More handpicked essays just for you.
Policy brief analysis gun control
Policy brief gun control
Policy that could be in place for gun control essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In today’s society for the past many years the problem of gun control has been a very hot debate. Majority of American’s are for guns and that having guns provides them with a means of self-protection. Handguns can be very easily concealable and are the weapon of choice for the law-abiding citizen that’s wants protection. Unfortunately, handguns are also the weapon of choice for criminals. Due to the fact that handguns are easily concealable, handguns are easy for criminals to steal as well. The majority of crimes committed in the United States is that from a handgun and has become a serious problem. Due to various reasons our justice system is not always able to protect us and in turn people are looking for other ways of staying safe. Gun control supporters believe that by just banning handguns is the best way to protect citizens. Contrary to that belief, banning handguns will fail to protect people because the laws are ineffective. Banning handguns will prevent people from their own effective means of self-defense and the laws will not and have not solved the problem. …show more content…
There has been an argument that violence will continue to be experienced in the absence of guns.
There are many other weapons that criminals can use to cause havoc and harm to people like we have seen in the past. Other factors should be looked at and considered when it comes to controlling violence and setting it apart rather confiscating guns and bring new laws in to control gun possession. People feel that it is not the gun that kills people, that it is the person themselves that kills people. From this argument, those against gun control say that it is the personal initiative for a criminal to engage in criminal acts whether he uses a gun or even a knife. There are other comparisons made between weapons outside guns that are used to kill people, but yet guns are for some reason always to
blame. Legislators have created gun laws for the purpose of gun control not really for the law-abiding citizen but the criminal. Because of this, it goes to say that criminals do not follow that law, but we all know this already. Tightening legislation though on guns will not stop crimes from happening and will not cause a criminal to miss a step because criminals are very conversant with laws and they intentionally break them so that they get what they are after. New laws that get created for gun control are going to affect the citizens who are not criminals. A law-abiding citizen will not go out and break the law if their handgun is banned. If someone has a desire to go out and rob a bank, he or she is not going to be worried about breaking a gun law. Because banning handguns is a way that people think it will help with violence and affect criminal, it really in turn removes a valuable piece of self-defense method from your law-abiding citizen and leaves he/she more vulnerable. It is very clearly indicated as to why it is important in letting people have guns and why new gun legislation should not be enacted in the U.S. Most people truly understand that something is wrong, but turning a blind eye to the violence when it involves handguns is not the answer, but really neither is banning them. Handgun bans are not effective, more safety and security of the state will be possible when the government finds other measures to help stop gun violence. A handgun ban will prevent a person from their own right to self-defense. The government has the upmost responsibility to protect its citizens and researchers have already found out that there is no correlation between gun legislation and gun violence. No one in this country has the perfect answer the gun violence that is taking over cities, but on the other hand banning handguns is not the answer.
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
Some of the reasons for gun control are that it will help the government get a control on us.Hitler in world war 2 used gun control against the jewish people to better control and corral them. Historians have documented most everything about it except what made it so easy to attack the defenseless Jews without fear of resistance. Their guns were registered and thus easily confiscated.(stephen halbrook)If the government started registering guns and know their location left and right they could overthrow us with a flick of their wrist. Imagine your local police coming to your doorstep in your house and taking your only good form of self defense.Then turning right around and kidnapping your children and kids and including yourself.I mean thats what the jews were facing during the holocaust.This is why so people do not support gun control for fear of government taking over us and loss of their guns.also some people use guns to provide food for their family thru the form of hunting.you take away their guns you take away their ability to provide for their family.I believe the government doesn't have a right to take our guns to get a hold on us.But its actually better when the government lets us carry weapons around in our everyday lives.
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.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof said in August 2015, that more American citizens have been killed from gun violence than “on battlefields of all the wars in American history (Doherty par. 6). The control of firearms has always been a part of American history and will continue to be as long as humans and guns coexist. From gang fights to mass shootings to suicides, gun deaths are always a tragedy, but are they preventable. Supporters of firearm control have many different kinds of proposals to lower gun crime rates. The sad thing is, unfortunately there is no way to keep various weapons out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not purchase their firearms legally so making the buying and registration process more difficult is only hurting
5 decades ago when we were able to buy guns, the number of suicides committed were less than 2,000. The people that usually kill themselves are not particularly happy with the way they live. These citizens look for the easy way out. Unless it is an accident that either got out of proportion. Back in the mid-1900’s there wasn’t a lot of killing them with their own gun. You would kill or get killed for your rights to be free and many more arguments you could make along with this passage.
