Gun Control Sample 1
In the wake of all the school shootings in the past two years gun control has become a more serious issue than before. Gun control has always been a concern in the United States, but not until the first major school shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado did this topic become a reality to the American public. In 1999, this massacre left fifteen people dead including the assassins. And just recently on March 5, 2001 did the tradition continue, when Charles Andrew Williams killed two classmates, leaving many injured in Santee California.
School shootings has become a very popular topic in the arguments for gun control. Gun control laws focus on making guns more difficult to obtain, as well as easier to trace (Smith 4). Although, many see gun control as a violation of their amendments. The second amendment in the constitution proclaims that as citizens of the United States, a person has the right to bear arms. Now, this amendment does not apply to everyone, those who have been convicted of a felony may not own a gun. One can take three sides in the political battle over gun control. The sides are for gun control, against gun control, or gun control with restrictions. It is all very confusing, but somehow the Democratic and Republican parties make it easier for us to understand. In their own words of course, and sometimes they might agree with each other. Sometimes….
The Republican Party believes in the second amendment of the constitution. The Republican Party also has the support of the NRA, which is the National Rifle Association. The NRA supported the election of out current president, George W. Bush who according to the NRA follows the standard gun owners line. Which are harsher penalties against gun-toting criminals, but no more regulations for worthy citizens who take guns seriously (NRA). The Republicans feel that law-abiding citizens should have the right to their protection against criminals. This is the Republicans point of view, make the consequences harsh and the number of violations will go down.
The Democratic Party has pledged their faith in the concept of gun control. The Democratic Party has support from law enforcement and such organizations as the Million Mom March for gun control. They feel that more laws restrict people from using their weapons in a harmful manner. They feel that tighter laws are needed and an increase in penalties (Phinney). They feel that gun companies should not be spared from liability lawsuits, and feel that guns should not be apparent in society (Smith 7). After the shooting of six year old Kayla Rolland, by her classmate, Bill Clinton called for a summit meeting, of Congressional leaders to discuss tighter gun control laws (Naghton, Evan,and Flint). This is the Democrats point of view, fix it before it is a problem.
I am personally against gun control, I think that I should have the right to own a gun for my protection. I will always be afraid to walk down the street at night, and I would never walk down a dark ally. I would never go running without the fear of having a gun being pointed at me; a small part of my freedom has been taken. Why should I be denied of this? I should be able to have a gun for self-defense, so that I would have a better chance of not getting raped.
I feel that adults who are responsible enough to understand the consequences of gun use should be able to not only own a weapon, but also collect as many as they want. I think that if children are brought up in a loving atmosphere, where parents are very involved in their life there should not be a problem. People make the most out of their life, and they have the ability to control what they can do.
I believe that the ones who are entirely responsible for the downfall of our society are very much messed up and have no excuses for what they do. I think that there are too many scapegoats for people today and everything they do is no ones fault but their own.
Gun Control Short Essay Sample 2
Were you aware that in the recent year of 2010, over thirty-one thousand Americans died because of guns? This would be equal to more than eighty-five deaths each day, three deaths per hour. What is the leading death in the major state of Wyoming you may ask? This would be guns. Have you ever believed that guns have gone too out of control in the US because of the lack of background checks? Gun control laws must be more powerful in the United States. This is because these laws play an extraordinary role in the number of deaths in the recent years in the U.S., it is very easy for anyone to purchase a gun privately, and because people in the U.S. take advantage of the second amendment.
Tragic loses are occurring in the U.S. daily that involve guns. From using the most recent data, approximately 33,473 hearts have stopped working because of gun use. If gun control laws were more effective, this number would be plentiful lower. While some may argue that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. Therefore, people are the cause of the deaths although they used guns. However, with stricter laws for gun use, those killers would find it much more difficult to get a hold of a gun and approach the victim. The result of that would include a decrease in the annual amount of deaths. A harsher gun control law does not have much negatives, in fact it will just save many more lives.
