Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay gun control history united states mla scribd
Gun control control laws decrease crime rates essays
Essay gun control history united states mla scribd
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay gun control history united states mla scribd
Gun Control vs. Cultural Reform Whether liberal or conservative, everybody can agree that the violence in the United States, thanks to firearms, must come to an end. In light of recent mass shootings and the overall murder and crime rates involving firearms, the debate over whether or not the laws pertaining to guns need enhanced or amended has been on the front page of newspapers, websites, and a main topic of discussion in our own government. The thing is, knee-jerk reactions from both sides of the political spectrum have plagued our minds and law makers, turning any chance of compromise into for-or-against mindset debates. With the right knowledge and correct path of correction, we all can make the United States a better nation together, …show more content…
Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). (procon.org). In Mexico, they have only one gun store from which civilians can buy firearms. Mexico's lone gun store is on a secure military base where customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cell phones and cameras to guards. Then, if they actually want to buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. (Procon.org). Some might argue saying that the United States and Mexico differ greatly in almost all aspects, and while they do, they still share a border. With the amount of crime and illegal substances, being drugs or weapons or even people, it would be naive to think that criminals in the United States wouldn’t get supplies like firearms from …show more content…
In 1987, a lone gunman armed with two semi automatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly seventy miles west of London, killing more than a dozen people and then himself in what became known as the Hungerford Massacre. With the event fresh on everybody’s mind, Britain introduced the Firearms Act, expanding the list of banned weapons including semi automatic rifles and set forth new and increased registration requirements for other types of weapons (council on foreign relations). Anti-gun debaters always like to compare the United States to countries like Britain and say how much their gun related crime has decreased and how they haven’t had any mass shootings of comparison to recent ones in the States. The fact of the matter is that at least 36 people have been fatally stabbed - and 62 overall killed - in London since the beginning of the year. Met Police records show 37, 443 recorded knife offences and 6,694 recorded gun offences across the UK in the year up to September 2017. The level of stabbings and knife related incidents have skyrockets in recent years. London actually has a higher murder rate than New York City, now. (the sun). Again, only the naive would think that if a gun ban was the answer to gun violence, that all crime and homicides would decrease. Obviously that is not
Guns have possessed the spotlight of almost every news station. From the latest tragedy of a shooting killing innocent men, women and children to the arguments centering around if our gun laws possess strict enough qualities to keep our country safe. Charles C. W. Cooke, the author of “Gun-Control Dishonesty”, spreads his conservative view on the topic by ripping away any hope for a brighter day. Cooke’s main idea states that if nothing has happened to make gun law more strict even after the lives of innocent children were mercilessly ripped away from their young bodies than nothing should or could ever change. On the other hand, Adam Gopnik wrote his article, “Shooting”, uses a more liberal approach and inspires his audience to act upon the much needed change in our society
A growing number of publicized tragedies caused by gun violence have caused a great stir in the American community. Recently, President Barack Obama has made proposals to tighten the regulation of and the restrictions on the possession of weapons in America to lessen these tragedies. Should the legislative branch decide in favor of his proposals, all American citizens who do or wish to own the type of weapons in question or who use current loopholes in existing policy would be directly affected. His proposals, which are to “require background checks for all gun sales, strengthen the background check system for gun sales, pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons, limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets, give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime, end the freeze on gun violence research, make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates, [and] ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people,” have been cause for a large amount of recent debate (whitehouse.gov).
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.
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...
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
Each person has a different view on the world. If a person is asked about their view on a certain subject, they will likely show support or disdain for the subject. For example, some people believe abortion is morally wrong. Others view abortion as the mother’s choice since she is carrying the child. On the issue of gun control, people are usually either for or against stricter gun laws. Why do people view the world in the way they do? How do people decide what stance to take on an issue? To answer these questions, sociologists look at the sociological perspective which “stresses the social contexts in which people live” and “examines how these contexts influence people’s lives” (Henslin, 2013, p. 4). Furthermore, the sociological perspective
In modern day America there are many major topics that continue to divide our nation. Among the top issues are healthcare, the rising national debt, and the economy. These issues are commonly talked about and usually the overall opinion is the same, the only thing that differs is the approach to meet the common goal. Healthcare is usually considered a good thing and we need to get as many people covered as possible, the rising national debt is obviously considered bad and we need to find a way to reduce it, and the economy isn't strong right now and we need to find a way to improve it. This is common among most of the issues, however, one of America's issues tend to be extremely polarizing. Gun rights has become one of the most contested issues for the American public and opinions vary vastly on the desired outcome as well as the methods to obtain that desired outcome. One end of the spectrum believes that guns are too dangerous and wants heavy restrictions on the ownership of them. The other end believes the Second Amendment protects our right to own guns and want very little res...
