http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/08/us/gun-laws-states/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
The article"States tighten, loosen gun laws since newtown" speaks of the recent states which have changed their gun laws since the Newton shooting. Surprisingly, the article states that not only have gun laws in certain states been restricted, but there have also been many states who have also loosened their restrictions. There have been at least five states who have tightened their gun laws while over a dozen have actually loosened them.
There are two things that have happened that has been discussed in this article. Some states have tightened their gun laws, and some states have loosened them. The affect of tightened gun laws would restrict the amount and type of people who are able to own and carry a gun. On the other hand, the loosening of gun laws will allow people to further protect themselves from those who could harm them.
I personally can understand the arguments for both loosening and restricting gun laws. I would say that restrictions would be smarter than loosening. Those who are qualified to carry and use guns should still be able to have them even with tighter restrictions, and it may stop a crazy person from getting ahold of a gun.
Personally, I believe that restricting gun ownership for law-abiding citizens would not be a good idea. Take Chicago for example, they have one of the nation's toughest gun laws yet they had 500 murders in 2012, the highest in the country. Furthermore, if you restrict gun ownership for law-abiding people, it leaves them defenseless against criminals who would have guns because criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals. With that rant over, good summary but you repeated yourself.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the tightened restrictions that some states put in place? How did the other states "loosen" regulations and what did they say was their reasoning? Did the article address at all the mental health crisis that comes in to play with the majority (if not all) of these mass shootings? Do tighter restrictions actually "stop crazy people from getting guns?"
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of the argument. The only thing that I can say is that if they made it difficult and/or impossible for law abiding citizens to acquire a firearm, wouldn't it be violating our right to bear arms in the constitution. That is my only real issue with this article.
ReplyDeleteI can also see both sides of the arguement. In my opinion, very strict gun restrictions should be placed on semi-automatic weapons, but guns used for recreation and hunting should be allowed. This is a very sensitive issue throughout the nation, so maybe it would be a good idea to explore the possibility of creating a national gun law.
ReplyDeleteThough the restrictions on gun laws have a good intention, they are ultimately taking away our rights stated in the 2nd Amendment. I know that there are huge disputes over whether we should tighten our loosen our weapon laws, but I feel that an extremely tight ruling would be restricting rights, while loosening the laws would possibly create a bigger problem in some states.
ReplyDelete