Purchasing a gun is too easy in the US today. This is primarily because of the loopholes and lack of background checks. One loophole includes buying a gun from a private seller. In this scenario the background check isn’t required. States don’t care enough to try to make these private selling illegal and impossible and in all states. Although private selling is very hard to stop, there should be a law to enforce legal consequences for private selling. Criminals and crazy individuals find it very easy to purchase guns. In fact, 40% of the guns changing hands in America are transferred privately without a background check. This increases the chances of criminals to commit more crimes with these weapons. It is terrible to think that even the mentally ill are able to purchase a gun with a snap of their fingers because of private showings. America needs to step up and enforce laws for private selling.
Americans take advantage of the second amendment every day. Yes we have the right to bear arms and yes those rights cannot and will not be easily taken away. But the point of the matter is that we have those rights to protect ourselves from violence not cause more violence and deaths. These rights should be more concrete in each state. In other words, gun control laws should not be as open ended as they are today because of the second amendment. Reinforcement of laws will not only cause less violence but it will stop the confusion of these laws. Furthermore, I’m not stating that the second amendment will be not taken seriously but it is not a bad idea to take the second amendment in deeper consideration and make it stronger with the laws to create a better environment in our country.
There would there be more positives than negatives in creating stricter gun control laws. Less strict laws would just make the country worse. That’s why gun control laws must be stricter in the United States. This is because these laws play an extraordinary role in the number of deaths in the recent years in the U.S., it is very easy for anyone to purchase a gun privately, and because people in the U.S. take advantage of the second amendment. The U.S. needs to stop and think about our future with gun control.
Gun Control Sample 3
Crime has been a major issue in society. Gun crime has been on a rapid increase, leaving families to bury their loved ones, children without parent’s and in the case of Sandy Hook Elementary school, twenty five innocent lives lost. With resent activities, gun control has become an issue of constant debate. The issue of constitutional rights to bare firearm may need to be revisited in other to control the flow of firearms in the hands of criminals.
Gun crimes are on the rise in the United States and stricter policies need to be implemented to, curb crime by doing intensive background check, differ penalties for illegal firearm use and also protect one’s constitutional rights. How can crime be curbed? This is a question that’s on the mind of people who have been victims of gun crimes. There are many different types of crimes, but gun crimes have proven to be the deadliest of them all. The reality is guns are easily accessed by criminals because of the lack of intensive background check being done on these individuals.
A national database is needed to cross reference on all individuals to determine whether of not they are fit to carry a firearm. The reason why gun laws are deed to curb crime, it’s because if there were a federal gun control law and a database set up that allows cross referencing nationwide, guns would least likely be sold to individuals with a criminal history. Some may debate that an intensive background check on individuals may not decrease the crime rate.
This may be true in some aspects because individuals may find other nears to find firearms from other countries. If a criminal is allowed to purchase a firearm from other countries then background check needs to be done on a larger scale. To handle this issue, aground checks need to be done on a worldwide manner. Not only will this venture protect the United States, but will also benefit other countries who are dealing with large amounts of gun crimes. It is essential to have these measures in place to aid in the prosecutions of criminals.
So many families bury their love one’s because someone did not take the time to do their homework on the person they are making a purchase to. The question is “Can intensive background check be ignored? ” No!! It has become an essential part of fighting the flow of illegal guns being used by criminals. It’s important to know who owns this firearm and where they can be located in the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. When someone commits a crime what are the penalties one may ask.
The penalty should fit the crime, taking into consideration what the consequences of those actions can lead to. In the case of guns, the consequence of use is someone’s life being taken, paralysis based on where the individual was shot and also living in constant fear that going out may lead to one’s death. No one should live their lives wondering if they went to the store, will they make it back home. No one should feel that because they are dressed in a certain way that they are automatically targeted as a victim.
