Furthermore, gun laws do not show any sign of helping prevent shootings. Gun free zones are a very big thing that has been put into the law in the past decades. Statistics have found that they actually do not help prevent shootings at all. In the article, “Gun-Free Zones: Weighing the Pros and Cons”, the author brings this very issue up. The author states, “Every mass shooting in the U.S. since 1977… has happened in a gun free zone” (Danielle). Some could argue that gun free zones almost encourage shootings. This is because a gun free zone takes away the right of someone who follows the law, and a shooter, who is not following the law, does not have to be threatened by someone shooting back at themselves. Someone who has the intent to kill …show more content…
There are many laws for guns, when other weapons than guns are many used for harm. There are not laws against knives but knives count for more deaths per year than guns. The counter argument to this would be that if they made laws that no one had a gun, then the shootings would stop. Just like how no one uses drugs anymore because those are against the law, right? Many people in big cities are against gun rights. In the article, “Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics”, it mentions how guns affect cities. The author states, “Rates of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault are much higher in larger cities” (Braga). This is in fact true, but taken out of context. The rates of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault are high for other reasons than guns. Other weapons are mostly used to do these crimes not guns. Also these cities have much more gun laws than a rural area, meaning that the attacker does not have to be worried about being shot at from someone with conceal carry. For these very reasons it is proven that gun laws in no way help prevent …show more content…
Few think that guns should be taken away from everyone and that gun ownership leads to more crime. That is far from the truth actually. John Lott talks about this in his book when he states, “These studies have either confirmed the beneficial link between gun ownership and crime or at least not found any indication that gun ownership increases crime” (John R. Lott). He is talking directly from the studies and research that has been done about the correlation between gun ownership and crime. The statistics showed that gun ownership either helps or does grow crime rates. So law abiding citizens that have gone through the process of owning a gun should be allowed to have one for themselves and not be punished for a few peoples horrific actions. These people need to have the possession of guns in order to protect themselves and their loved ones. The Founding Fathers knew this and that is why they made it the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Alexander Cooper describes this in his article when he states, “An individual's Second Amendment right to possess firearms and use them when necessary for self-defense” (Cooper). The author understands that if guns were taken away from good people then they could not then defend themselves. That is the soul purpose of the Second Amendment, self-defense. Whether from the government and tyranny, or protect themselves from
McMahan backs up his premises by showing that in other “Western Countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States.” (McMahan, 4). Gun advocates deny this claim, but then what could be the reason for the United States being the homicide capital of the developed world? Essentially, I believe that McMahan has a solid, compelling argument that makes readers believe that we should take more steps in the direction of banning guns. The analogies he places within the article make for a descriptive, persuasive argument, yet McMahan lacks statistics and factual information to back up his claims.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Because any confrontation may become fatal with weapons other than concealed handguns, the likeliness that these confrontations have daily deadly outcomes is low, so it is just as implausible that banning handguns will prevent these outcomes. Raven Clabough reports for the New American Magazine, “according to the FBI, more hammers, clubs, and other blunt objects are involved in murders than rifles or shotguns. In 2011, 323 murders were committed with a rifle and 356 with a shotgun, while a staggering 496 were committed with hammers and clubs…Also in 2011, 1,694 people were killed by ‘knives or cutting instruments,’ far more than rifles and shotguns combined,” (Clabough). If taking away American citizens’ right to bear arms, the government should also place a ban on hammers, clubs, and steak knives. These items accumulate more murders than the firearms did. This statement provided by the FBI proves that any confrontation can turn deadly using everyday household items that any person of any age or criminal background has access
‘In many of the places around this country where they have the toughest gun laws, they have the highest violent crime rates. … Violence in America that's happened on our streets in our cities, like Chicago, up 19 percent, the murder rate," Christie said. "And you have some of the most aggressive gun laws in cities like that.’” Criminals know the places that they can attack successfully. Places like schools, movie theaters, and not to mention all the museums around the city are the perfect because the citizens are not armed and able to defend themselves; therefore, crime rates continue to skyrocket. If guns were more accessible, crime would go
