The topic of Gun control is
highly controversial for multiple reasons. Of course it deals with American
rights but it is also a moral fight. I personal have a rather simple view
on gun control. I think in the world we live in you need to own a gun and or should
have access to one. You should be able to protect yourself now let me be clear
what I don’t think is a good idea, is allowing someone to walk into a store and
buy 300 hundred rounds and 2 assault rifles. I think most of the laws we have
right now are good but when I say some things need to be stricter it’s the fact
that you don’t need an assault rifle to protect yourself.
When it comes to guns most people
when asked “Could you get a gun if you needed to” would generally respond with
yes. Although vague most people believe they could get a gun if push came
to shove. Most arguments that suggest gun laws need to be stricter have pointed
to many cases of mass murder due to the easy access of to guns. With the
emergence of these "mass murders" America voted and in the United
States 55 percent of Americans favor stricter gun control legislation. Just
recently when I went to Wal-Mart for the first time I realize that they sell
gun ammunition. Although they don’t have guns its speaks values about how our
society is structured that right next to the children’s toys 3 aisles down you
can get bullets.
I think when people argue for
more less gun control its because they fear that they wont want to protect
themselves and in turn think it is unconstitutional. Overall I think gun laws
currently only need to be modified so that nothing more than a simple hand gun
is allowed on the streets.
"it is also a moral fight."
ReplyDeleteA what? What is a moral fight? Is this a typo for moral right?
"I don’t think is a good idea... 300 hundred rounds and 2 assault rifles."
What do you consider acceptable? If 300,000 rounds is not acceptable, how about 30,000? 3,000? 300? 30? If 2 assault rifles is not ok, how about one semiautomatic pistol, one revolver, one shotgun, one hunting rifle, and a musket for historical reenactments?
"you don’t need an assault rifle to protect yourself."
No, but a long arm with assault weapon features is well suited for home defense. Something with a 30 shot magazine to deal with more than one assailant, a flash suppressor so I don't get blinded, pistol grips because I'm going to be nervous, and a short stock and barrel so I don't bump into walls and doorways. See http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/11/14/a-handy-guide-for-liberals-who-are-suddenly-interested-in-gun-ownership/ for further information.
"With the emergence of these "mass murders" America voted"
Citation, please.
"in the United States 55 percent of Americans favor stricter gun control legislation."
Citation, please. And a clarification as to what sorts of controls should be put into place.
"its speaks values about how our society is structured that right next to the children’s toys 3 aisles down you can get bullets."
Yes. It's a recognition that a gun is a tool.
"when people argue for more less gun control its because they fear that they wont [sic] want to protect themselves and in turn think it is unconstitutional."
I have no idea what you mean by "more less gun control". Which makes the assertion in the predicate even funnier. I really doubt that people are fearful that they don't want to act in self-defense. I really doubt that people think that protecting themselves is unconstitutional.
"I think gun laws currently only need to be modified so that nothing more than a simple hand gun is allowed on the streets. "
Well, for starters, how do I get my hunting rifle out to where the critters are? Without going onto a street, I mean.
Next, what distinguishes a 'simple' hand gun from a complex one? I guess you'd call a semiautomatic pistol non-simple. Are revolvers simple enough, or do you insist on single shot? That's going to be pretty useless if you miss, or the shot doesn't incapacitate your assailant, or there are more than one of them.