No child should go to school and not make it home because some lunatic came into the classroom and started firing. These are the reasons why stiffer penalties are needed to curb gun crime. Getting caught with an illegal firearm should be an automatic sentence of life in prison. The fact that someone is capable of walking around with an illegal firearm should the intention of the person. When arrested, some may Implicate toners Ana tanner snouts De measures In ten law to deal Walt ten toner individuals that may be implicated.
For example, If Jack gets arrested carrying a firearm that he claims belongs to Jill, then law enforcement needs to investigate the ownership of the firearm and if it can be proven that Jill does own that weapon, she should be prosecuted along with Jack. Some laws may already make provision for this, but law enforcement at times can be a bit lazy and may settle on one prosecution. This need not be the case because the unprotected individual gets a chance to purchase another firearm illegally and will eventually go out and commit a crime using that firearm.
Penalties should be stiff and examples need to made of individuals. The laws should be implemented and taken so serious that criminals should have a clear understanding that carrying and using an illegal firearm will cost them their freedom and possibly their life, if the death penalty is implemented. Many may have argued that gun laws may impact the 2nd amendment. “Patrick J Charles said the amendment was adopted in 1791”. The second amendment should be protected and individuals should be given every right to bare legal arms.
Implementing gun laws does not mean that the 2nd amendment should be impacted. Implemented gun control laws only would only impact individuals who disobey the 2nd amendment. Then 2nd amendment covers individuals who own firearm’s legally. Gun control laws would impact individuals who has purchased, used or sold guns illegally. The argument may be that individuals who have obtained their firearms legally may use this excuse to commit crimes. There should be laws to protect people who have legal weapons but there should also be laws that will prosecute them if evidence shows that they acted in ill faith.
Overall gun control laws re a necessity in society today. Families are burdened with burying their loved one because this country does not work in unity to handle the issue of gun. It’s about time that law makers set aside their own personal benefits and look out for the people like, Tramway Martin, the Columbic victims, Dylan Hockey, Victoria Sotto and all the other victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy. This people had to right to be with their families today. Dylan Hockey should be running around playing outside on this beautiful spring day.
Gun Control Sample 4
Gun control entails the policies and laws that are aim at restricting the acquisition and use of a gun by citizens of a given country without a justified cause. Gun control has been a contentious subject in the United States for a long time. Different people have diverse views concerning gun control. As a result, numerous studies have been conducted to determine the kind of relationship that exists between gun procession and crimes that are gun related. Gun control advocacy law is one of the most effective way of reducing gun related criminal activities, arguing from both the side of the offender, and the offended seeking protection. This paper represents the views and perceptions of people regarding the gun control policies.
A significant number of people argue that gun control policy is one of the most effective crime prevention policies. Restricting gun procession plays a significant role in reducing the number of guns that might land in the wrong hands, as a result, reducing crime. Most people contest to the fact that they are safer if they have ways of protecting themselves. Self-protection means that there should be minimal restrictions concerning gun control policies. It is widely evident that different people have dissimlar views regarding the effectiveness of gun control policies in mitigating crimes associated with gun procession. Proponents of the gun control policy argue that self-defense is one of the key reasons for implementing gun ownership. With the diverse perspectives, it is important to analyze both views in order to infer a strong conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the gun control policy.
It is arguably evident that crime related with the use of gun because of gun procession. This means that regulating the ownership of guns plays an important role in reducing gun related crimes such as robbery and homicides. The basis is that having an easy access to guns increases the rates of criminal violence. A reduction in violent crimes implies that few individuals will have the need to possess the guns for the purposes of self- defense or protection.
Advocacy for gun control should not base on the need for self-defense; rather it should aim towards reducing gun related violence crime. The argument for gun procession on grounds of self-defense is therefore not justified. In addition, there is no evidence that individuals who use guns for self-defense have not been subject to violent gun crimes. The gun control advocates foor public safety, through restricting gun possession rather than promoting public defense by allowing gun ownership.