If someone wanted to kill someone a law would not stop them. Also if someone wanted to get ahold of a weapon then a law would not stop them. One example of someone not caring the murder is against the law was John Wilkes Booth because he murdered Abraham Lincoln. Another example of someone not caring that murder is illegal was Lee Harvey Oswald,he was the murderer on John F. Kennedy. Guns don’t kill people. People are the ones that load the guns not the gun itself. People are the ones who shoot other people the gun does not shoot people. Remember people are the problem not the gun. If everyone owned a gun it would lead to less crimes because people could protect themselves from criminals ("Does Gun Control Reduce"). If everyone had a gun in their homes they could protect their home, also owning a weapon could potentially save their own life, family's lives and maybe even their friends from an
A dark shadow crept through the dark house, drawers slid open, valuables were softly removed. Suddenly the lights switched on, the mechanical noise of a 12 gauge cocking splits the silence. This is a criminal’s worst nightmare, not the police, but an angry victim armed with a gun. Our country should avoid gun control for many reasons including; the constitution states in several places that honest citizens should have ready access to firearms, disarming citizens leaves them defenseless, criminals will still get guns illegally, and finally that people, not guns, kill people.
Being in favor of gun control won’t make anyone a bad person who follows a person with power and obeying what they say. Being in favor of gun control doesn’t make anyone a bad person, it simply shows that one is in favor of self defense or protection. In this bumper sticker, “all in a favor of gun control, raise your right arm.” The bumper sticker has a picture of Hitler with his right arm raised. People have different views when it comes to gun safety, laws and regulations.
Gun control is a very hot topic these days. Many citizens find themselves in a predicament, when it comes to debating on whether or not there should be constraints on gun control. Records in 2010 state that guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention & Control). The resulting data is equal to 90 deaths or so each day and more than four deaths per hour (Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention & Control). Now although many argue that enforcing gun control can deprive them from practicing the second amendment, without limitations on guns it may lead to more casualties, and our society at hand can be in danger.
A long-term issue in America has recently made a comeback in the news since the Parkland shooting in Florida. This has caused reactions from people with all kinds of viewpoints. Some people lobby for gun control, while others claim they have the right to have guns. Some people dream up conspiracy theories, some go to protests. But the majority of people do nothing. That is the reason that nothing has changed to prevent this sort of thing. it is because the people with the most power to change laws are the least likely to do so. Laws must change in order for massacres to stop.
The real issue behind handgun crimes and violence is not the handgun itself, but rather the owner of the gun. According to surveys, as of 2010, there were roughly 300 million firearms owned by citizens in the United States. Of those 300 million, approximately 100 million were handguns, and 67% of those gun owners said they had guns for self- defense, 66% said they used their guns for hunting, and 41% for target shooting (Agresti & Smith, 2010). During the year 2008, approximately 436,000 violent crimes were committed by an assailant who was visibly carrying a gun (Agresti & Smith, 2010). A study conducted during the year 2000 showed that U.S. citizens use guns to defend themselves roughly 989,983 times a year (Agresti & Smith, 2010). These statistics show several different uses for guns, and that guns can be used for negative or positive reasons. It is the operator of the handgun who determines whether it will be used as recreation, such as target shooting and hunting or as a murder weapon or as self-defense. It is sad to see the way society views handguns as an awful epidemic, but laws banning handguns are missing the point. Laws cannot make the decision of how the handgun will be used for the owner of a handgun. It still comes down to the person holding the gun, and that is something a ban cannot
The topic of gun control is a reoccurring issue to be debated about in the United States. According to different groups of people, there are various opinions about this topic. The safest resolution would be to place stricter laws while attempting to possess a weapon. Crime is inevitable; however, the amount of casualties can be reduced.
On the topic of gun ownership in the United States of America, I propose that carrying guns must be encouraged for civilian use after sufficient background checks and training. After reading five articles by the Conservative columnist Kevin McCullagh, it is evident that he also backs my claim, as he frequently discusses the impacts of guns in current events and wishes to protect the United States from gun violence with the principle of “mutually assured destruction. The fundamental issues with gun ownership are that forms of violence differ across countries and that gun violence is not exclusively caused by one issue. Countries such as Japan have no gun ownership opportunities and yet a high rate of violence while Switzerland has a low rate of violence and prevalent gun ownership. I believe that this discrepancy is caused by differently regulated gun laws, violence exposure in media and culture, and mental health care. What McCullagh states in his