Walmart and Guns

Gun control is an extremely controversial issue in the United States, and the debates around this topic has started many decades ago. According to the article “Gun Rights vs. Gun control” by Brianna Gurciullo, these debates are fueled by the people who defend the gun rights and the people who advocate in favor of gun control. It has been difficult to prove that gun ownership is directly related to an increase in violence due to the fact that researches tend to disagree on the impact of gun ownership in the American society. These debates tend to be brought to the spotlight whenever there is a mass shooting in the United States, which according to Abbey Oldham, who is a reporter from the PBS News Hour, happens quite frequently. However, organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), defend that the laws for gun control violate the Second Amendment of the constitution, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” stated Gurciullo. Due to the distinct interpretations of the constitution and the difficulty to agree on the best approach to tackle the issue, this controversy seem to be almost unsolvable.

d. Does Wal-Mart have any dysfunctions for society? If so, what are they? How might these dysfunctions become incentives or catalysts for social change?

e. How might Wal-Mart contribute to social change, or the amelioration of inequalities in society?

Seventeen people are dead in the state of Florida because of gun control. In the article, “Famous Speeches: "We call BS," Emma Gonzalez's speech to gun advocates”, by Emma Gonzalez gives a perspective of one mass shooting situation. Also in article, “Issue Overview: Guns in America”, by Bloomberg gives a perspective of many mass shooting situations. These two serious articles equate in many ways, although they differentiate in numerous ways as well.

"You can 't move past it. You can 't sweep it under the rug," expresses a surviving Sandy Hook School teacher. "We have to honor the horror by paying tribute to what happened, what people went through and what it was like for everyone" (Blickley, 2016). The brutal murder of twenty beautiful children and seven brave adults at Sandy Hook elementary school was a tragic event that shook, not only, Newtown, Connecticut, but the whole nation to its very core. However, this grievous crisis was not the first of its kind; since 1999, there have been over 130 shootings at schools. Moreover, the last thirty years, there have been an additional sixty-two mass shootings (each leaving at least four dead). This leaves no room to question the necessity for gun rights reform (as cited in Stinebrickner, pg. 67 CITE). Therefore, America published an editorial titled "Repeal the Second Amendment." The primary purpose of this article is to call for an examination of the implications, advantages, and (potential) consequences associated with the second amendment. Based off of increased mass shootings, extensive research, and keen observation of how other countries have managed the gun crisis, "Repeal the Second Amendement" determines there ought to be increased gun restrictions.

In February 2012, Thomas Lane shot three people at the Ohio Chardon High School. Lane had stolen the 22-caliber handgun from his uncle, who purchased it legally. In October 2011, eight people were killed by Scott Evans Dekraai in Seal Beach, California. He used a number of different guns, all legally purchased. He had a restraining order that had banned him from purchasing any guns just a year earlier, but it had expired by the time of the shooting, allowing him to legally purchase his guns. In July 2012, James Holmes killed 12 people in Aurora, Colorado at a movie theater. He had legally purchased several guns, all from licensed dealers, passing background checks for each. Not a single gun, from any of these men, was bought illegally and in each case the killer completely followed the law. The Sandy Hook killing involved children, making it harder to hear, but the fact didn’t change that the mass shootings and private sales have almost nothing to do with each other. (Cooke 1)

In “End the Gun Epidemic in America” the Editorial Board of the New York Times argues that politicians are not doing enough to keep American’s from purchasing specifically designed weapons for killing people. Politicians let their political interests interfere with passing basic restrictions on weapons of mass killings. The article was written in response to the December 2, 2015, shooting where 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California.

The issue of gun ownership and the argument for and against more laws to control gun ownership has been always very controversial. And, it seems that it is getting more and more serious with every school shooting or movie theater massacre in recent years. In his article “We the people confront Sandy Hook”, Semeiks is pointing out how the gun control measures have failed to pass again in Congress and explores the reasons behind that failure despite the fact that a very large number of Americans, including gun owners, support stronger gun control regulations. I find that this article brings out an interesting aspect behind the reluctance for stricter gun control laws: it is in the American

Charles W. Collier’s article, “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report”, dives into the controversial topic of gun ownership and gun control in the United States. He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary

The article “Will recent shooting influence gun legislation” takes about how the recent shootings are having an influence on people's perspective on gun control. It explains the various mass shootings across America such as the one at Charleston. Some people are deciding to go out and buy more guns, while others are trying to enforce more gun control laws. The American people are split down the middle, deciding whether they should protect gun rights or attack then. The article tackles varying concepts, such as mental health with guns and the use of assault rifles. It shows how gun violence has escalated in the past few years, and how the American people are reacting to it. Overall, it is about

After the United States endures any firearm’s related tragedy an increase in gun control is always a very heated debate. Violent crimes committed with firearms have kept gun control in the spotlight for last several decades. Mass shootings at several educational institutions have led the way for an increase in gun control, most recently the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead. Certain individuals see an increase of laws and regulations on guns as a “quick fix” to the situation; however, its apparent that these solutions have failed to get their job done. In the United States today violent crimes committed with firearm are increasing at an alarming rate; the increase

After the tragedy at Umpqua College, the former president, President Obama, has addressed the nation for the fifteenth time concerning a mass shooting. President Obama has been trying to propose new laws to stop all the gun violence the whole time he has been in office. A recent presidential candidate, Jim Webb, had a recent debate over the mass school shootings. Jim Webb was a Democratic candidate for the upcoming election but recently dropped out of the election. In the debate Jim Webb argued that gun sellers have to stop the distribution to criminals, and the mentally ill. Mr. Webb believes that American citizens have the right to defend themselves but background checks must be enforced to firearm sellers (Pavlich 1).

In 1993, there were more than 18,000 firearm homicides in America. That number has been decreasing for the past two decades. In 2011, the reported number of firearm homicides was a little more than 11,000. In another part of the world, Germany was reported to have less than 200 firearm homicides, France less than 50. It is also estimated that there are around 270 million guns in America. This paper examines the possibility that if the American government put into place gun regulation laws, and made penalties more harsh for gun related crimes, the national murder rates would go down.

Throughout the past few years, disturbing amounts of mass shooting have occurred in the United States. This is paired with the fact that gun ownership in the United States stays significantly higher per capita as compared to any other developed nation. Lastly, statistics from these tragedies evidenced that most of the weapons used are legally obtained, high volume weapons. It remains clear that as a country we cannot stay at the top in gun-ownership, and consequently have mass shootings decrease. We must examine ways that regulating gun ownership can prevent tragedies.

Gun laws have been the main focus of recent controversy due to the constant media coverage that surrounds the topic and the spike in crimes recently committed containing guns. Recently in the media, there have been many cases highlighted that illuminate just how dangerous these weapons are. These cases include, but are not limited to, the Orlando Massacre and the Virginia Tech shooting. Each of these mass shootings provides examples of how easily assault rifles can be placed in the hands of the wrong people and how detrimental it is that these laws are changed. On the contrary to changing the current gun laws, many people fight to keep these current laws in place and protect their 2nd amendment. Throughout this essay I’ll explore many possible