There is strong evidence that associates increasing gun procession with increasing death rates and injury at the domestic set up. Homicides in the domestic set up accounted for about five million deaths in the past five-year period, with most of the reported homicides being because of the presence of a gun in the house. There is high risk for the occurrence of fatal injuries in cases where there is a gun within the domestic set up. The increases in the mortality rates and homicide crimes do not warrant the need for the procession of a gun. Definitely, restricting gun procession is one of the most effective strategies in controlling domestic violence and other domestic related crime such as crime of passion.
In conclusion, gun control is one of the most ways in ensuring public safety. Self-defense is not a justified cause to warrant gun ownership, since the individuals cannot be trusted with guns at their disposal. Implementing the gun control policies serves as an effective approach to fostering self-defense. This means that the state has the responsibility of ensuring effective implementation of gun control policies.
Gun Control Sample 5
Whether you are in favor of stronger gun control laws or you are entirely against them, you will need to state your case with a gun control essay at some point in your educational career. Luckily, there are a multitude of resources on help with writing gun control essays, and some sites even offer free samples and free entirely written papers on the subject. And while you may want to create your own article or essay, you still can use the resources that are available to you online. These resources primarily will share with you the finer points of both side of the gun control debate.
On the pro side, they will have useful data and statistics that show just how dangerous guns are today and how easily they can get into the wrong hands. The statistics may include the number of shootings each year and the percentage of those shootings that occur because someone purchased a gun through nontraditional means or via illegal channels. Or they might point to the whole issue of keeping our kids safer by preventing people from gaining easy access to guns and doing what has been become all too common in our culture: taking them out in public and wreaking havoc on the populous.
On the con side, gun control points could include the Second Amendment, which states that every man has the right to bear arms. It additionally could include information on the percentage of people who buy their guns through normal channels and who use them solely for hunting and protection purposes. There usually are statistics on this side of the gun control debate as well, including the number of licensed gun owners versus the number of gun owners who eschew the proper channels and buy their guns from illegal dealers.
Just like most debates that exist today, there are two strong and fervent sides of the gun control debate here. In your essay, unless you are asked to present both sides you have to pick one. Do whatever feels more natural to you, since you most likely have an opinion on the subject. Then use these gun control resources to establish an outline of your essay, including researching the finer statistics that will strengthen your case. Before you know it, your essay will be almost entirely written and you will likely have more insight into both sides of the debate too.
Marty’s Persuasive Speech Was About Gun Control Sample 6
Guns kill many guiltless people every twelvemonth. Some provinces require licenses for guns and some provinces do non. There are many Torahs put in to consequence to command guns. The chief two Torahs that will be covered in this essay are merely and unfair Torahs when it comes to gun control. ( A merely jurisprudence is a semisynthetic codification squares with the moral law. ) ( An unjust jurisprudence is that is out of harmoniousness with the moral jurisprudence ) significance that the” unfair jurisprudence is non a jurisprudence at all. ” Peoples have ever been interested in utilizing arms for assorted grounds. The Constitution lawfully established the right for any jurisprudence staying citizen to maintain and bear weaponries. yet advocates of gun control wish to steadily gnaw this jurisprudence through ordinance and statute law. Some people collect gun as aggregators while some use them for protection and others use them for runing. The term gun control is merely that. a steady relentless attempt to prehend control by come offing off at the borders of the jurisprudence until is gone wholly. While some people oppose the thought. others claim that the authorities should present tighter gun controls.
