It is clear and evident and most Americans know about about it and some have contrasting opinions and views of it. It is the ongoing heated debate of Gun Control in the states whether there should be more stricter laws on them. We have all seen and heard the stories of mass shootings throughout the country such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Colorado and Columbine. There are multiple arguments that both support and oppose Gun Control and this paper is going to show you both sides of the ongoing dispute. Although guns are known for giving the ability for U.S. citizen to protect themselves over time and throughout history they have been also used for taking innocent lives thus there should be more stricter laws against them. More gun laws would …show more content…
citizens. For example, having the right to bear arms is right given by the Bill of Rights and some people see gun control laws as infringement. They believe that bearing arms is a fundamental right to have such as freedom of speech, freedom of speech, and etc. Another good example is that the argument that gun control does not prevent crimes but owning guns does. Studies show from 1980 to 2009 that bans of assault weapons did not lower the murder rate in individual states and surprisingly that states with high numbers of gun ownership had lower violent crime rates. To add to those two, gun laws will not stop criminals from acquiring guns and neither from breaking the law. A statistic has revealed from 2001 to 2012 roughly 50,000 guns were recovered and traced back from all over the country. In the same light, people argue that gun control in Mexico does not work so why would it work in America and to add to this Mexico has some of the harshest gun control laws in the world. Statistics show that in 2012 there was about 11,000 gun homicides when the U.S. only had about 9,000. Last of all, some people are starting to point out a crucial fact that is frequently overlooked and that is the safety of gun free zones. The tragedies of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Colorado, and Columbine all have one thing in common and that is they were gun-free zones, which would have made the victims more vulnerable. This then would lead into the discussion of having an individual properly trained with a firearm being stationed at such places for example, a police officer at a high school, which some are already doing. These claims and evidence should show why that there should not any more gun control
The debate surrounding gun control and gun violence has been an ongoing controversy in many communities and America as a whole. As gun violence increase each year, views and opinions are rising, which not only have created tension in communities, but also has become a major debate in society. Although some critics argue that guns bring an overall negative impact to the country, others comment that guns are crucial to the beliefs and views of people today as well as important to their culture. In the context of today's society, many people in America are viewing gun control as an infringement of their rights and its threat towards their ability to protect, thus questioning: To what extent should gun use and possession should be controlled?
Stricter Gun Control Laws: A Safer Society The debate over gun control has been a longstanding issue in the United States. With the rising number of mass shootings and gun violence, stricter gun control laws have become a topic of discussion. The question remains, would stricter gun control laws be better for society? This essay will argue that stricter gun control laws would indeed be better for society.
For the past 232 years, Americans have had the right to defend themselves against crime, tyranny, and victimization through the rights given to us by our founding fathers. If these rights were restricted or even taken away from Americans, the crime rate would soar, and the safety of the people and families of America would be put in jeopardy. If these rights were restricted, the generations to come would be brought into an environment of violence and crime. (Purpose Statement) While many think that gun control can fix the rate of gun homicides and crimes and mass shootings, it will most likely have the opposite effect and will restrict our right to defend ourselves.
Proponents of more gun control laws believe that the Second Amendment was intended exclusively for militias, that gun restrictions have always existed, and that gun regulations would prevent criminals from possessing firearms. However, Opponents claim that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, that guns are needed for self-defense, and that gun ownership helps to dissuade crime. Because of this obvious difference, proponents of stricter firearm regulation demand more laws to help prevent mass shooting, and want reform in the area of background checks. Meanwhile, opponents of gun laws often accuse the proponents of manipulating a mass tragedy in order to further strengthen their fight. Gun ownership has been a tradition within the united states since before the country itself was formed.
Why gun control laws don’t work How do you feel Knowing your kids are not safe at school or if you are a student how do you feel that you know you are not safe at school. According to Aaron Bandler ”The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they 're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones”.
Gun control is what restricts people from buying and using guns, but these laws are not strengthened at the extent they need to be strengthened. This leads to many people getting these guns and using them to cause mass shootings all over the U.S. For example, according to the Council on Foreign Relationship, a news article that covers major world issues, in 2017, mass shootings at a music festival in Las Vegas and at a church near San Antonio have rekindled the gun control debate (“U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons”). The fact that gun control is still not tightened is a huge margin and error, and still causes mass shootings as we just covered. Many people have said that we should not allow guns to be purchased, which would seem like the logical option. However, according to the same source, Council on Foreign Relationship, some states, such as Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify
However, gun control is highly ineffective in areas that gun control has been enacted in the country. As well as “Gun Free Zones” being centralized as high-target opportunities
Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.
Gun Control Gun control has become a polarizing and controversial issue around the globe. There have been many reported issues of mass shootings both in schools and in the public, making it a hot button issue. Proponents argue that, if the government strictly controls the ownership of guns, such tragedies can be prevented. Most Americans have an obsession with guns because the law allows them to do so. Therefore, they are always ready to scoff at anyone trying to control gun ownership.
Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.
The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes.
As gun advocates have long insisted—suddenly reversed itself and ruled that the individual ownership of handguns was illegal, there would be no practical way for a democratic country to locate and seize those guns. That is why many gun control advocates, and particularly advocates of a total gun ban all together. The U.S. is becoming more like Canada, whe4r there are far fewer guns per capita and where most guns have to be registered with the federal government. To also consider at Canada homicide rate is one-sixth of that of the U.S. barring a decision by the American people and their legislators to remove the right to bear arms from the Constitution, arguing for applying the Canadian approach in the U.S. is
Guns are just a tool, like knives and hammers and it completely depends on the people on how they use it. People who support guns and arms say that the Second Amendment secures individual’s right to carry guns with them and that gun rights is needed for self-protection, and was intended for military to have peace and defend the country if needed (Spitzer, 70). Most of the Americans use guns as a source to protect themselves and they believe that gun ownership prevents crime. A study conducted on November 26, 2013 showed that bans on weapons did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level (Lane, 5). Moreover, even if the rules and regulations are executed on gun control, not all criminals obey the law.
For example, when perpetrators use high capacity magazines or assault weapons, it results in 47% more deaths (Everytown Research). Not allowing these high powering magazines to be sold or having higher regulations to who they are sold to, can decrease mass shootings. This would result in a safer environment. Similarly, bettering the control of who the guns are being sold to would prevent the guns from getting in the hands of the wrong people. For instance, requiring yearly background checks for anyone who purchases any type of gun would add more control to these weapons being in the proper hands.
Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states.