Comparing the United States’ homicidal statistics to England and Wales’, I’ve been moderately persuaded towards the opponent’s side of gun control. It’s difficult to dictate what’s morally acceptable in today’s society with the increasing amounts of controversy, but noticing the dramatic increases in crime rate due to the lack in supply of guns, versus the dramatic decreases in crime rate because of an increase in the supply of guns, definitely proves the consequences of gun control to a certain degree. I would also have to agree that ridding the public from their firearms does take away the privilege of defending ourselves from any sort of crime. With the given results, knowing that our American citizens defend themselves from
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
For many years, America has witnessed mass shootings within it’s borders. In 2015 alone, there were 372 mass shootings (Oldham). The question most Americans are faced with is: do we need more gun control or is gun control the problem? With more gun control, it can be made mandatory that protective devices are used on firearms to prevent accidental harm. Gun control creates mandatory laws such as the requirement for an individual to pass a background check before he/she is permitted to purchase a firearm. Gun control has also been proven to prevent suicides due to the increased difficulty of obtaining a firearm. Those who believe that gun control is the problem claim that by removing one 's firearms, you are endangering them to threats that
Justin King once stated that “The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing”. The United Kingdom tried a 15 year ban of guns and all it did was increase the rate of crimes. From 1990 until the ban was put into work the homicide rate went from 10.9 to 13 per million. After the ban was there for a while the homicides reached to 18.0 in 2003. In the same year the UK flooded the country with over 20,00 cops so the homicide rates would decrease. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, gun rights activist, once said that "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them”. While the country takes its time to check and take away every gun that is legal and ignore the fact that just like there are legal guns there are illegal guns as well. Taking away the legal gun would be like unarming everyone to be useless when the time to defend themselves comes.
Despite Norway’s strict requirements in order to own a gun, they couldn’t prevent a mass shooting that took the lives of 77 people in 2011 (Masters). One thing you don’t hear very often from the leaders of our country, is the idea that more guns could prevent shootings. In the United States, we have “gun free zones,” which include schools and other public places. In these areas, guns are strictly prohibited, and instead of preventing shootings have actually became a target for them.Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “found that 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 have taken place in designated gun-free zones” (Blackwell). The author of “Ban gun-free zones,” Ken Blackwell claims that those who commit mass shootings want the publicity, and will go where they know they can do the most damage, because the more serious the shooting is, the more publicity it will receive. Blackwell goes on to say, “most mass shootings don’t end until the police arrive. Killers typically have several minutes to slaughter as many victims as they can without fear of interference” (Blackwell). John Lott, the author of “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,” backs up Blackwell’s claims of mass shooters targeting places where guns are prohibited. Lott uses evidence from mass shooters themselves as his evidence, and one very recent tragedy is the shooting in a Charleston, South Carolina church, in June 2015. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, cited by Lott in his article, the shooter told those around him about his plans to carry out the shooting. His original plan was to go to the College of Charleston, but apparently veered away from the college when he realized that there was heavily armed security, obviously settling for the Church. Another example is James Holmes, who committed a mass shooting in a movie theatre. Holmes had what Lott referred to as a
government should have a clear indication as to the positive and negative externalities of legislative action. Mostly, gun reform has led to success in abating gun violence, by reducing overall death rates. Perhaps if the U.S. government followed in the footsteps of other countries, gun violence could be greatly reduced. However, legislative action also requires political consideration, which makes laws much harder to enact. Since the government tries to appeal to the majority of the nation while still trying to do what is best for the nation, controversy and conflict arise. However, it is apparent that action needs to take place, the degree to which this occurs can be up for debate. Along with proof of benefit from other countries, the U.S. should create legislation that will appeal to both sides of the political battleground: a balance between preserving the right to bear arms and protecting future generations from unnecessary gun violence. For the only way to make progress is via change, and a lack there of it will guarantee
Gun violence in America is a public health crisis, which needs to be recognized and changed by legislatures, and the voting American. As conscious Americans, we need to vote for changes to gun laws that would improve background checks nation-wide, make firearm registration mandatory, restrict the sale of assault weapons and weapon modifications that give the shooter military-grade fire power, and invest in gun-safe technology and safe firearms storage designs. This type of technology will help prevent criminally oriented people from accessing guns, and will help prevent the accidental deaths of many children by guns. This essay will explain the reforms needed to help ensure Americans can still exercise their 2nd amendment right of owning firearms, and preventing the unnecessary deaths of many Americans at the same time.
43 of 50 states do not require permits in order for individuals to purchase guns. However, statistics show that these states have higher rates of firearm assaults (Pappas). In addition, proper background checks are not conducted on those making the purchase (Teen Vogue). This is significant because perpetrators look for the easiest way to let out their aggression, and complete the task efficiently. With a majority of states providing such easy access to this weapon, the main method of attack can easily be established. If the American Government improves this single factor, it is guaranteed that there will be improvement. In fact, this adjustment has been proved successful in Australia. In the 18 years before the Port Arthur tragedy of 1996, there were 13 gun massacres that occurred (Datz). The Government recognized that there was a fault in the system, and so, a mandatory buyback of all semi-automatic long guns was ordered. Alongside, laws regarding purchase of firearms were modified to be more effective (Datz). In the 20 years since then, there have been zero mass shootings. However, this is an action the American Government is unable to perform, resulting in more frequent reoccurrences. In conclusion, mass murders are rising, and will continue to rise, because of insufficient implementation of gun safety