The first statement of the oppositions of rigorous gun control Torahs is that most people own guns to protect themselves. They claim that guns are necessary for self-defence because the constabulary are unable to halt violent offense. Oppositions further maintain that citizens maintain guns to experience safe and defend themselves and their households whenever the demand arises. Therefore. gun control Torahs disarm merely the guiltless people who obey the Torahs. Gun Torahs can protect people while the same jurisprudence can acquire person injured. due to self-defense. No jurisprudence should of all time be broken because they are here to protect the people. so they say. If everyone abided by this gun jurisprudence there will be no 1 in gaol for hiting person. There has to be something out at that place to assist everyone understand the significance of the gun jurisprudence. but there are ever the adversaries that make everything difficult to understand. How can person protect their household if they can non hold guns. but the enemy “law breaker” will acquire their custodies on one and do injury to person or even to their ego. By non being able to protect their household makes it difficult for person to stay by these gun control Torahs. Every adult male should be able to protect their place with a gun as long the guns is kept in a safe topographic point with kid cogent evidence locks on them.
Another statement put frontward by people who are against gun-control is that many people keep the guns for athletics and diversion. Harmonizing to the oppositions. these gun-owners are responsible citizens who do non mean to harm anyone. They further say that hiting and runing are athleticss which many people enjoy. and gun control take pieces from hobbyist and huntsmans. Hunters are merely seeking to supply nutrient for their households as a consequence of the gun jurisprudence their household might hunger. No one of all time think about things like that they merely think about how person can be injured or killed when it comes to guns. Shooting athleticss can be loosen uping but the gun jurisprudence makes them nerve-racking. Guns can truly be unsafe when it is put in the manus of the incorrect individual in incorrect in the incorrect head frame ; therefor gun Torahs affect everyone that deals with some kind of guns.
Most people think that gun control is absurd due to the fact that everyone doesn’t think the same manner. Most sportswomans is against gun control because before the jurisprudence came about they was able to populate free and non worry about the force these guns was doing. Hunters can’t hang their guns in the back window of their pick-up truck no more due to the control Torahs. There should be a background cheque done for everyone before purchasing a gun so everyone don’t have to endure for person else errors. Some huntsmans think that gun control Torahs are excessively stiff. Guns have been around for a long clip and truly had no limitations on them now huntsmans and sportswomans have to pay close attending to these Torahs so they won’t travel to imprison. Hunters think the gun jurisprudence is unfair. while everyone else thinks it is merely. ( An unjust jurisprudence is no jurisprudence at all ) makes it difficult to separate between a merely jurisprudence. Recreational usage for gun can be harmful to if person is utilizing that gun for the first clip. Traveling to the gun scope can be a emphasis stand-in for some people and mark pattern for others. Acerate leaf to state but everyone no affair of age or experience should cognize the gun jurisprudence if they traveling to be utilizing a gun.
Although some people oppose gun control jurisprudence. others support the thought because it may cut down the offense and inadvertent shots. The ground of gun control jurisprudence claims that non having a gun can diminish the homicide that is happing. They assert that most slaying victims are killed by pieces. It is besides maintained that in robberies and assaults. victims are more likely to decease when the felon is armed with a gun than when he has another arm. Most rappers rap about killing so if the childs start listening to this music they will get down seeking to be like the rappers. because immature hearers indulge into blame music. A gun can be purchased in my different topographic points and that’s how childs end up with them. Another ground why people oppose the gun jurisprudence is because if everyone was able to transport a gun most of these killing by guns would non be happing. Peoples must protect their ego at all clip because these gun Torahs can be for or against anyone.
Most homicides with guns involved lead to people traveling to imprison because they think they are bigger than the jurisprudence. people must larn that Torahs are here to protect citizens. Martin Luther King Jr was killed by a gun and he was a non-violent individual. Peoples should be more like Dr. King and utilize the ( non-violent ) attack to work out any job. An unarmed individual is prone to a homicide due to the fact they can’t protect them self against an armed person with a gun. The gun jurisprudence should assist people alternatively of aching them. Many offenses can be stopped if the people stop be selfish. Murders happen every twenty-four hours and everyplace but it’s up to the people to halt them or at least diminish the rate of them go oning. Guns should merely be used by the military at war clip but non to kill merely to frighten. Many people know the jurisprudence some merely think that it is put into consequence or pertain to the 1s that perpetrating these homicides.
