Academic Master


advantages of weapons for those whose lives are in danger

Due to the violent actions we see by weapons, we see that a weapon has a positive impact on people who are at risk of life, and then we do not see bad adverse effects. Army control has been controversial throughout the United States, many of which are ready to vote on amortization. People forget that we and our relatives need to be protected from danger. We have the right to protect ourselves since armed control must be fully in force. As responsible citizens, we have background and backup programs. We also need to be smart about whether they can have weapons because mentally people cannot use a firearm in the wrong direction.

The second amendment, “the right of US people to arms and weapons” (United States Constitution), enabled American citizens to buy weapons for protection. We must follow a second chance because there is a danger in the world, and if we make weapons, these dangers can be prevented. In recent years, there have been disasters in public places. At the cinema in Colorado, a clash caused the decision in Virginia and the children to go to school. There are reasons not to control the army. We can prevent dangerous people from having a firearm in their hands. I know that anyone who is still mentally and mature enough to carry arms is allowed to know about the use of weapons.

Background checks on the management of weapons should always be a priority for the availability of a firearm. Background checks can always do something better, as you know who the army is and can not have a firearm. Pitts Builders Support Gun Controls’ people with mental disabilities give a sense that they are doing background checks. “We are part of the measures we apply to control universal weapons for all weapons purchases” (Pitt Founder). It is known that firearm weapons supply programs use money, and are not accused of having weapons. I can not agree with Dergide on weapons seizure programs, because they are stupid, protect themselves, and do not allow for our second changes. “Providing additional resources for weapons redemption programs” (Pitts founder). We should not provide our securities for money, it is all about the control of weapons that have a firearm and use them when life-threatening cases arise. My life is very valuable to give money, and if I were an army owner, I would not sell it. More secure and efficient background checks for people with the wrong items. By controlling others, we can reduce shootings and reduce the number of crimes that cause injuries, injuries, and deaths. While this helps reduce background checks and marijuana, this does not pose 100 percent violence. “No one of the above measures will be to eliminate the attacks, but all of them will be available for some reduction in the deaths and terrible injuries” (founder of Pitts). Properly controlling and using weapons will lead to certain standards, and they will be more responsible for having an army.

The presence of a certain Arsenal consists of the most unexpected. A gun control point should keep me equipped with machines to protect the person who wants to kill me. I want to be safe, and I want to make sure that I have sufficient ammunition for use against people who hurt my family or hurt my family. A book entitled “Strategy for the Limitation of an Illegal firearm” refers to the minimum Arsenal of Greg Ridgeway violence. “Gun control supporters on both sides of the US, army and ammunition debate to make the principle of policies and make a more accessible action than those who practice violence, they agree to reduce the burden on rescue and violence armed life. Cumann »(42). When we get into a weapon, we are responsible for adopting decision-makers, and we must be members of the public to protect the people, but not to create violence around them. People responsible for army control laws, and those who know them should always have arms.

Many people do not disagree with me and they will give their opinions otherwise because I do not control anyone. I want to make sure they understand that we do not know the Second Amendment because it ensures control of the army to protect you from life-threatening situations. At home, you are threatening life and the thief with a gun, running around the house, feeling that your life is at risk or someone wants to kill you. We see them in newspapers, video games, law enforcement agencies, gangsters, and ordinary people. Contesting people do not agree that the weapons were killed, that there are dangerous children around them, and they do not need to. Its concept of arms requires a faster and more convenient way to destroy someone in this world. They could see the control of the weapons as they were about to make professional weapons.

I know that controlling a cannon is a great part of American society. Many people are killed by innocent people who use weapons, but we are responsible for the gun control law that could be responsible for the possession of a firearm. Background checks, training, and maturity can allow a man to use a weapon to understand dangerous cases well. I know that military control is biased and can be an effective protection type. In this case, I control the army. Army belt is an American sign and is seventeen years old and, as a change, there is reason to do so. We all have to be able to protect our lives and be smarter when we have a weapon.


CMG Corporate Services, Inc. “Gun control supports rises: [Home Edition]”.  The Atlanta Constitution. 1999. ProQuest. Newspaper Web. 5 November 1999.

Lancaster Newspaper, Inc. “Pitts’ Constituents Support Gun Control.” Intelligencer Journal/ Lancaster New Era. 2013. ProQuest. Web. 22 March 2013.

“Quotes on the Right to Bear Arms.” Quotes on the Right to Bear Arms. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2014.

Ridgeway, Greg. Strategies for Disrupting Illegal Firearms Markets: A Case Study of Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Safety and Justice, 2008. Print.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message