory for gun rights advocates, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was an unreasonable restriction on the Second Amendment rights of D.C. citizens. Under this ruling, the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. The fifth case was McDonald v.
Gun Control vs. Gun Rights essaysSince the days of the pioneers of the United States, firearms have been part of the American tradition as protection and a means of hunting or sport. As we near the end of the 20th century the use of guns has changed significantly. Gun Control vs. Gun Rights Essay Words | 36 Pages. Running Head: GUN CONTROL VS. GUN RIGHTS Gun Control vs. Gun Rights By Robert Marlow For CJ Senior Seminar Dr. Michael Eskey Park University September Abstract Gun control and gun rights have been an issue that has been debated for decades.
I will be talking about why we should keep our gun rights based on: home safety, illegal guns and the second amendment of the constitution. We will write a custom essay sample on Persuasive Essay on Gun Rights specifically for you. Gun Rights Vs Gun Control Essay The Second Amendment; Gun Rights versus Gun Control Our government is involved in a balancing act which deals with gun rights versus gun control.