More handpicked essays just for you.
Is gun control effective in reducing crime
Does gun control reduce crimes essay
Does gun control reduce crimes essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is gun control effective in reducing crime
Gun laws do not need to change any time soon. If laws do change, criminals would still be able to get guns unless they were not available to people at all. People would not want to go through the trouble of buying a gun for self defense, so if there was a shooting there would be a lower chance of someone being there to stop it, making it worse than it could’ve been. There are companies that are trying to make devices to have guns fire only for the registered owner. Gun laws do not have a need to change.
Everyone will still be able to get guns unless they were not available to people all together. Unless all guns were destroyed, criminals could still be able to get ahold of guns. “All but its harshest critics think the bill's requirement that
"Being Prepared in Suburbia" is an essay by Roger Verhulst published in 1992. The purpose of this essay is to show how guns can change a person's mind and emotions. Throughout the essay, Verhulst shares personal examples of his beliefs of gun ownership and personal examples of how his life changed once he bought a Crossman Power Master 760 BB Repeater pump gun. After purchasing the gun, he believed that the reason people like guns so much is because of a passion that gun owners feel. He stated, "This is the feeling that explains their passion, their religious fervor, their refusal to yield. It's rooted in the gut, not in the head" (Verhulst 342). He also realized that personal thoughts and morals about gun ownership change for a gun owner, and, in a sense, how the gun has authority over an individual's life. For example, "But a roving opossum that took up residence in our garage for a few cold nights in January undermined my good intentions" (Verhulst 341). Honestly, those are only excuses and not legitimate reasons. A strong person would not go against his or her beliefs and would know that using a gun should only be for a specific and valid purpose. Throughout the essay, he believes the weak gun legislation and the problems with gun usage are because of a passion that you feel in your gut; in reality, it is a lack of self-control.
The United States being the leader in per-capita gun deaths among industrialized nations, massive shooting such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech, and an average of 33 people dying in the United States everyday due to gun related violence are all reasons that we not only should, but need to regulate gun laws.
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!
McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises come 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.
In conclusion, enabling stricter gun control laws will help to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, and children and teens. With these laws put into place there will be more assurance of the safety of American citizens. It is not necessary to strip citizens of their right to own a gun, but we should be able to make it harder to get guns. If you are someone with a clear record and using a gun for recreation use, you will have no trouble obtaining a gun. In the long run increase the laws on gun control hurts nobody. Despite historic events where governments seized firearms and killed millions of citizens, today we have a different problem, which is making sure guns are in the right hands.
In "Just Take Away Their Guns," author James Q. Wilson argues that "Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns" (Wilson 63). Wilson points out that it would be tough to remove all legally purchased guns from the streets and nearly impossible to confiscate illegally purchased guns. Gun advocate J. Warren Cassidy argues that "The American people have a right 'to keep and bear arms'. This right is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. . ." in an article titled "The Case for Firearms" (Cassidy 275). James B. Jacobs and Kimberly A. Potter wrote in an article called "Keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands: the Brady law and limits of regulations" that "US law enforcement should concentrate on stiff sentences for crimes committed with guns and recognize that gun control laws do not keep guns from the wrong people" (Jacobs and Potter 1 of 27). Daniel B. Polsby, author of "The false promise: gun control and crime," simply states, "Gun control laws don't work" (Polsby 1 of 11). Polsby feels that "gun control laws are ineffective because [they] have not been proven to be a deterrent to crime" (1 of 11). James D. Wright states, in his article "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," that "If there were fewer guns around, there would also be less crime and less violence" (Wright 93). More gun control laws will only make it a hassle for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. They will not keep guns out of the criminal's hands because they have other methods of obtaining guns, such as the secondary market which is the illegal sale of firearms. Another reason why more gun control legislation will backfire is that those who want to purchase guns to protect themselves a...
When it comes to violence, the stricter gun laws will only help the criminals hurt more innocent people. I believe this is because during the Prohibition years in the United States people were still able to find alcohol and the government could not do anything about it. Drugs have become a huge problem and the government still has yet to find a way to stop all drugs from reaching consumers. This exact same thing will happen with guns. There is no stopping supply and demand and if a criminal wants a gun, they are going to find it.
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...
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
Those against guns might simply say that removing guns entirely would substantially lower crime rates.They are upset that criminals can illegally obtain firearms just as easily as law abiding citizens can obtain legal firearms. Having absolutely no gun control would most likely result in more violent crime and shootings. With no gun control, this means that anybody can legally obtain a firearm. Currently, all states employ a system of background checks that every individual must mass before they are permitted to purchase a firearm. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968.
If you take away a person’s gun it still will not stop them from finding another way to the crime they intend on doing. It would be just like making drugs illegal, people still have them even though it's illegal. “In the US, the right to private gun ownership is conditionally guaranteed by the US constitution” (Alpers 2016). This is stating that it is in the constitution that it is legal that any private individual can own a gun. The government can’t come back over 220 years later and try to change what is written in the constitution. Even if they were able to change what is stated in the constitution there is still no effective way of banning guns in the US.
While many people believe there should be more gun control and the possibility of banning guns all together, I believe the gun control laws should not be changed. Although there are many reasons that may persuade people to choose to ban guns, I believe that there are several other reasons that lead to all the tragedies with guns in America. Banning guns is not an answer the gun problem in America, there are a few other things that could be done to stop gun violence. In this essay I will tell about why I believe gun control laws should not be changed.
The lawmakers of today make laws and they don’t think about the decisions they make from both perspectives. They may say it’s all right to own a handgun but they may have different intentions than the user has on how and why they need one. The owner may need one for their protection but the lawmaker may think it’s for hunting or something other than it causing violence. To ensure these guns are not being used for violence the law needs to make a set of rules and regulations on the conditions of guns. How to use them/abuse them need to be the number one law. It should state guns are not intended to be used for violence of no kind. The law need to enforce the laws they make to ensure proper safety it would eliminate half of the gun violence.
In my opinion all, the talk about gun laws is ridiculous. People do not want others to be able to own a gun makes no sense. For example, someone is sitting in a car at a gas station someone goes up to the clerk and starts shooting. You do not want anyone to be able to intervene and stop this hooligan? If people would, rather just let them do this then that is up to them.