As somebody who lives in a country where there's a minimum 5-year prison sentence for carrying a gun and not even the police routinely carry firearms, I am a sometimes a little apprehensive when I visit America - the last time I was there some nutter in a bar pulled a gun on me just because I was chatting up his girlfriend – I can deal with prospect of: a punch-up in the car park, but the possibility of your having your head blown off by some inbred, straw-chewing redneck makes you think twice about visiting small rural towns in America, especially in the South. If guns were banned, America would attract more tourists.
A handgun ban in Washington DC would help curb violent crime in the district. In major metropolitan areas, like New York City and Chicago, gun control has assisted local police forces with limiting the number of guns on the street. There has also been a significant reduction in accidental deaths due to the weapons. Although criminals will always find a way to acquire dangerous weapons, a handgun ban can be a huge first step in reducing violence.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that the citizens have a right to bear arms. Any local ban on handguns is clearly a violation of our Constitutional rights. Statistics bear out that well-armed communities have lower crime rates than unarmed communities. Any criminal will choose an unarmed victim over an armed victim.
Yes handguns should be banned in Washington and also in every state. If any quarrel occurs, there is the chance of violence, crime and injuries. DC is also home to our nation's leaders, who we should protect.
Taking a handgun with you can have serious results. What if you have a problem with other people and a discussion turns violent? In a moment of rage, it is possible that you react wrong and other people have to suffer the consequences. More people carrying handguns in the street raise the possibility of crimes and injuries.
Handguns are too easily concealed and should not be allowed to be carried by civilians. The number of deaths by gunshot in any country is in direct proportion to the gun laws enforced. In the United States, for example where it is lawful to carry handguns, tens of thousands of deaths from gunshot occur annually. In England where handguns are not lawful, the number of deaths annually by gunshot can be counted on one hand.
I think when you see people on television killing people and most of them are accidental because of guns, you would want them banned. Many people have guns without licenses and they should be banned altogether in every state. In Washington DC crime is a big factor because it is a well developed city. That city has many political figures we need to keep protected from death.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Somebody has to physically pick up a gun for the gun to go off and shoot somebody. Humans have been using guns for over 400 years there has never been a problem that they had to ban guns. Guns are a mean of survival and protection and always will be. They should run background checks on everyone who tries to purchase a gun. They should not sell guns to people that are mentally ill or have other types mental disorders. Guns should only be sold to people that has not committed any violent crimes. This will stop a lot of gun crimes that happen in America today. Gun should be sold to people for protection and hunting
Many of the folks using these fire arms to cause harm and chaos obtain their guns illegally. I believe that sadly this problem will never stop. When these monsters are roaming the streets to do harm, steel, or even kill we should be able to defend ourselves. Maybe we can save lives by having our own guns
Should Handguns Be Illegal?
There are many people that go out to murder, but is it nessasary to make handguns illegal. I don’t think guns should be illegal. I think this because of peoples self defence. Also it isn’t the guns that kills someone and lastly who would kill someone with handguns. In this essay I will be telling you about these three topics. Lets start with robberies.
If a robber or murderer comes into your house what is an easy weapon to grab and defend yourself with? Experts and I would say handguns. There are arguments of using of other weapons, but a handgun is not too big not too expensive and easy to store and put away. If you are going to use a machine gun where are you going to put that and pay for hundreds of bullets of pay for about a 30,000 dollar weapon. Also a knife or beebee gun wouldn’t do too much against a robber’s scheme. A handgun on the other hand would be a good weapon for a robbery or anything else.
People say if we take handguns away people think murder rate will decrease in a subsequential but Australia banned handguns assault rose 49.2%. Sexual assault rose 29.2%, also crime rate rose 42.2%. If US citizens are anything like Australian citizens this will be even worse than what people are complaining about now. Another reason the gun isn’t the thing that has the idea and shoots or kills people it is the person. It is the person that does that. Also any average assasin has rifels or machine guns or some advanced weapons. Lately you don’t hear about a handgun being used to kill someone.
People can blame shootings on handguns but it isn’t them that kills people. It is the shooter. Usually a murderer has a bad background. No money, a childlife problem no average person would just go out and say “I am gonna kill somebody today”. They usually have a reason not always a good one but they usually do.
I am like any other human being and don’t want to be killed, but is it necsasary to take handguns away? I still don’t think so. I think this for people’s self defence like a simple easy weapon to use. Also i think this because of what will happen if we do, people will get worse rebelling against it. And lastly I say no to this because not everyone kills people with handguns. That’s all for this essay.
The guns don't kill people. People kill people, so if you are going to take away handguns then you better take away bats, knives, and forks. Because the second amendment says that we as United States people have the right to bear arms. People will still find a way to kill with cars, fist. The mentally people with guns should be locked up.
No, instead all handgun bans should be prohibited, as per the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that the citizens have a right to bear arms. Any local ban on handguns is clearly a violation of our Constitutional rights. Statistics bear out that well-armed communities have lower crime rates than unarmed communities. Any criminal will choose an unarmed victim over an armed victim.
