Banning Handguns is not right Handguns can be easily concealed, so they are usually the weapon of choice for for people to protect themselves. But, they are also the weapon of choice for criminals. Since handguns are easy for criminals to steal, handguns are almost always available on the black market; this makes handguns a solid good choice for criminals. The majority of crimes involving firearms are stuck on the fact of using a handgun; this is a serious problem in America today. Although most would agree that something must be done, no one seems to have the answer at this point. Some gun control supporters believe that completely banning handguns is the best way to protect citizens. However, banning handguns fails to protect people because …show more content…
There are several cities that have employed handgun bans in the past, and the results were not promising. On September 24, 1976, Washington, D.C. placed a ban on all handguns; the ban was later overturned on June 26, 2008. Under the regulations of this law, no one other than a police officer was permitted to own a handgun. Authors Agresti and Smith (2010) state that “during the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.” Clearly, banning handguns in D.C. did not reduce the amount of murders and crimes that were committed, and the number of murders actually increased drastically. Gun control supporters would argue this information by saying that the statistics are misleading , and that it is necessary to consider other factors such as the changing of times as well as the rise of drug and gang violence. They may have a point, but as Washington, D.C.’s murder rate increased by 73%, the rest of the United States as a whole experienced an 11% decrease in murders (Agresti & Smith, 2010). This is difficult for them to explain. A second illustration of the ineffectiveness of banning handguns is that of Chicago, Illinois. In 1982, Chicago passed a ban on all …show more content…
When an individual is responsible and trained properly, handguns are easily the most effective form of self-defense, and a handgun ban takes this option away from them. John Stossel (2008), who is a nationally well known newspaper columnist, as well as a journalist and reporter for Fox News Channel, explains that laws against guns are really laws against self-defense, and mandatory gun-free zones are in actuality free crime zones. Handgun bans will not stop criminals from acquiring guns; they will, however, prevent a law abiding citizen from buying a gun for self-defense. While he may be a little extreme in stating that laws against guns are laws against self-defense, he does have a good point. Banning handguns leaves citizens with less self-defense options. When people are stripped of the most effective form of self-defense, they are vulnerable, and this is a serious problem. Stossel (2008) is right about gun bans preventing law abiding citizens from using guns in self-defense, and this gives the advantage to the criminal. A law abiding citizen will not break the law and own a handgun if they are banned, but a criminal will. If an individual desires to rob a bank or murder someone, he or she is not going to be worried about breaking a gun ordinance. Handgun bans remove an extremely valuable self-defense
Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access.
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.
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 ...
This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. I will be talking about the 2nd amendment, public safety, home safety, and do gun control laws really control guns. I hope after you have read this you will be more educated, and can pick your side of the gun control debate. So keep reading and find out more about the gun control laws that the federal and some state governments want to enforce on U.S. Citizens.
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.
One of the biggest reasons that handguns should not be banned is because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, “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.” People who argue that guns should be banned state the Second Amendment was not intended for the regular civilian, but rather the militia. This is where they are wrong. The Supreme court has taken a case like this in Heller vs District of Columbia. Heller had been caught using a handgun and sued the U.S. on the right for civilians to bear arms. The Court decided and interpreted the Second Amendment as the right for all the civilians to bear arms and not just the militia. Also along with amendments and acts, there are two different acts that put restrictions on who can and cannot buy guns. The Gun Act of 1968 and the Brady Act both put different restrictions on who can buy guns. The Gun Act of 1968 has te...
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.
We have all been through that pain of losing a love one either it was to an incurable disease, old age, and car accident or during time of war. Nevertheless, we have lost more love ones through gun violence. People have own guns since the time guns were invented, but “Are guns for everyone?” We have heard of gun laws throughout the whole United States of America some enforce those laws and other do not. The government enforce stricter gun control laws so the public can be safe, to stop gun violence, and to avoid incidents that can lead to the tragedy.
The first reason handguns should be outlawed for ordinary citizens is because their main purpose is simply to kill other human beings. Why would our country allow us to have the right to own an object that is deadly? Our government seems to want to protect us. For example, seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws were created to protect our lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces pollution laws to keep us safe and healthy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects food and tests drugs to make sure American citizens are not harmed by nasty food and dangerous drugs. Yet, our government allows just about anybody to own and walk around with guns. It does not appear our government really cares about our safety. If it did, handguns would be outlawed for the general public, because their only purpose is to kill people.
Author Asha Bendele talks about this subject in her article, “Loss & Hope.” She states that, “According to The U.S Census Bureau, it (Chicago) has the highest crime rate throughout the nation” (112). The average person in Chicago cannot legally get access to a firearm, but yet people still are able to get their hands on them. This significantly proves that a gun ban will do nothing but hurt this country and make criminal activity rise. Most of those against the Second Amendment, want other major cities to model what Chicago has done with gun laws. Once these other cities begin to model themselves after the city of Chicago, we would immediately start to see an increase of violence, drug use and firearm related crime. Schools have also become victim to the “gun free zone” curse. Serious criminals know that, in these areas, there is no one that can stand up to them, which gives them plenty of time to commit these evil acts and get away unharmed. Author Grant Arnold discusses this in, “Arming the Good Guys: School Zones and the Second Amendment.” He states, “Policies making areas ‘gun free’ provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren 't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it 's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law” (487). We need to realize that “gun free zones” are really just an area for the people there to be sitting ducks. The last thing we ever want to see on the news, is the death of a child who was unprotected due to these laws. The only way we can ever think to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
“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.
“I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets”, quoted President Barack Obama ("Barack Obama on Gun Control", n.d., para. 3). The debate on whether stricter gun laws will help deter crime has gained much attention since crime rates started to increase. Many research studies show that stricter gun laws are very effective at inhibiting crime. Arguing on the affirmative side, stricter gun laws will help deter crime by banning ownership of military-style assault weapons, by banning weapons with high-capacity magazines, and by creating new gun regulations that delays the process of gun ownership while significantly limiting weapon access at the same time. If stricter gun laws are incorporated into the system, we will be able to envision a bright and crime-free future ahead of us.
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.