Friday, September 13, 2019

Gun control does not reduce violence Thesis Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

Gun control does not reduce violence - Thesis Example Gun control is seriously considered as one of the solutions to end violence because it is thought of as tool of violence, it being a weapon that can indeed harm, mutilate and even kill an individual. This concern is not without basis because there are incidences of crimes and violence that are gun related. The proponents of this solution posit that if the tools or weapons that were used in those crimes and incidence of violence did not become available, then violence will be reduced. While this may seem to be a plausible solution to reducing violence, gun control may pose a problem of infringing on our basic rights as Americans to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution of the United States of America. The Second Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States exegetes that â€Å"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed†.... tate regulation such as a provision in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 law in the District of Columbia that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 also contained a provision that prohibits the residents of the District of Columbia from owning handguns except those that were registered prior to 1975. As expected, the law was challenged and was elevated in the Supreme Court. Until finally on June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court made a decision to affirm the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals had initially made a decision to remove two provisions in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. The provisions that were removed as unconstitutional were the provision that prohibits the residence of District of Columbia from the ownership of handguns except prior 1975 and the provis ion that requires all firearms to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" at all times. The decision elaborated that the Second Amendment â€Å"protects an individual right to bear arms† further stating its decision was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government† (Library of Congress, 2012). Further, this right help preserve a citizen militia â€Å"the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." (, 2010). With regard to handgun ownership, the Supreme

No comments:

Post a Comment