Gun Control Throughout History #10

Jordon Ma

Mrs. Grissom

English 10 H

20 May 2016


        It is my opinion that throughout history gun control has been used to oppress the people. I believe that dictators like Hitler and Stalin used gun control to keep their people from resisting their rule. Gun control is one of the first things that a dictator does when coming into power and I believe tht the people should not willingly give up their weapons. The United States was founded on a principle that the government is for the benefit of the people not the other way around and that we should be able to say no to unjust laws. The founders chose to include the second amendment as a safeguard to the removal of rights of the citizen so that they can properly defend themselves from all threats.

        I believe that gun control should not be increased as it is a loss of rights and it makes citizens reliant on protection from criminals that will not always arrive in time. I believe that the UN is working toward similar goals of absolute power by disarming the people. A quote in Forbes magazine shows the UN wants to "create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation" ( Bell, Forbes). It is my opinion that the United Nations is using similar ideas evident in fascist ideas. Lastly I believe that if the U.S. government enacts these policies they would be infringing the rights of U.S. citizens and taking away our safety and constitutional right of debate with the government on laws that remove rights.  

Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/#5b674eaf38a2

Sources: 
Bell, Larry. "UN Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners up in Arms." Forbes. Forbes Magazine,
                      7 June 2011. Web. 21 May 2016.

Banning guns does not decrease gun violence #9

Jordon Ma

Mrs. Grissom

English 10 H

13 May 2016

         I believe that banning guns will not reduce gun violence significantly. I believe that it is the right of Americans own guns as stated in the constitution. I believe an increase of guns does not necessarily signify an increase in gun crime. Most of the guns in the united states are already registered by the government and are owned by law abiding citizens. The unregistered guns for which the majority of gun crimes involve are not controlled by the government. Criminals will not turn in their guns and removing guns will make people more vulnerable. As a supporter of gun rights I believe that they should not all be removed by the government. 

   
      In increase in guns does not mean an increase in criminal activity. According to the New York Times "  The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half " (Kristof, New York Times). As this shows while the number of guns has increased the number of gun homicides has decreased. I believe that owning a gun does not make you a bad person and owning one makes you safer from criminals and can be used for hunting. I believe that having guns makes the population safer and discourages criminals. Lastly in my opinion having a larger number of guns among citizens will make them safer and will discourage most criminals if they know there is danger. 

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/some-inconvenient-gun-facts-for-liberals.html?_r=0
Sources:

       Kristof, Nicholas. "Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals." The New York Times. 

                   The New York Times, 16 Jan. 2016. Web. 17 May 2016.

Concealed carry permits should continue to be issued #8

Jordon Ma

Mrs. Grissom

English 10 H

13 May 2016

       In my research I have determined that concealed carry should not be abolished. Concealed carry permits for firearms are useful for keeping citizens safe. Most citizens who have concealed carry permits are very responsible and go through a large amount of training to get the permit. Concealed carry is useful to protect citizens from violent criminals. I believe that a person who passes the necessary tests should be allowed to conceal carry. I believe concealed carry should still be allowed but you must be an adult and have no criminal record. Citizens with concealed carry permits are safer from criminals and can use it to protect the people around them. It is my opinion that concealed carry is beneficial for the safety of citizens and that it should be abolished. In researching this I chose this quote because it shows contrary to stereotypes that not only white males have concealed carry permits.


     Most concealed carry permits are for protection. The majority of people who get concealed carry permits use it for protection from crime and for their families. Contrary to popular belief concealed carry permits are held by women and minority not just white males. According to the Washington post " Women and minority populations are getting more permits than white men" ( Howell, Washington post). This is a credible source because they pass the CRRAPP test and are a credible news outlet. Concealed carry is useful for the protection of all law abiding citizens from criminals. I believe concealed carry should not be abolished because it is useful for the entire population by having protection from criminals. Lastly it is my opinion that concealed carry is already highly regulated and those who have them are more responsible than many other gun owners.

Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all
Sources:

        Howell, Kellan. "Murder Rates Drop as Concealed Carry Permits Soar: Report." 
                  Washington Times. The Washington Times, 14 July 2015. Web. 13 May 2016.

Removing guns will not remove all criminals #7

Jordon Ma

Mrs. Grissom 

English 10 H

10 May 2016

      In my research I have found that very few guns are used for crime. There are a very small number of guns used for crime compared to the number used by law abiding citizens. Most guns are not used for crime and are only used for hunting or self defense. By removing guns which are mainly used for self defense the small number of guns used for crime will be much more effective. The much larger percent of guns used for self defense will be removed leaving the smaller number for crime much more equipped for crime. It is my opinion that the majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and gun laws would only effect them. Removing all firearms from law abiding citizens will only make them moire vulnerable to the criminals who will illegally use the weapon.

      According to CNN "only 0.2% of guns are involved in crime each year" (Levy CNN). This is a reliable source because it is from a trusted news outlet and passes the CRRAPP test. Banning all firearms will only take away the other 99.8% used by law abiding citizens. The criminals using the 0.2 % of guns will ignore the laws and keep them. By removing guns they would not eliminate the problem but increase its effect. Criminals have no regard for the law and will continue to use the small number of firearms against the unarmed citizens. The majority of gun owners in America are responsible citizens and the ban would only have an negative effect on them and not the criminals. Lastly the removal of firearms will make the small percent of firearms used by criminals more effective because the guns used for self defense will be removed. Lastly in my opinion, by taking away the 99.8% of guns used by law abiding citizens, the government is making citizens vulnerable and will not be able to remove the 0.2% used for criminal reasons.

