Guns and crime seem to fit together like peanut butter and jelly, but is that really the case? There are two ways to look at gun control, but one realization that needs to be made and that’s that guns are powerful. Guns can either be used for defending and protecting people or they can be used to harm and kill people. People have different views on whether guns are being used for protection or being used to harm and kill others. The majority of people that think guns are being used for safety and defense oppose gun control laws. On the other hand the majority of people who think guns are being used to heartlessly slaughtered people are for stricter gun control laws. People opposed to gun control thinking it will be taking away some of their rights; whereas, those in favor of gun control thinking it will help protect people.
When it comes to gun control people turn to the Second Amendment
…show more content…
to back their argument. The Second Amendment actually can be interpreted in two ways depending on what your position is of gun control. The Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…shall not be infringed” (Second, 1). On the opposing side of gun control it’s been found “In the Federalist No. 46, James Madison explained that because American citizens were typically armed, the federal government would be unable to exert power beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution” (Second, 1). What Madison is said in this is the government shouldn’t be given any more power than it already has. Another point that Madison is making is that if tyranny were to happen in our government the people would be able to protect themselves with firearms. Ben Carson says "When you look at tyranny and how it occurs, the pattern is so consistent: Get rid of the guns of the people first so you can go in and dominate them" (Ben, 1). On the proposing side, they say that the right to bear arms belongs to militias and government agencies. Also, they say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns “from Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...” (Should, 1). The Supreme Court also commented on the same issue on how much power the Second Amendment should have or has, “[...] the Court indicated that reasonable gun control restrictions could be allowed” (Supreme, 1). Basically the Supreme Court agrees with the idea that even though the Second Amendment can be used as a way to counter gun control it can’t be used for every case. It’s said that some cases reach too far for the Second Amendment to justify as constitutional. People agreeing with stricter gun control laws think that the Second Amendment should be fixed because it has been allowing people opposing the laws to have one thing backing their argument. How does the majority of Americans feel about gun control? As of right now “52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6 percentage points more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws” (Poll, 1). That poll was taken on October 21, 2015 but according to the poll taken four months before in June the Americans were equally split at 49% percent each. Another poll taken said “About seven in 10 Americans believe it is important for most Americans to support proposed changes to gun laws before those changes are implemented. And 61% said the same of gun owners” (Poll, 1). The idea behind this poll is to tell people making and trying to change the laws that Americans want a majority to agree on the change first before it is enforced. Even though most Americans oppose stricter gun control laws “55% say laws on gun sales should be more strict than they are now” (Americans’, 1). The first statistic seems reasonable considering that nearly half of all US households own at least one gun therefore more people wouldn’t want to have gun control laws put into place. The second statistic makes sense because about 30,000 people are killed every year from guns so making guns harder to get a hold of might help lower that number. Like a lot of laws that are put into place there is a pro and con, gun control law follows this case. Pros to gun control are common considering all the mass shootings that occur and have occurred. One of the top pros is more gun control laws will reduce deaths by gun. “There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013” (Should, 1) by implementing gun control laws this number would decrease. Last year there were 48 deaths in Japan by handgun, 8 in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 58 in Isreal, 21 in Sweden, 42 in West Germany, and 10,728 in the United States. That is easily more than all those countries combined. Another top pro is guns are rarely used in self-defense, “in 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides” (Should, 1). Other pros for gun control say that by adding more gun control laws it will lead to less suicides. “Between 1999 and 2013 there were 270,237 firearm suicides[...] according to a Mar. 2014 study published in the International Review of Law and Economics, when gun ownership went down in the United States, overall suicide rates went down” (Should, 1). Gun control has quite a few pros and the view of the people wanting those laws to be put into play want them because they will, according to statistics, help protect people. On the other side of pros is cons to gun control which balance out the pros.
A counter to the argument in the pros paragraph would be "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders" (Should, 1). Basically the pro side says that gun control will reduce gun deaths, the con side says the opposite that the even if gun control laws are put into play the number of deaths will actually increase. Another con the is presented is a counter to gun control laws helping make sure guns are used for self-defense. The con says that gun control laws will not prevent from criminals getting a hold of guns and using them to break laws. Research shows that “Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally” (Should, 1). Essentially statistics for gun control and against gun control go head to head from what has been
shown. Obviously pro and cons are important, but in the end they seem to come to a stalemate, plus the final decisions are made by the Supreme Court so it doesn’t matter what the statistics show. The Supreme Court has had a few cases they have resolved, but more and more cases keep showing up. “A flood of lawsuits challenging gun bans are expected to hit courts across the country in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s ruling that the Chicago handgun ban was unconstitutional” (Supreme, 1). A certain case happened last year the Supreme Court heard a case about gun control called District of Columbia v. Heller “[...] There the Court considered the constitutionality of gun control laws in the District of Columbia and decided that the law that barred citizens from keeping weapons in their homes for self-defense violated the Second Amendment” (Supreme, 1). Basically what the courts are having to deal with is people either challenging laws already in place or trying to put into place new laws. All the Supreme Court has been able to do is use what the constitution says to back its reasoning and justify its choices for dealing with gun control. All in all gun control laws are becoming a bigger topic of interest in the United States on if they are constitutional or not based on the Second Amendment. From the information it is easy to tell that if that not everyone will get their way because statistics show how close the numbers are for gun control versus anti-gun control. Those in favor of gun control think it will help protect people; whereas, people opposed to gun control think it will be taking away some of their rights. Guns are something are dangerous if misused, but if they are used properly can be a tool to help protect people or hunt and get food. It can be easy to see both sides of guns do to the mass shootings that have happened as an example of guns being misused. It can also, be easy to see the side that shows guns being used to protect people from harm. Guns and crime can fit together, but they don’t have to.
