Employing Speedy Essay’s professional essay writer will be the only prudent course of action if you do not want to miss out and get Gun Control Essay writing help. In the US, there is scarcely a day that passes without a gun violence victim.
The cycle of violence continues to lash. Read this example to create a strong argument for gun regulation. If you are unsure how to begin your essays or research papers, use it as inspiration.
Introduction Gun Control Essay
One would assume that 1,100 sparkling rifle bullets fired upon an unaware crowd at a music festival would be sufficient to generate a fruitful conversation about gun regulation. Members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and ardent right-wingers dispute this.
The pro-gun control mob pointed the finger at everyone and anything but the murderous weapons. Pro-gun control advocates have questioned the Second Amendment’s universal application and attacked the frequently cited notion that God somehow endows the right to carry weapons.
Public leaders were compelled to create a legislative plan to increase background checks and implement stronger gun ownership regulations due to public outrage over the Sandy Hook tragedy.
Sadly, the Senate did not approve the bill. The anti-gun movement’s justifications fell short. The purpose of this article is to give arguments in favor of gun regulation that are more likely to persuade the powerfully armed nation to alter its ways. The report will make the case that stricter gun control measures should be passed with the full might of the US government.
Even though it is long overdue, a resolution to the contentious and vexing dispute between proponents and opponents of gun regulation is highly appreciated. Its foundation is the fundamental realization of preserving individual rights and protecting a broader community.
The two sides of the debate appear to disagree on the following issues:
1) where gun use is permissible,
2) who is to blame for the gun violence, and
3) where the firepower is located, tacitly acknowledging the existence of the individual-society dichotomy.
The correct location for gun operation is the first area of disagreement. According to proponents of a powerfully armed populace, the freedom to carry a gun publicly is justified by the need for self-defense and survival.
Both the United States and gun-free civilizations experience crime. But protecting the general people outside of their houses is the responsibility of law enforcement. Those who assert otherwise admit that the state owes them no security and welcome militias and vigilantes who are too happy to carry out justice.
The second main point of contention between the two sides is the issue of who is ultimately responsible for gun violence. Most gun rights proponents are well recognized for making their case by repeating the cliché “people, not firearms, murder people.”
However, even if a gun owner is a law-abiding, mentally healthy, and responsible person, there is no assurance that their weapon won’t be misused.
The use of a firearm should still be considered even if the onus of proof rests with the offender of a violent crime. Therefore, it stands to reason to assert that uprooting the societal issue would follow eradicating the criminal antecedent.
The pro-gun community claims that gun prohibition will change where the firepower is concentrated. The argument might be made that this worry is unjustified since the government will have a lot of freedom after disarming the populace to search for, find, and seize weapons.
Additionally, suppose US residents give up their right to bear guns. In that case, they will be forced to have more faith in institutions that deal with law enforcement, which will inevitably lead to their empowerment and capacity-building. As a result, the state will be better equipped to safeguard its citizens and stem the spread of illicit firearms.
The two opposing sides in the argument over gun regulation need to come together soon. The benefits of having fewer firearm fatalities are undeniably real, and policymakers shouldn’t ignore them.