Furthermore, gun laws do not show any sign of helping prevent shootings. Gun free zones are a very big thing that has been put into the law in the past decades. Statistics have found that they actually do not help prevent shootings at all. In the article, “Gun-Free Zones: Weighing the Pros and Cons”, the author brings this very issue up. The author states, “Every mass shooting in the U.S. since 1977… has happened in a gun free zone” (Danielle). Some could argue that gun free zones almost encourage shootings. This is because a gun free zone takes away the right of someone who follows the law, and a shooter, who is not following the law, does not have to be threatened by someone shooting back at themselves. Someone who has the intent to kill …show more content…
There are many laws for guns, when other weapons than guns are many used for harm. There are not laws against knives but knives count for more deaths per year than guns. The counter argument to this would be that if they made laws that no one had a gun, then the shootings would stop. Just like how no one uses drugs anymore because those are against the law, right? Many people in big cities are against gun rights. In the article, “Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics”, it mentions how guns affect cities. The author states, “Rates of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault are much higher in larger cities” (Braga). This is in fact true, but taken out of context. The rates of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault are high for other reasons than guns. Other weapons are mostly used to do these crimes not guns. Also these cities have much more gun laws than a rural area, meaning that the attacker does not have to be worried about being shot at from someone with conceal carry. For these very reasons it is proven that gun laws in no way help prevent …show more content…
Few think that guns should be taken away from everyone and that gun ownership leads to more crime. That is far from the truth actually. John Lott talks about this in his book when he states, “These studies have either confirmed the beneficial link between gun ownership and crime or at least not found any indication that gun ownership increases crime” (John R. Lott). He is talking directly from the studies and research that has been done about the correlation between gun ownership and crime. The statistics showed that gun ownership either helps or does grow crime rates. So law abiding citizens that have gone through the process of owning a gun should be allowed to have one for themselves and not be punished for a few peoples horrific actions. These people need to have the possession of guns in order to protect themselves and their loved ones. The Founding Fathers knew this and that is why they made it the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Alexander Cooper describes this in his article when he states, “An individual's Second Amendment right to possess firearms and use them when necessary for self-defense” (Cooper). The author understands that if guns were taken away from good people then they could not then defend themselves. That is the soul purpose of the Second Amendment, self-defense. Whether from the government and tyranny, or protect themselves from
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
Many gun supporters will say that more guns 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). Luik emphasizes that guns will not make any innocent people killers, it will make crime and death rates go down. They argue that the states with the lowest crime rates are the same states that have a higher gun ownership rate than any other state.
McMahan backs up his premises by showing that in other “Western Countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States.” (McMahan, 4). Gun advocates deny this claim, but then what could be the reason for the United States being the homicide capital of the developed world? Essentially, I believe that McMahan has a solid, compelling argument that makes readers believe that we should take more steps in the direction of banning guns. The analogies he places within the article make for a descriptive, persuasive argument, yet McMahan lacks statistics and factual information to back up his claims.
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. According to Mark Gius, the author of “Gun Ownership and the Gun Control Index”, “…only about 25% of total violent crime is committed by a person using a gun, no inferences...
Gun control activists claim that banning handgun purchases will reduce murder and other gun related crimes. However, cases where handguns were declared illegal were shown to be ineffective. During the years in which the Washington, 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 (Agresti and Smith). Not only in Washington, D.C. was this banning of guns unsuccessful, but also in Chicago. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect (Agresti and Smith). Chicago has recently been named the nation’s murder capital by the FBI and had about as many murders in 2012 as the entire country of Japan, further demonstrating how these ordinances are ineffective. More than 8.5 million Americans legally carry concealed handguns, yet only at a rate of less of 1% do they commit fire...
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.
‘In many of the places around this country where they have the toughest gun laws, they have the highest violent crime rates. … Violence in America that's happened on our streets in our cities, like Chicago, up 19 percent, the murder rate," Christie said. "And you have some of the most aggressive gun laws in cities like that.’” Criminals know the places that they can attack successfully. Places like schools, movie theaters, and not to mention all the museums around the city are the perfect because the citizens are not armed and able to defend themselves; therefore, crime rates continue to skyrocket. If guns were more accessible, crime would go
At the same time firearms ownership increased sharply by over 61% or over 118 million between 2004 and 2012 (Dietz). So according to these numbers less guns doesn’t mean less crime, if anything the presence of more guns inhibits more
Gun control is a highly engaged debated topic and always has been. Many people feel banning guns and creating gun free zones is the answer to stopping mass shooting and people being killed daily. Except they’re wrong. According to Freedom Outpost, 92 percent of mass shooting have occurred in gun free zones. Why?
The people that do not put in the time to actually research the laws and rights we have as Americans do not truly understand the basic rights of owning a firearm. One of the most misunderstood concepts is that more guns cause more violence. This is a false assumption because more guns does not mean more homicides. If someone wanted to kill another through whatever sick reason will do so with or without guns. Gary Kleck a revered criminologist emphasizes “In 1973, the handgun stock was 36.9 million and the homicide rate was 9.4 per 100,000.
Modern intelligence shows that communities that have soaring crime rates, are declining (R.B., 2018). Crime rates such as murders, assaults, rapes, and robberies, create economic costs. The victims who survived and the families that have family members lost in the crime, lose earnings, and end up having tolls taken on them physically, and mentally. Also violent crimes make it so that there is large costs for the communities (Shapiro and Hassett, 2012). In states that allow citizens to carry firearms, the percent of violent crimes are twenty-three percent lower than states that do not allow citizens to carry guns (Gillin and Sherman, 2015).These costs are through lower property values, reduced investment, and higher insurance premiums.
Why make it easier for someone because they have easy access to a gun? Not to mention accidents. People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from accidental gun injuries when they live in states with more guns, opposed to states with fewer
would possibly decrease. One argument, going against gun control is that “Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime.” According to John R. Lott, Jr, he believes that "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect of concealed gun laws relating to these crimes {where two or more people were killed} has been dramatic.
There have been controversial discussions in the United States about whether gun control legislation should be passed or not. Gun control advocates urge the government to impose stricter gun control laws while anti gun control advocates strongly oppose this idea. It is sad to see that some people in today’s society are not aware of the startling number of guns that American citizens keep and what they use these guns for. Only by passing gun control laws will there be fewer tragedies caused by gun violence. It is an indisputable fact that more guns mean more violence, and more violence means more deaths.
Consider guns being weapons which are either good or bad, but their use will depend on the one who holds them.so that’s means gun control has no significant impact on crime rates. If you will defiantly have a very powerful purpose statement. In this case that they are the highly used weapons, then use of gun control measures can be a current solution, still if you find they are the minimum used, then gun control may not have a significant change. The gun control efficiency in the overall number of crimes within a positive area.