Despite Norway’s strict requirements in order to own a gun, they couldn’t prevent a mass shooting that took the lives of 77 people in 2011 (Masters). One thing you don’t hear very often from the leaders of our country, is the idea that more guns could prevent shootings. In the United States, we have “gun free zones,” which include schools and other public places. In these areas, guns are strictly prohibited, and instead of preventing shootings have actually became a target for them.Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “found that 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 have taken place in designated gun-free zones” (Blackwell). The author of “Ban gun-free zones,” Ken Blackwell claims that those who commit mass shootings want the publicity, and will go where they know they can do the most damage, because the more serious the shooting is, the more publicity it will receive. Blackwell goes on to say, “most mass shootings don’t end until the police arrive. Killers typically have several minutes to slaughter as many victims as they can without fear of interference” (Blackwell). John Lott, the author of “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,” backs up Blackwell’s claims of mass shooters targeting places where guns are prohibited. Lott uses evidence from mass shooters themselves as his evidence, and one very recent tragedy is the shooting in a Charleston, South Carolina church, in June 2015. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, cited by Lott in his article, the shooter told those around him about his plans to carry out the shooting. His original plan was to go to the College of Charleston, but apparently veered away from the college when he realized that there was heavily armed security, obviously settling for the Church. Another example is James Holmes, who committed a mass shooting in a movie theatre. Holmes had what Lott referred to as a
Many gun supporters will say that more guns bring down the crime rate. These same believers will give facts stating that the more guns in a state, the less likely gun owners will use them. “The chances of innocent people being the victims of violent crime, including murder, decrease—not increase—when access to guns is made easier” (Luik). Luik emphasizes that guns will not make any innocent people killers, it will make crime and death rates go down. They argue that the states with the lowest crime rates are the same states that have a higher gun ownership rate than any other state.
Those who argue for gun control usually state guns are a part of most violent crimes. However, this is not always true. While it is true that limiting gun ownership with laws could prevent individuals from possessing guns, it does not prevent people from illegally having or using guns. Those who carry guns legally are not the problem. According to Mark Gius, the author of “Gun Ownership and the Gun Control Index”, “…only about 25% of total violent crime is committed by a person using a gun, no inferences...
At the same time firearms ownership increased sharply by over 61% or over 118 million between 2004 and 2012 (Dietz). So according to these numbers less guns doesn’t mean less crime, if anything the presence of more guns inhibits more
Gun control is a highly engaged debated topic and always has been. Many people feel banning guns and creating gun free zones is the answer to stopping mass shooting and people being killed daily. Except they’re wrong. According to Freedom Outpost, 92 percent of mass shooting have occurred in gun free zones. Why?
It has been a tradition in this country since the constitution was written by our fore fathers. Americans have the right to protect their loved ones, their possessions, and themselves. Liberals want to outlaw handguns or restrict the sale of weapons that can easily be concealed. Firearms are the most deadly instruments of attack, and thousands of citizens accidentally die to guns every year. State constitutions of forty-three states guarantee citizens the right to use weapons in self-defense without penalty.
The statistics show that owning a gun to protect you from another gun is counter- productive. I realize guns are a part of our world, but I feel the benefits of gun ownership do not outweigh the negative aspects. People lose their lives due to guns on a daily basis. I feel a decrease in gun ownership and preventing criminals from getting access to guns would create a much safer environment. A world without guns (except in the hands of law enforcement and military) may be just a dream, but I strongly believe many lives would be
Modern intelligence shows that communities that have soaring crime rates, are declining (R.B., 2018). Crime rates such as murders, assaults, rapes, and robberies, create economic costs. The victims who survived and the families that have family members lost in the crime, lose earnings, and end up having tolls taken on them physically, and mentally. Also violent crimes make it so that there is large costs for the communities (Shapiro and Hassett, 2012). In states that allow citizens to carry firearms, the percent of violent crimes are twenty-three percent lower than states that do not allow citizens to carry guns (Gillin and Sherman, 2015).These costs are through lower property values, reduced investment, and higher insurance premiums.
would possibly decrease. One argument, going against gun control is that “Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime.” According to John R. Lott, Jr, he believes that "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect of concealed gun laws relating to these crimes {where two or more people were killed} has been dramatic.
With a single shot, hundreds of bullets come out at the same time. Even if people do have the “constitutional rights” to bear
Consider guns being weapons which are either good or bad, but their use will depend on the one who holds them.so that’s means gun control has no significant impact on crime rates. If you will defiantly have a very powerful purpose statement. In this case that they are the highly used weapons, then use of gun control measures can be a current solution, still if you find they are the minimum used, then gun control may not have a significant change. The gun control efficiency in the overall number of crimes within a positive area.