“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.
Stricter gun laws aimed towards banning military-style assault weapons have been proven to decrease crime. According to an assault weapon ban bill in California, "The 1994 Assault weapons ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired (which expired after 10 years), more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons... A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all factors equal...The use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect" ("Assault Weapons Ban summary - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein", 2013, para. 7). These shocking statistics reveal that military-style assault weapons play an important role in increasing crime rate, which is why preventing...
... middle of paper ...
...ough tougher gun regulations. It is reasonable to state that disarming civilians through stricter gun laws is the best method to reduce crime. As President Barack Obama stated during the Obama-Romney 2012 debate on October 16th, 2012, “We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment...My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence” ("Barack Obama on Gun Control", n.d., para. 3).
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
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).
Imagine, a person is sitting in their classroom in college. He or she is focused on listening to the teacher, because he or she needs to pass the final exam in order to graduate. All of a sudden, an intruder charges through the door. The intruder pulls out a gun and starts blasting bullets throughout the classroom. There is nowhere to run and there is no way to fight back. Everyone is hit and on the floor, bleeding. This person is so close to graduating and starting a new life. Now his life has been cut short, because there was someone who illegally brought a gun to a school. Because the school had a symbol of “no guns allowed”. Because the intruder knew there was no one else could shoot back. Now imagine if that student, dying on the floor,
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
Our country has always believed in a citizens right to own a gun. It is a principle that is so important to our country, that it is listed as the second of twenty-seven constitutional amendments. Gun control is a subject of great controversy that carries many true and false claims. Many people believe our second amendment rights are being attacked, and that the government wants to take our guns away. It is my belief that Obama does not want to take our guns, but future administrations may use laws made today to do just that in the future. As more gun related tragedies occur in our country, the question has become "How can we reduce gun violence in our county?", as opposed to "How can we take the peoples' guns away?", but are the laws that the Obama administration are attempting to make paving the way for Americans being disarmed in the future? In this paper, I hope to help the reader realize that Obama does not want to take our guns, but the actions we are taking now may not be the best decisions for the present or the future.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. 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.
a few days to a couple of weeks to get a permit to carry a handgun. However, in
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
Gun control is a highly controversial topic in today’s world where the fight is between the liberal and the conservatives. Many people believe that guns should be banned due to many recent massacres that have happened whereas others are wanting people to have background checks done before owning a gun. I am against gun control because banning handguns in the United States should not be allowed because handguns fail to protect the people and it is ineffective.
Crime has been the issue since the beginning of human government. The question, how does one reduce crime? - has pondered the thoughts of many. The solutions comes in all forms. One of these being gun control. However there is a problem with gun control. Whether it is a law abiding citizen or a criminal, they will end up with more guns. The British in 1776 lost a war against one of her colonies, now known as the United States of America. It started over the taking of arms and ended with men baring arms. The fact of matter is, gun control does not work.
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st...
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.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.
Recent mass shootings at San Bernardino and Sandy Hook Elementary have resurfaced the issue of gun control, with citizens appealing to the federal government to change laws concerning firearms. While there are organizations that are for tighter gun laws, groups like the National Rifle Association argue any laws restricting possession and use of firearms ignores the Second Amendment, and therefore reduces a law-abiding citizen’s constitutional right to own a firearm (Stingl, 2015). However, the United States still has a higher crime rate compared to other developed countries that have tighter gun laws, suggesting more restrictive laws could reduce gun violence (Grey House Publishing, 2011). With increasing gun violence and deaths, laws pertaining
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.