The Second Amendment: Current Background Checks
Although the Second Amendment stops the federal government from entirely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are permitted on the possession and distribution of firearms. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters a dangerous environment and crime. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that sterner gun laws can be implemented because current background checks are flawed, gun accessibility has been abused by foreign and domestic criminals, and some people cannot handle guns responsibly.
An example of current background checks is they are not always enforced properly was the recent attempted assassination of Assembly woman Gabriella Giffords. The shooter, Jared Loughner, was initially turned away from purchasing …show more content…
Some gun advocates claim that they carry guns as a form of self-protection. However, this has been scientifically proven to be untrue. A study done by the University of Pennsylvania on the 677 shootings over the span of two and a half years indicate that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than an unarmed person, and 4.2 times more likely to be killed by a gun (Callaway). The author claims that the reason for these statistics is that guns give people false senses of empowerment that make them overreact in volatile situations (Callaway). Carrying a gun not concealed is like painting a bull’s-eye(s) on oneself rather than self-defense, especially when it might foster delusions of empowerment. Even statics discourage gun possession; through legislating stricter gun laws, this can ensure public …show more content…
Someone needs to step back and stop thinking so rigidly. Is following the Constitution word for word worth the lives of innocent children? Someone must also question the amount of "self-defense" a gun provides, when a person carrying a gun is four times more likely to be shot and killed than a normal person. Though some understand that the Second Amendment is a civil right and plainly stated in the Constitution. Is it too much to ask to limit this freedom in a safer environment where people do not have to constantly worry about crazed gunmen. After all, some people would never want to be in a country where they are constantly in danger of being
An example of current background checks is they are not always enforced properly was the recent attempted assassination of Assembly woman Gabriella Giffords. The shooter, Jared Loughner, was initially turned away from purchasing …show more content…
Some gun advocates claim that they carry guns as a form of self-protection. However, this has been scientifically proven to be untrue. A study done by the University of Pennsylvania on the 677 shootings over the span of two and a half years indicate that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than an unarmed person, and 4.2 times more likely to be killed by a gun (Callaway). The author claims that the reason for these statistics is that guns give people false senses of empowerment that make them overreact in volatile situations (Callaway). Carrying a gun not concealed is like painting a bull’s-eye(s) on oneself rather than self-defense, especially when it might foster delusions of empowerment. Even statics discourage gun possession; through legislating stricter gun laws, this can ensure public …show more content…
Someone needs to step back and stop thinking so rigidly. Is following the Constitution word for word worth the lives of innocent children? Someone must also question the amount of "self-defense" a gun provides, when a person carrying a gun is four times more likely to be shot and killed than a normal person. Though some understand that the Second Amendment is a civil right and plainly stated in the Constitution. Is it too much to ask to limit this freedom in a safer environment where people do not have to constantly worry about crazed gunmen. After all, some people would never want to be in a country where they are constantly in danger of being