Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control in the US essay
Do gun control laws reduce crime essay
Gun control history essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control in the US essay
Does gun control make our world safer? This is a question that is commonly asked. There have been many studies done to address this question, and none have shown that gun control works. Britain is a country with very strict gun control. In spite of this gun control, Britain still has the highest crime rate in the world. Switzerland on the other hand is a country where all citizens are armed and are trained on the safety and proper use of the weapon, resulting in the lowest crime rate of the world. What proof is there that gun control works? No legitimate study has ever shown that gun control works. The 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security …show more content…
The Navy Yard in Washington D.C. was a gun free zone, but yet a shooting occurred there. If this was an anti-gun place, shouldn’t it have been safe? Theoretically it should have been. “The DC killer passed two background checks by the US military, he had received an anti-terrorism medal from the Navy, resided in New York, one of the most anti-gun cities in America, and was given a rifle permit by New York police” (Baldwin). How could any more gun control laws make us safer? Another example is shooting in schools. Schools, also gun free zones, are another example of an area well regulated by gun laws that still experience tragic shootings. Signs hanging in school hallways that say “weapon free zone” do not work. These only point out to potential killers that there will be no resistance, at least until police arrive. A way to cut down on school shootings would be having an armed guard somewhere in the school; it is guaranteed that a shooter would think twice. Theodore Roosevelt once stated “The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world!” (Roosevelt). Roosevelt had the same idea as the leaders of Switzerland. Eliminating firearms from the equation leaves citizens vulnerable to evil and exposes them to greater danger when they should feel …show more content…
The gun control laws that are being proposed, disarm citizens not only of their firearms, but of their safety as well. More laws would only make it harder for law abiding citizens to own a gun. This would have a ripple effect that was not intended. Gun control lobbyists thought gun control would increase safety. However, the examples examined here show the opposite. If gun control really helped make the world safer, then theoretically prisons would be the safest place on earth. Criminals will always have guns, and gun control only infringes the rights of people who wish to acquire guns the legal way. Gun control or not, people that want to commit a crime will find a way. So, should gun control laws be stricter in the United States? Perhaps we as a nation should learn from countries like
Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense." StephenEWright.com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
Tyrrell, R. Emmett, Jr. "The National Rifle Association's Deterrent to Gun Violence." The American Spectator. (2013): Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 31 Oct. 2013
Gun control is a controversial issue that currently has no easy solution to please everyone. In an article written by Adam Winkler, a professor from the UCLA School of Law, he states that open carry is the answer to having fewer guns on the streets. His argument fails because it contains false premises throughout the article and is also inductively weak. First, he commits the slippery slope fallacy by assuming a series of events will occur for doing one action. Second, he commits the bandwagon fallacy. The fact that other states have the open carry law in effect does not make his argument true nor does it make it a valid reason. Last, he neglects how there will always be people who do not follow laws. Gun control in the United States has been a difficult topic for many people to discuss, but Winkler’s point of view of the topic does not give a complete thought about why people should agree with him.
Davey, Monica. "Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can’t Stem Fatal Shots." New York Times30 Jan.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
Yiotis, Gayle, and Ray Wisher. "Moms, Cops, & Voters against Gun Control." EBSCO.com. N.p., n.d. Web. Sept.-Oct. 1999.
“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.
...n promoting stricter gun laws, government needs to find out what is causing the problem and addressing it. Parents need to take into consideration what video games there children are playing and which movies they are watching. Spending too much time examining and enforcing stricter gun laws can be costly, while taxpayer’s wealth money can be used on drug warfare or other beneficial objectives for the country. An alternative for strict guns law is a stiffer prison sentences for individuals who commit a crime with a firearm and therapy for the mentally ill. Wayne LaPierre introduced the famous quote “Guns do not kill people, people kill people.” The quote demonstrates that firearms cannot kill an individual without a human intervention. Rather than screening firearms in a negative light, individual should change the concept of human nature from violence to peaceful.
In the second amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it is stated that the right of people to keep and bear arms should never be infringed under any circumstances to ensure the security of a free state. However, it seems that this amendment has been misinterpreted by many Americans since the country has seen many innocent souls falling due to high gun crimes. And that is why I decided to write a research paper to answer one question: a question that states, “To what extents, does strict gun control policies by the governments reduce gun crime rates?” And this writer strongly argues that stricter gun control policies by the governments will reduce gun crime rates significantly. I personally believe my research is very important because it will provide the evidences that leaders around the globe who are struggling to combat the rising gun crime rates needs to take aggressive roles so that no more people has to live in fear of being killed by people with weaponries like handguns.
Gun control was brought into play to protect citizens from criminals and lunatics who shouldn't have guns in the first place. But only 27 percent of the criminals who are in prison for crimes involving guns have obtained them legally (Henderson 23). If criminals can find guns illegally now, how is more gun control going to stop them from getting them later? Groups against gun control,the most dominant being the NRA (National Rifle Association), are afraid gun control is the first step in outlawing guns.
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
The debate over gun control in America has constantly brought up over the years due to gunmen killing large amounts of civilizations in shootings. From Columbine to Sandy Hook or the shootings of the two reporters in West Virginia, these public shootings are occurring everywhere. Lawmakers and civilians alike are pushing for increased gun control in hopes of preventing the same tragedies. Anybody that has been affected by the shootings have been pushing Congress and state governments to force new sanctions on government. With the past three years, Congress has shot down all the laws despite the large amounts of public support. Adding more gun control isn’t going to stop the mass shootings from happening.
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.
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 ...
There are three ways to approach gun-control: first, it is the citizens’ constitutional right to own firearms; second, firearms kill - get rid of them; and third, to have no opinion and not deal with the issue. Whichever view people have on gun-control, they must first understand the facts and statistics of these issues. Charlton Heston’s “Is Freedom Lost on the Next Generation?” and Paul Craig Robert’s “Unarmed and Unsafe” both study the opposing side of gun-control with facts and logic.