Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun rights and gun control
Opposing viewpoints of gun control
Consequences of gun control
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun rights and gun control
Say No to Gun Ban
Gun bans are very simple in theory, just take everyone’s guns, but the results are drastic. Removing all guns from the American Citizens hands will have effects on many aspects of life. This simple plan proposed countless times by countless politicians will make many people angry and others glad. This is great in theory, but the real life consequences will outweigh the benefits.
There are some benefits acquired by banning guns. For instance, if all guns were to be banned in the United States, then some of the simple, very preventable deaths could be prevented. For example, a child is left at home and finds a gun in his father’s dresser drawer. The child accidently discharges the gun and fatally wounds himself. This accident
…show more content…
“Handguns have been shown to lead to crimes more frequently than rifles or shotguns.”(Olsen). They can be easily concealed and the biggest crime inducing guns in the cities because of their availability and small size. In Washington D. C. they banned all handguns and required all other firearms to be disassembled within city limits in hopes to quell the enormous amount of crime there. To the legislators believed that the removal of all guns would decrease the crime rate drastically. Considering that most crimes are made with a gun in hand or the person who commits the crime has a gun in hand, this is a very logical solution.Furthermore, the removal of guns would save many lives in law enforcement. Police officers put their lives at risk every day because the populous has firearms in their possession. Police officers jobs would be drastically easier if the criminals didn’t have guns and the cops did. Also, Police officers are shot or killed everyday because of the amount of firepower criminals …show more content…
The amount of organized crime would go down because all of their power is derived from their use of firearms and that is a significant amount of their profit. After gun profits is removed from organized crime, they would have to resort to drug sales, which would be a lot easier to stop if the drug dealers didn’t have guns. Those in support of firearms bans argue that having no guns at all in the homes of Americans would make everyone feel safer at home and in public. Banning guns has many benefits but the criminals could get their guns from various illegal sources, such as black market and other countries. Most of the guns used in crimes are brought illegally or stolen anyway, so that proves the ban wouldn’t affect the criminal’s ability to commit crime. The bottom line is that if criminals need a gun, they will get one. “Since 1976, it 's been illegal in Washington, DC to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington, DC is the ‘murder capital of the United States.’”(Kopel). This concept of banning guns has been tried and has failed terribly; it has had an opposite effect on crime
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.
‘Useless laws weaken necessary laws.’ --- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1775) Importantly, gun ownership doesn’t create a violent society, but lenient gun control does. Nevertheless, bans do not make something disappear, rather harder to control! Therefore a strict, uniform federal gun control system is far more essential so as to ensure no collateral effects of any gun uses!
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.
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.
First of all, banning guns will not stop criminals from having them, and there are so many ways that these people can obtain guns. It is pretty plain and simple; if you ban guns from everyone crimes will still be committed. Gun control “…ignores the reality that even if guns disappear, bad people will find ways to do bad things” (Wil...
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. 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.
Over the years some of the reasons to own guns have changed. As Americans moved west fulfilling Manifest Destiny, making new towns along the way which were far away from any established law. These people made laws through the barrel of a gun. Of course crime still happened, but not nearly as often, when the townspeople simply hunted down and shot the criminal. Eventually, police forces arose in the Midwest, and fewer people carried guns with them on the street but they were still there, visible or not.
We have had gun control laws in the past. We thought that they would help the crime and murder rate decrease, but that was not the case. The crime and murder rate stayed the same, so we took away the laws. 11% of killing is from stabbing in Chicago. It was proven that if we took away guns all together then the 11% would increase rapidly. We need guns for protection more than anything. The police cannot protect us in every situation. We need to be able to defend and protect ourselves. (_Esmarttips. "Gun Control Arguments, Pro & Con." Smart Tips. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2017).
“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.
If the government continues to make laws against guns, the results could be bad. People will revolt, then we could have a civil war on our hands. Many people believe that the guns can and should be in the hands of the people who want them for protection and sport. Criminals will go to any lengths to get their weapons needed to perform a crime, that’s why they are criminals they break laws, they don’t follow them. The government is hoping to take control of these assault style weapons and keep them from the common people, but these weapons aren’t what crimes are being committed with. If guns are removed, the crime will increase, and there is more potential for foreign attacks to be held on U.S. soil.
In an ideal world, weapons wouldn’t be needed, but when and where historically has that ever been the case? Then, there’s the argument our government and police will protect us, but how effective were they during the recent Florida massacre, or any other recent mass murder for that matter? Obviously, if your enemy has an automatic weapon, you need one too, or at least they must think you possibly have one, so the solution must be banning them entirely, but when has a ban on anything actually worked? In reality, a gun ban would only keep law-abiding citizens from having them, while further emboldening criminals. Moreover, while most of us probably agree Nikolas Cruz shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun legally, that probably wouldn’t have stopped
The human need for affiliation creates the challenges and rewards of finding acquaintances, forming close friendships, as well as intimate relationships. Through technological advances cyberspace, or the internet, has become a place of multiple opportunities for people to be able to fulfill that need for affiliation. Websites, chat rooms, and online communities are just some examples of virtual platforms for people to seek others, come together, and find that special someone. These opportunities can result in positive outcomes allowing people to achieve what or whom they were seeking, but they can also result in harm to themselves and others, resulting with damaging consequences. Cyberspace does not come with a warning label. People who use the internet as a means to seek relationships are at risk of being exposed to positive as well as negative results. Being made aware of some of those risks and dangers, and realizing that forming relationships on the internet is not all fun and games, may be ways to help promote a positive future for cyberspace as a place to form successful relationships.
Guns help save more lives than they take and help prevent more injuries than they inflict. Gun Owners of America presents an interesting statistic in which it shows that guns are used two and a half million times every year. That means that by the time you finish reading this paper approximately 25 people will have used guns to help defend themselves, and two of those people will have been women protecting themselves from sexual assault (Gun Owners of America, NA)! Therefore, taking away our constitutional right to carry guns will consequently take away our means of protecting
If guns were banned, there would no longer be gun related crimes and there would be a substantial decrease in firearm related deaths.
Today in the U.S there are a lot of violence and it has risen significantly, this would decrease if guns are banned. According to BBC (2016), 60% of murders were caused by firearms. If guns are banned the level of crime in the U.S will decrease unquestionably. and there will be less violence and a reduction in deaths. Another, reason why guns should be banned is because then there will be a decrease in the amount of shootings. It would be easier for the police since they don't have to worry about guns. Can one believe that 13,286 people were killed because of guns. This is extremely horrific for the citizens of the U.S. Why would someone want to live in a country where there are so much gun violence. Every person want to live somewhere