Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
US gun control decrease crime rate
should firearms be legal argumentative essay
gun violence and control
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: US gun control decrease crime rate
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
Supporters of gun control state that to decrease crimes committed with fire arms (which amass a high majority of crimes) guns should be banned from private ownership. This removes guns from the public, therefore taking away the instrument of easily accomplishing crimes. Arthur Kellermann and Donald T. Raey, two gun control advocates, did their own research into the issue and published a discovery of their own; the 43-1 Statistic. In this statistic, Kellerman and Raey state that a gun will be used in a justified shooting one time, while forty three other people are killed by a gun unjustly, either by suicide, accident, or criminal (Heumer 9). According to these two researchers, gun ownership is not worth it. Private ownership of guns saved one life wh...
... middle of paper ...
...earms must be kept legal for the private citizen to own.
Works Cited
Clayton, Forrest B. Suppressed History II: Pulverizing Politically Correct Paradigms. Cincinnati: Armistead Publishing, 2005. Print.
Huemer, Michael. “Is There a Right to Own a Gun?” Social Theory and Practice. 29.2 (April 2003): 297-324. ProQuest . Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
LaPierre, Wayne. Guns Freedom and Terrorism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003. Print.
Lott, Jr. John R. More Gun Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print.
Moorhouse, J.C. and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Cato Journal, 26(1), (2006): 103-124. ProQuest. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
United States. Committee on the Judiciary . Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Washington: GPO, 1982. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.
Gun control activists claim that banning handgun purchases will reduce murder and other gun related crimes. However, cases where handguns were declared illegal were shown to be ineffective. During the years in which the Washington, D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower (Agresti and Smith). Not only in Washington, D.C. was this banning of guns unsuccessful, but also in Chicago. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect (Agresti and Smith). Chicago has recently been named the nation’s murder capital by the FBI and had about as many murders in 2012 as the entire country of Japan, further demonstrating how these ordinances are ineffective. More than 8.5 million Americans legally carry concealed handguns, yet only at a rate of less of 1% do they commit fire...
Gun control is an extremely hot-button topic right now in all over the world. The issue is not likely to go away any time soon. Many societies are questioning whether guns really are the helpful tool that many of us have been saying they are, or if they are the killing machines they have recently been publicised as. Over the past decade, recent shootings that have occurred across the country along with the push for law banning or regulating certain types of firearms have all caused many to review the gun control pros and cons that are believed to shape future debate. In this modern era, owning a gun among the people can cause many glitches. One of them is homicide which is broadly seen by the public as one of the most vital hiccups facing our society. According to Hoskin (2011), USA is an outlier in both high levels of gun possession and high rates of homicide compared to other industrialised countries. Homicides are much more likely to involve guns in the USA. In 2009, 67% of slaughters were committed with a gun compared to one-third in Canada. Although critics argue owning a gun can help to ensure our own safety, it is still harmful to society because most violent crimes are perpetrated with guns, the risk of death increases and suicides are higher with gun availability.
In discussions of Gun Control, one controversial issue has been whether it reduced or increases crime. On the one hand, author Jeffrey Goldberg argues having stricter gun controls could reduce gun violence. On the other hand, author Alex Seitz-Wald thinks increasing civilian gun ownership will not reduce crime. My own view is that if we did have more restrictions to own a gun, we would be more safer and we would have fewer crimes around the world
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st...
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
However, the opponents do agree that a death rate of 30 million a year due to the powerful and deadly weapon is too high; only they have different views on how to lower this rate. These arms, proven by statistics, provide the result of 30 million murders, suicides, and accidental deaths each year (Dolan 1). The number of firearms is estimated to be over 150 million and outnumber all of our cars, trucks, and busses by more than 25 million (Dolan 7). A large percentage of these firearms are held by half of the nation’s families that for the most part use them for the lawful protection of their homes and will most likely never be used (Dolan 7). “And the millions more are kept by responsible sportsmen for hunting, trapshooting, and target shooting,” this was a reply from Dolan to an English visitor to America, who was astonished by the figures of firearms (7). “I’d say that the United States is an armed camp,” said the English visitor (Dolan 7). In despondence to Dolan’s defending the millions of guns owned by citizens for protection or sport, the Englishman said, “One hundred and fifty million guns. It doesn’t matter what they’re used for. If they’re loaded someone’s bound to get hurt.”(Dolan 7-8). America has one of the highest death rates due to guns, however, gun deaths are on the rise in other countries, such as, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Australia (Hawkes 4). In the United States handguns are used in more than 184,000 armed robberies every year and more than 11,000 murders and manslaughter’s (Hawkes 6). Every 20 minutes someone in the United States dies by a gun as a result of murders, accidents, or suicides (Hawkes 5). Although, all guns are deadly, the most dangerous is the handgun (Dolan 9). The handgun is responsible for 50 percent of the United States murders, leading to a figure of 30 murders a day and when you add suicides and fatal accidents the daily death-rate rises to over sixty (Dolan 9). All of this lea...
Punishing law abiding citizens by passing restrictive gun law is wrong. Guns are not the cause of this country’s crime problem. Criminals are. Firearms can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Will more stringent gun control laws create less crime?
Gun control policies have been a continuous argument in America since the 1820s. In the 1820s, Congress gave guns to Indians in order for them to protect their land. Between the 1820s and the 1830s, guns were given to the western settlers in order for them to fight the Indians over land. In 1891, guns were given to the New York police officers to protect not only themselves, but society as well (Spitzer 2014). The Second Amendment believes, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”(Epstein & Walker 2010: 374). While some responsible citizens purchase guns as a constitutional right to bear arms in order to protect them, their families, and their property, unfortunately, there are far too many misguided individuals in our society. These deviant individuals use guns to commit heinous crimes, which creates a hectic and fearful society.
Gun control does not deter crime rates. In the twentieth century, gun ownership increased and the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., the author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, averred, “The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them.” John R. Lott, Jr. stated, “States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun]
Reports of mass shootings have been on the rise, with stories littering the media every month. Proponents of gun control argue that added restrictions on the attainability of firearms will seriously lower the statistics. However, I, as a fervent opponent of gun control, am strongly in favor of keeping the laws as they are. Arms control should not be increased as it is not a major factor in increasing crime rates, will leave people more vulnerable to attacks, and is a right protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Moorhouse, John C., and Brent Wanner. "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?" CATO 26.1 (2006): 103-24. Business Source Complete. Web. 20 Mar.
The regulation of firearms in America, particularly the despotic models found in major cities and incidentally murder capitals is still a major issue, despite all the lobbyist’s efforts for gun control in major cities like Chicago or Los Angeles. Gun control is not an anachronistic idea from what is now universally regarded as one of the latest, and controversial chapters in US domestic policy. In wake of the recent mass shootings, the topic has been revived and the prominent questions people are asking are: Does more gun control lead to less crime? Will more gun control lead to a safer community? What are alternative solutions to this issue? There are many factors to consider and perspectives to view. After looking at the data, and considering
The first observation: stricter gun control laws could prove to be ineffective against keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns and breaking laws. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, gun rights activist, stated, "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them." This statement is a core issue as to why gun control laws are not readily accepted by many gun owners. The possibility of being left defenseless against criminals with access to a network of illegal guns is terrifying. This loophole is clearly evident when “37.4%” of state prison inmates