Handguns are vital to our survival as a nation. We are constantly under siege by these so-called "Tourists" and "Foreigners". Americans have a proud legacy of killing people who disagree with them, and it's time to live that legacy. Everyone should have a gun, and should be able to shoot people with it with no repercussions.
In its review of the District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protected a citizen's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, within Washington, DC and other federally chartered districts. The Supreme Court, having issued its ruling, ruled that there is no legal or moral basis to impose a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
Handguns should not be banned in Washington, DC, because it would set a bad example for the rest of the nation. It's our nation's Capitol and, while gun control and crime are serious issues that need real attention and good solutions, we, as a nation, have a right to have arms. The courts have upheld this, time and again, and the Capitol is the last place that a national Constitutional right should be discriminated against.
I believe that handguns should be legal to any citizen who can prove residency, has no criminal history, or no history of mental issues. I think that following rigorous guidelines and regulations would help keep handguns out of the wrong hands. I think that everyone in this country should have the right to protect themselves, and a handgun would fall into that category. With that being said, I do firmly believe that only registered gun owners should be allowed to carry guns. If there are stricter rules about gun registration, I feel that it would eliminate some of the accidental shootings or criminal behavior that we see.
I believe that citizens have a right to own a gun. You should just make it illegal to carry it around with you, unless you are a security guard or someone that is supposed to have one. Once you make something illegal, people will just do it more. For example, marijuana is illegal, and people still do it. When it becomes legal, people will still smoke, and they can buy it from stores, instead of buying it from drug dealers. So, guns are guns. I mean, of course they are dangerous, but they will still be bought and used either way.
Individuals who responsibly own, carry, and utilize handguns for defense of self, home, family, business, and neighborhood, help make the entire area safer. Criminals will not prey where they know they might face "victims" that are able and willing to defend themselves. Numerous studies and Federal Government statistics prove over and over that the least safe neighborhoods and cities are those with stringent laws, up to and including bans on handgun ownership, or handgun use. Prohibition is the popular argument for any item with which someone disagrees. But looking at history, prohibition of any substance or item only creates a black market and a lawless atmosphere that is completely opposite to the intended outcome. Washington, D.C. is currently one of the least safe cities in the U.S., providing at least anecdotal evidence to support this fact.
The right to bear arms is clear within our Constitution, and repealing this right, even in localities, is a breach of the Constitution. Banning guns only ensures that the "good" people don't have them and only the criminals, who have no respect for law do possess them. Every law abiding citizen should be able to carry a weapon for protection.
The only guns that should be banned in Washington, D.C., or anywhere else for that matter, are illegally-owned and unregistered guns. That's no easy feat, considering they are almost impossible to find until a crime is committed with one. Regardless, the banning of legally-owned and registered firearms is a direct violation of constitutional rights to the citizens of the United States of America.
While I understand that guns in and around the nation's capital can pose a threat to the politicians there, a total ban on hand guns only affects the law abiding citizens. Anyone thinking of committing a crime with a gun will not be deterred by a law banning these guns, only the citizens using them for protection will not be in possession of the guns.
It would not be possible to enforce a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. To enforce the ban, every person and building in the city would have to be searched and the handguns confiscated. Then every car entering the city would have to be searched. This would be totally impractical. The city would be safer without handguns, but it wouldn't work to ban them.
Handguns should not be banned in Washington DC because they is more than adequate security to protect national leaders currently. Washington DC is no different than any other location in the United States, and to ban handguns would be to deny civil rights that are available to every other citizen in the United States.
The banning of weapons in any given state is definitely not a good idea. If the ban is being used only as a preventative measure for crime, it will not stop a hardened criminal from obtaining a fire arm through illegal means. That person could always leave the state or the country to buy a gun, or they could easily purchase an illegal fire arm from a black market. Guns should always be available to law abiding citizens for the protection of themselves and their families. This type of ban would do more harm than good, in that it would cause innocent people to become vulnerable to crimes against them or a loved one. In actuality, this is simply a matter of human rights and it would be unconstitutional to do something like this.
I believe that limiting handgun solely to Washington DC is a law that is incredibly hard to enforce. I do, however, believe that we should limit guns on a more general basis, including Washington DC. I understand that our Constitution gives us the right to bear arms but believe that guns that are now available are completely different that what was envisioned at the time that this was written. Many other nations do not allow guns and have very little violent crime. This is 180 degree different from what is now normal in many of our cities and even in our schools.
The Supreme Court recently clarified that the right to "keep and ear arms" applies to individuals and not just militias. It's also clear that a handgun would be considered an "arm" under the definition that the founding fathers used at the time. As such, cities should not be allowed to enact a wholesale ban on handguns. In order to comport with the balancing tests used to evaluate constitutional questions, more targeted restrictions (e.g. no guns in courthouses) are appropriate.
I just don't understand why people would oppose citizens carrying handguns. Citizens don't shoot people with guns. Criminals are the ones who shoot people with guns. Like it or not handguns exist. Why not arm law abiding folks, so they can defend them selves, and others from crime? Handguns, in the right hands, prevent crime. Plain and simple.