Link: Levy, Robert A. "Gun Control Measures Don't Stop Violence."
Sources:

       Levy, Robert A. "Gun Control Measures Don't Stop Violence." CNN. Cable News Network, 
                      19 Jan. 2011. Web. 10 May 2016.

Gun control in Europe, is it effective #6

Jordon Ma

Mrs. Grissom

English 10 H

5 May 2016

     In my research I have found that gun control is not effective in other countries. In countries in Europe with strict gun control there is still a high number of gun violence deaths. By taking away guns in Europe they have made citizens more vulnerable to criminals. The countries criminals manage to get guns and have no regard for the laws and the laws have taken away the citizens defense.  The citizens have no way to depend themselves and have to depend on the police to protect them who can not always arrive in time. By removing guns form citizens their governments have made them vulnerable. In my opinion there are is already evidence showing the ineffectiveness of gun control in other countries which proves it is impractical. 

      I found in my research that "A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime" (Lampo, Gun Control). This source is reliable because it passes the CRRAPP test. This shows that removing guns does not stop criminals. As shown by the terrorists attacks in France armed police do not always show up in time. Many French citizens were killed in the time it took their armed police to arrive. I believe that if some of the citizens were armed it could have helped to prevent some deaths. While gun control advocates believe that making guns illegal will stop gun violence it is untrue and only disarms law abiding citizens and makes criminal activity easier for those who ignore the laws. In my opinion removing guns will only cause criminals to smuggle guns and increase the use of other weapons for murder as shown in Europe. Lastly I believe that having more guns does not increase gun violence an increase of criminals does.

Link :http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

Sources:
   Lampo, David. "Gun Control: Myths and Realities." Cato Institute. Cato Institute, 13 May 
         2000. Web.05 May 2016. 

Why gun control is unconstitutional #5

Jordon Ma

Mrs. Grissom

English 10 H

2 May 2016

      While gun control is not a good solution to gun violence it is also unconstitutional. It is the second amendment right of a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. This right has been infringed upon and I believe that it does not need any further infringement. The united states government has already begun to take away the right of bearing arms by making it illegal to posses them in some states. Many government officials plan to not only increase gun control but take away the right to bear arms. In my opinion increasing the number of gun control laws goes against the core principle of the country. The United States was founded on freedom and I believe illegal removing guns goes against the very principle of freedom and independence.

    I believe that my topic of gun control should not be increased because it is against the values of the united states. It is explicitly stated in the bill of rights that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ( Bill of Rights, Madison) . This is reliable because it is from the constitution of the united states and passes the CRRAPP test. It is in the core values of the united states that it is legal for citizens to bear arms. The government would be removing the constitutional right of U.S. citizens by banning the owning of firearms. Lastly it is not only unwise but also illegal according to the fundamental laws of the United States to infringe upon the right to bear arms. Lastly I believe the bill of rights shows shows how having an armed population is a fundamental part of freedom.

Link:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Sources:
Madison, James. "The Bill of Rights: A Transcription." National Archives and Records       
    Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, 25 Sept. 1789. 
     Web. 02 May 2016.

Why gun control will not prevent terrorism Blog #4

Jordon Ma

Mrs. Grissom 

English 10 H

28 April 2016

         Through my research I have found a fact supporting my thesis of not increasing gun control. Terrorists will still be able to acquire weapons and gun control will not deter them. Gun control only disarms citizens making them more vulnerable. It is my belief that increasing gun control will not deter terrorists from striking.  By removing guns the government would be making citizens vulnerable to a terrorist attack with no way of fighting back. These issues have been further cemented with the terrorist strikes in Europe where it is illegal to own guns. In my opinion increasing gun control will not make citizens any safer form terrorists as shown by examples in Europe where they still have high crime rates and still have smuggled guns. I believe that the example of Europe where guns have already been banned shows how removing guns does not stop crime. 

   I have found that the increase of gun control will be ineffective in stopping terrorists from striking. In my research I have found the quote "As the French terrorist attacks proved, gun control doesn’t work"( Farago, USA today). This sources is reliable because it passes the CRRAPP test and is from a trusted news outlet, In many parts of Europe it is illegal for normal citizens which makes them vulnerable to criminals who acquire guns illegally. With the terrorist attacks in Europe it has become evident that disarmed citizens are vulnerable to terrorists. Many died before anti terrorist units were able to move in but it is my belief that many of these deaths could have been avoided if the citizens were armed. Lastly in my opinion total reliance on the government for protection puts citizens at risk from criminals and is not effective. 

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/02/san-bernardino-gun-control-thetruthaboutgunscom-editorials-debates/76700270/

Sources:        
Farago, Robert. "Gun Control Is Not the Answer: Opposing View." USA Today. Gannett, 
          04 Dec. 2015.Web. 28 Apr. 2016.