Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of gun control
Gun violence and control
Does gun control have an effect on gun violence essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effect of gun control
Gun Control laws can potentially affect violence rates in a number of ways. Guns could provide protection, put people at risk, encourage crime or even cause death. The availability of guns could could enable violent crimes or possibly help to stop them (Kleck and Paterson 2). Many criminals choose guns in violent actions over other weapons most likely due to their accessibility and long range threat. Some people believe you should control guns, while others believe there is nothing wrong.
Guns are not all bad they provide protection and have recreational benefits. When guns get in the wrong hands is when violence occurs. Keeping them out of the wrong hands is more difficult than you would think; “30 to 40 Percent of all guns in circulation were purchased without a licensed firearm dealer.” Many stolen guns are used in crimes with 500,000 guns stolen on average each year (Ludwig, Cook 4). People argue that if you take away guns you can reduce violence but, violence can occur without guns. If you take away a childs toy are they going to stop having fun or find another thing to play with? Although guns make for more lethal crime they can also be used to fend off crimes(Ludwig, Cook 3). Guns are a necessity for many families in the United States, especially in the south. Many people believe that the number of guns affect violent crime rates. In the 1960s and 1970s the United states had an increase in violent crime rates; in the 1990s violent rates dropped substantially. The amount of guns owned by Americans increased every year(Burger, Warren 13). The amount of guns in circulation will keep increasing and the violent crime rates will fluctuate with other variables if this stays true. The Kansas City Gun Experiment, a test where poli...
... middle of paper ...
...gly use them?
Although some forms of violence may occur without the use of guns are their other benefits to controlling guns? Gun violence causes expenses of around $100 billion a year with the majority of damages due to criminal assault(Ludwig, Cook 5). Will limiting guns eliminate these expenses or will the same expenses occur by other methods?
Guns can be used for recreational use, protection, and unfortunately violence. Gun control has advantages and disadvantages but, which outweighs the other? If guns are controlled will it stop violence or will people find ways around it? Suicide is an unfortunate form of violence and without guns will it still occur? Does the availability of guns encourage violence or is it the people that use them wrong? Guns can be used to cause violence but, will violence stop just because guns are gone or will people find other ways?
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 are not the trouble, people are. The United States is #1 in world gun ownership, and yet is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011 Based on these facts, one can see the guns not the causes of gun violence. moreover, civilians who get permits take gun safety courses and have criminal background...
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).
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes into play, either everyone has guns, including criminals, or nobody has guns. “Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them” McMahan remarks, but ultimately that will just leave the country open to more violence and tragedies. “As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes a matter of self help, and the unarmed have an incentive to get guns.” (McMahan, 2) Now everyone is armed, and everyone has the ability to kill anyone in an instant, making everyone less secure. Just as all the states would be safer if nobody were to possess the nuclear weapons, our country would be safer if guns were banned from private individuals and criminals.
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.
“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.
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. 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.
Today in the United States many people argue over the fact of guns being legal or illegal. There are people using guns for personal safety and there are others who use them for crimes, as well as for other situations. Firearm deaths in the United States have slowly been decreasing from year to year with all these bills getting passed to promote a safer country than ever before. Guns are the main weapon for youth suicide, school shootings, and for committing murder. In 2010 there were 2,711 infants, child, and teenage firearm deaths. As in school shootings and in committing murder, studies show shooters often had multiple, non-automatic guns, shootings were planned, most youth tell before shooting, shooters have a history of being bullied or threatened, shooters have mental issues, and shooters have done suicidal gestures before (Gun Control with School Shootings). Although there are people who use guns for murdering, there are also those who oppose guns being used without the proper requirements. 85% of all respondents to the survey supporting requiring states to report people to national background-checks systems who are prohibited from owning gu...
Reducing gun violence in the United States has been an uphill battle for the government with arguments pending on how more gun control laws would help in decreasing the crime rate. While others argue that these laws make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns in which they can protect themselves. Criminals are going to ignore the law and obtain guns any way thus, these harsh gun control laws will only hurt the law abiding citizen. Better enforcement of existing laws and dealing with crime itself as one issue is another argument many have also stated.
The conversation of gun control and gun regulation has been a great debate over the decades. NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, in his speech on Newtown Shooting that occurred on December 21st, 2012, addresses the topic of gun control and argues that guns are not the cause of gun violence. LaPierre's project is to instead of gun control and decreasing the numbers of guns, increase the numbers of guns to solve the problem of gun violence. On the other side of debate, an American journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his journal, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" argues that guns are the cause of gun violence, but they should not be banned. Kristof's project is to regulate guns with many cautions. While these two authors have different arguments and projects, they use similar strategies to advance their claims. This paper will focus on the way each author strategically uses compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem-solution to advance their claims and how effective these strategies are used.
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 problem with guns is fairly obvious: they decrease the difficulty of killing or injuring a person. In Jeffrey A. Roth's Firearms and Violence (NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994), he points out the obvious dangers. About 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. Firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985, the cost of shootings was an estimated $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.
According to the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) the fifty-four and a half percent of people that threaten an attacker with a gun are more likely to get a gun drawn out in return. The other percentage of the victims who use self-protection or do not do anything have a much better chance of getting away without the attacker pulling out a gun (Gun). Under a strict Gun Control law, when a holdup happens, the attacker is less likely to have a gun, and even if the attacker did somehow obtain a firearm, the victim would not have one to use carelessly and get himself killed. Crimes with Gun Control will be much less violent for the people that obey the law, and most criminals will be deterred from even attempting a crime if they cannot buy a gun. Similarly, Gun Control will help prevent terrorism of this country.
Firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence, and gun control means crime control. There are some countries in the world that have introduced stricter laws and were successful to control the crimes ...
Another benefit to regulating guns is that less crimes would be committed and deaths would be reduced greatly.