Ryan Clark Adeline Mitchell English 125 22 July 2015 An Annotated Bibliography Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense." StephenEWright.com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 July 2015. In the article Gun Control Laws Will Not save Lives, Wright analyzes various laws, supported by pro gun control advocates such as limitations on handgun purchases, as well as magazine capacity. He believes that new rules and restrictions on firearms, will have little to no effect on accidental shootings, as well as mass murders. The writer is a reliable source in the …show more content…
Dr. Reid Meloy gives the author his opinion on the mental health issue behind the national gun control debate. Dr. Meloy believes that mental illnesses cannot and should not be the excuse for gun violence. He is a noted psychologist who has written books and worked for the FBI and CIA, so I believe he is extremely reliable. Also, this blog was posted in February of 2015, so it is more recent than other articles I’ve read about my topic. I used the interview with Dr Meloy in my argument and rebuttal of the mental health issue behind this controversy. This man seems to be extremely educated which legitimizes my …show more content…
"Assault-Style Weapons In The Civilian Market." NPR. NPR, 20 Dec. 2015. Web. http:// project2engl1200.blogspot.com/2013/04/annotated-bibliography.html This article is about the dangers of being able to purchase military assault style weapons in the legal market. It includes an interview with Tom Diaz who is a policy analyst for the Violence Policy Center. He tells us that weapons like the one used in the Newtown massacre were originally created for military use only. I used the information in this article for one of my sources that argued how the option to purchase these assault style weapons should be illegal. This source is extremely reliable because it was posted right after the Newtown shooting and because it is published on NPR’s website. Elkins, Zachary. The New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web. This source is about the second amendment and clearly states what the Constitution has written about the right to bear arms. This article is from the New York Times and the author believes there is no need to revise or rewrite the Constitution. I used this source in my argument about the second amendment and in the rebuttal against it. Since this article is published by a man who is pro-second amendment, it shows me a side of the topic that I personally do not believe in. This helps me be more educated about the second amendment, that way my paper will not be so biased. The credibility is obviously valid since this is an article from the New York Times. I am assuming
Patrick said “N.R.A.spending on lobbying outranked spending by gun control groups by a factor of ten to one” for the 2012 elections. With all that money in politics there were no new gun legislation passed. Patrick describes a cycle whenever there is a public tragedy what precedes is massive scale arms sale from a possible new regulations from arms that never comes to fruition. The writer bring up the fact that in many stores such as c.v.s you can openly buy arms with small to no regulation. Patrick proclaimed there are approximately 300 million guns in the us alone .The
Passing gun control legislation that creates a universal background check and gun database system as well as passing mental health legislation that improves the health care system’s protocols and policies for assisting people with mental health disorders and that enacts counseling programs in communities and schools will decrease the likelihood of mass shootings in schools. The United States is bitterly divided. Issues of great concern, such as the rise of mass shootings, are partisanized. Both sides of the debate will not comprise or listen to what their opponents have to say. Groups from both sides can only agree that one innocent life taken from gun violence is one too many.
1. After reviewing the discussion resources, list three things you learned from them and explain why they are important. According to Statistics & Reports (2016), “Every three days in Arizona, someone dies in a domestic violence related incident” (para 1). This information is important to know so that one can understand how devastating domestic violence is in our state.
Multiple gun ownership by an individual has led to increased gun violence and mass shootings. This can be seen in cases where individuals with a history of mental illness or criminal record can obtain multiple firearms, leading to tragic consequences. The pew research center reported that about 66 percent of gun owners in the U.S. own multiple firearms, with few people owning as many as ten or more guns (Parker et al., 2017). This has raised distress about the potential for these individuals to use their excessive collection of firearms for violent and criminal purposes. For instance, the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years have often been conducted by individuals who own multiple firearms.
Seventy people are shot, twelve which lost their lives. How did this happen? How did the gunman obtain the weapon? This could have been prevented. A gun control advocate for the past 10 years, State Senator Jacqueline Collins, wrote the article “Gun control is long overdue,” published February 1, 2014 in the Chicago Tribune, in which she argues the need for stricter gun control laws.
A decrease in incidence of gun-related violence has also decreased in the US during the time when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was in effect. There are two arguments dominating the gun control issue. The anti-gun control people believes that the problem is with the people not with the guns and imposing heavier sanctions, harsher punishments on criminals, and more armed guards should solve the problem of gun violence. On the other hand, the pro-gun control people argues that the easy accessibility of firearms directly correlates gun-related violence and mass shooting (Lemieux, 2014). Both arguments have its merits, but in dealing with the gun control issue, it is important to put ethics and public health implications into consideration (Boylan,
There have been 141 people killed in a mass murder or attempted mass murder at a school since the Columbine Shootings. (Pearle) Sandy Hook Elementary School, Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and University of Texas at Austin are just a few examples of the tragic events that we are reminded of during debates on gun control. It is foolish to believe that having stricter laws on guns will control the school shooting epidemic. With this argumentative essay, I hope to provide multiple sustainable reasons why harsher laws on guns will not stop mass school shootings. To begin, after the shock of the tragic events, the world begins to analyze the shooter’s mental capacity.
‘’Guns are responsible for over thirty-three thousand deaths in the United States annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).. In 2014, the CDC reported that 11,008 of the 15,872 homicides committed in the United States that year involved a firearm. Of the 42,826 suicides reported that year, 21,386 involved a firearm. These statistics have inspired efforts at the federal and state levels to enact gun control legislation to reduce crime and violence’’(‘’Gun Control’’). According to the statistic guns are held for over 33,000 deaths in the United States.
However, a definite solution still has not been reached and America is split on the topic. The solutions currently enacted focus on guns, yet America still has a serious issue with gun related crime attacks, and fatalities. Solutions should not solely target the actual guns, because guns are powerless without the person who fires the weapon. The solution should not be to take away guns, but to consider the people who have access to them. Addressing mental health is the real solution to preventing gun violence and attacks.
In today’s society, one of the most alienating issues in American politics is gun control. More specifically, the issue is whether or not guns should be banned in the United States. Some people would say that guns should be banned because it would reduce crime as a whole and keep citizens safer. These people, enthusiasts of stricter gun laws, fear being safe in their country where there are so many people who have access to guns. Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety.
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.
Gun Control in America Gun control in America is a highly debated subject. James Wilson speaks against gun control in his article “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer”. Gun laws need to be more restricted. Gun control reform is needed to safeguard children and prevent access to those with mental illness and a criminal background. Wilson talks about the shooting at Virginia Tech using it as a platform to talk about people not weapons being responsible for the tragedy.
This paper also provides an interesting solution to gun violence; instead of already proven ineffective gun control laws, these authors suggest looking at why these laws are ineffective. Planty, Michael, and Jennifer
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.