More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control does not reduce crime study
Gun control does not reduce crime study
Gun control and gun violence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control does not reduce crime study
What the gun acts have resulted in is “inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes” (Thacker & Dickson, 2003). In short, the law is only as effective as instituted and documented. Also, according to Thacker & Dickson, “crime data” is “substantially underreported and, at the county level, may not be sufficiently reliable for research” (2003). In fundamental nature the evidence of effectiveness is not available or as of yet not consistent. We don’t know if the gun control bans have been effective, only that some feel they are invasive.
What we do know is that even with gun controls in place there have been “around 32,300 annual deaths in the U.S. from
Firstly, the claims that guns contributing to higher crime rates are completely over exaggerated. Most people are spoon-fed by the mainstream media that guns contribute to higher crime rates. In fact, in large cities like Chicago it has been proven that laws like handgun bans have worsened crime rather than alleviate it. When they did this in Chicago, politicians were hoping that this would bring crime levels down (Peterson 25). In the midst of all this, everyone as soon as the politicians proclaimed it would work, was singing their praises and saying that it would, or so they thought. So did the handgun ban succeed? Not necessarily, the article A Splendid, Precarious Victory proves this point. The author Dan Peterson provides very gut wrenching statistics. It states, “in recent years, while the handgun ban was in place, the percentage committed with handguns has consistently been 70 percent or more” (Peterson 25). Clearly, this proves that the mainstream media, anti-gun groups and politicians have distorted the truth about just how hazardous gun control is. This disturbing information should be a wake up call to those who feel that gun control works. Finally, this proves that gun control is unproductive. These kinds of laws ...
In conclusion, enabling stricter gun control laws will help to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, and children and teens. With these laws put into place there will be more assurance of the safety of American citizens. It is not necessary to strip citizens of their right to own a gun, but we should be able to make it harder to get guns. If you are someone with a clear record and using a gun for recreation use, you will have no trouble obtaining a gun. In the long run increase the laws on gun control hurts nobody. Despite historic events where governments seized firearms and killed millions of citizens, today we have a different problem, which is making sure guns are in the right hands.
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 2013 gun ban legislation will not solve the problem of violence, but instead will gradually promote it. The writers of the legislation did not appropriately use the correct firearm terminology, which caused the ban to be too broad and generated confusion. In addition, the constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals and if necessary, an overextending, dictatorial government. Therefore, this recent gun ban is not helpful for the general public because the ban is too broad and removes the right we have as U.S. citizens to keep any type of firearm.
With all the shootings and random acts of violence, such as the shooting at the movie theatre in Colorado, or the Sandy Hook shootings, stricter gun control laws have been a hot topic in politics and the national mainstream media. The government thinks that gun control being stricter would help to make less of these tragic incidences occur. I am against this thought because I believe that the law-abiding citizens will be the only ones to give up their guns and criminals will then have an upper hand on the innocent. Even though banning guns is supposed to save lives, cities such as Chicago have already shown that stricter gun laws should not be passed because violent murders are still prevalent in these types of cities and strict gun laws have not worked like they were supposed to.
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...
“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.
“A handgun ban is not realistically enforceable. Confiscating guns would require house-to-house searches and alienate the very individuals whose compliance is essential to the success of any regulation. If gun ownership were prohibited, organized crime would step in to provide the firearms that will continue to be procured with criminal intent” (Done Kates). Over the past decade, the media has reported an increase in the severity of violent crimes as individuals have killed and hurt many others, including kids. Since 2006, there have been over 200 mass murders in the United States.
“It’s not gun control we need, it’s sin control” (Si Robertson). The government can’t control what people do with their firearms or who has them in their possession. Gun control does not decrease crime. With or without guns people will still find ways to harm others and even with a gun ban people will still find away to either make or buy a gun illegally. With a gun control law in place there is no good way for citizens to protect themselves. Even though some may say it that it will stop some of the crime, there are many reasons that prove that gun control doesn't decrease crime.
Gun control does not work because when there is high gun control, criminals still own guns. Statistics of crime rates before and after the bans had been put in place
In conclusion, enforcing gun laws would not be the best solution in reducing violence in the United States. Educating people and telling them to always contact police if they cannot handle a situation is always the best option. Guns provide protection and can save a family from a home break in or protect a store owner late at night from robbers who may threaten him or her for money. Not only are guns protected in the constitution, but they are also a part of the American tradition.
The question of whether gun control policies increase, decrease or have no effect on rates of gun violence is a difficult scientific question. While a variety of disparate sources of data on rates of firearm-related injuries and deaths, firearms markets, and the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence exist, research into the efficacy of various gun controls has been largely inadequate. A 2004 National Research Council critical review found that while some strong conclusions are warranted from current research, the state of our knowledge is generally poor. Despite the potential for improved research design, the National Research Council review concludes that the gaps in our knowledge on the efficacy of gun control policies are due primarily to inadequate data and not to weak research methods. The result of the scarcity of relevant data is that gun control is one of the most fraught topics in American politics and scholars remain deadlocked on a variety of issues. Notably, since 1996 the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been prohibited from using its federal funding "to advocate or promote gun control," effectively ending gun violence research at the agency. The funding provision's author has said that this was an
According to a ABC news report, “Murder rates remain same in tough gun law states” was the headline. “The National Rifle Association claimed the research of this had no effect on crime.” But there are other articles that say that crime rates have gone down since gun laws were more regulated in certain states. Perhaps people just did not obey it in a certain state. Maybe it was harder to control. “A new study finds that murder rates did not drop any faster when states had stricter gun laws.” Most American now support more gun control laws. The laws could not have been strict enough there. There are many reasons why it could not have worked.
...nforcement and criminal imprisonment had more of an effect on crime then any gun control law. Gun education and hunter’s education also improved. Focusing efforts on the root of the problem has yielded results and lowered crime. Crime rate has steadily lowered as more guns entered the private market.
Sherman, Lawrence W., and Dennis P. Rogan. 1995. “The Effects of Gun Seizures on Gun Violence: ‘Hot Spots’ Patrol in Kansas City.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):673–93.