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
John Luik author of the article “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime” and Sabina Thaler the author of the article “The Claim of Increased Gun Availability Reduces Crime is Unfounded” are two examples of people having different opinions on such a debatable topic. Both authors talk about guns taking people’s lives, Thalers article focuses on guns taking innocent people’s lives, and Luiks article focuses on guns being innocent people’s protection. Many gun supporters will say that more guns will 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).
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.
The myth is that most Americans believe that a gun ban will protect their families and loved one from violence and other forms of danger but in actuality, most Americans are pro second amendment understanding a gun ban has the reverse effect. What gun ban advocates do not regularly acknowledge is that more restrictive gun laws do not incentivize criminals to give up their guns. Chicago & Washington are prime examples of highly restrictive gun zones with skyrocketing crime. The law abiding citizen is defenseless against a criminal who disregards the law. This issue is not only domestic; UK burglary, assault, and other crime are increasing with & without guns. A criminal who wants to commit a crime will commit a crime with whatever he can legally or illegally get his hands on. When a crime is committed with a knife, the media does not call it “knife crime”. That’s because in a court of law, each is held accountable for their actions, not the object. Why are guns any different? This is because there is a misunderstanding about guns, violence & the correlation. There are a plethora of attempted crimes not reported because of a second amendment wielding law abiding citizen protected themselves and deterred the would be criminal. Statistics are not usually discussed about the positive stories of the feared tool deterring violence on a daily basis. The solution to fluctuating violence is not a simple answer. Rampant, out of control government spending leads to inflation, while expensive over legislation drains and weakens the economy which causes weaker purchasing power and increa...
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
Americans are faced with a huge problem of violence in the streets, these streets have become a place where old people are beaten for their social security checks, where little women are attacked and raped, where teen aged thugs shoot it out for some turf to sell their illegal drugs, and finally where small children everyday are caught in the way of bullets during drive by shootings. We try to ignore the criminals in our society and how they hurt it, but we shouldn’t. We should take actions to stop these acts of crazy people. And people try, but the hard work of some misguided individuals to stop the legal ownership of guns doesn’t really affect the problem at all, and takes the guns from the innocent citizens, who simply want means of self defense.
Gun control is both a crime issue, as well as a safety issue. It can range from moderate to extreme. Gun control goes as back as the 17th century where Japan was using guns for war making as to current tragedies occurring in schools. Guns have never disappeared, they have only multiplied in numbers to numerous amount of guns, ranging from small to big. Gun control isn't only a problem but it can also be solution depending on how it is being used and the person using it. Gun control can be controlled with many methods but in the end it matters how the person is going to use the weaponry.
Gun control, in and of itself, is not evil or even a bad idea. The biggest issue is that, for the most part, it is not particularly successful.
Should handgun ownership be banned? I don't believe so. You would think America would learn from examples from other countries. When you take away handguns the crime rate rises. American citizens need to know their rights, responsibilities and safety of owning a handgun.
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.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.
trying to implement laws that will keep weapons out of the hands of every one.
Why do we have gun control? Is it because the people or the criminals? Gun control is a very passionate subject, for the last 200 years people have debated on who should have them, and what they can have. It mainly refers to laws and policies that manage the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession or the use of firearms to control crime and reduces firearm violence. Is it limiting the second amendment of the American people?
Of course, we can’t forget that one horrible factor looming over all our heads: mass shootings. The call for stronger gun laws grows significantly any time this happens, and it’s very easy to see why. People are afraid of guns, and of the potentially dangerous people who wield them. Guns are frightening; one mention of them in the right place will have a person dropping to their knees immediately, raising their arms in surrender. However, there is the saying that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Very true statement, except for the fact that the gun makes the act of killing much more horrifying than it already is. An assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and the shooting that killed 33 people at Virginia Tech
The gun war has been going on for years. Every person has a different point on how guns should be dealt with. Ever since the beginning of man the constitution says that we have the right to keep and bare arms. People will always be trying to get rid of handguns, and there will always be people that will be fighting to save them. No matter what is said there is one quote from the National Rifle Association that should be remembered "Guns do not kill people, people kill