The effects of gun control besides assert the stricter Torahs can forestall inadvertent hiting particularly among kids. Children have a inclination to play with their parent’s gun because they think it is a plaything. Parents should ever maintain their pieces in a safe with a kid cogent evidence lock in the trigger well of their gun. If all parents that own guns lock the guns up and maintain it off from their childs there would be less school shots. A batch of child can be easy influenced by violent picture games and Television shows that promote force. therefore the gun Torahs should be tighter. Most youths today instead are out in the streets with the incorrect crowd than at place larning how to forestall homicides or inadvertent decease due to gun control. Kids don’t know right from incorrect unless their parents learn them. A batch of childs lost their lives because the parents didn’t cognize how to procure their guns right. The gun jurisprudence is people should cognize if they want to have a piece. In order to make out and acquire the attending of the young person at that place has to be more parents acquiring involved in their kids’ lives and learn them about these gun Torahs if they got gun in their places.
To sum up. the oppositions of gun control believe that tighter Torahs restrict merely people who use pieces for self-defense or diversion whereas those who are in favour of gun control claim that guns cause more injuries than benefits. However. it is obvious that gun ownership is really hazardous. so it is necessary for the authoritiess to present stricter gun Torahs and educate people about the pieces. With stronger gun control Torahs. the offense and slaying rates will most likely lessening all over the universe. Gun don’t putting to death people it the people who is non gun jurisprudence educated that kills people. The gun control jurisprudence was put into consequence to assist the citizens non to kill off the population. but many people is still acquiring hurt or kill by person drawing the trigger on a gun.
Gun Control In America Sample 7
11,127 is the number of Americans killed in the United States last year with a gun. 381 is the number of Germans killed with a gun, which is the closest statistic country to the U.
S. Why is there so much gun violence in the U. S? What is so different in the U. S.
that gun crime is so prevalent? What can we do to change it? All questions Bowling for Columbine poses in the film documentary by Michael Moore. Like the documentary, there is not one simple answer and there are no easy solutions. Viewing this film for the first time, I learned how appalling gun violence is in the United States.I had no idea how simple it was to purchase a gun.
I also learned about how the U. S. trained Osama Bin Laden and all the weapons that we gave to other countries that we are not fighting against. I also learned about reasons why people think the Columbine shootings occurred. The film presents some theories about gun violence but does not give us an answer.
In my opinion, I feel the film was meant to make us aware of gun violence and to inform us of things that may contribute to gun violence but I think it is up to us as a society to do something about it. Why is gun violence so widespread in the United States?Theories have been made and fingers have been pointed, but I feel that there is neither a single reason nor a simple solution that can make gun crime go away. It is not the our history that makes us so violent, although many would like to think it is, other countries have violent histories and still they are not killing each other the way we are. Many would argue that slavery and the genocide of Native Americans is what makes us so violent. As horrible as those things are, other countries have violent pasts as well; Germany and the holocaust, but they are not killing each other with guns like the U.
S. In the U. S. we have the poorest society, highest crime rate, and highest divorce rate, above any other country.
The divorce rate is at 54%, which is over half of all marriages. We are driven by society to succeed; the pressure that we place on ourselves is very high.The pressure that we are placed under causes a great amount of stress in our society. Everyone in the U. S.
is not born with the same luxuries as others are. 1% of the U. S. controls 90% of America’s wealth. The pressure we put on people who are less fortunate and the way we portray violence in the media, contributes to he alarming amount of crime in the U. S.
The murder rate has gone down 20%, but media coverage of murder has gone up 600%, and when the media is showing these murders they are usually showing African Americans. I think that this only brings about more racial tension in America. The media sells fear and every day we are being sold products based on that. If we do not wear their make-up we will not look good and in turn will be less successful, this is just one example among many that the media uses to instill fear in us.The fear of failure in the U. S.
s greater than in many other countries. If you have people that are under enormous amounts of pressure to succeed, causing them stress, it will drive them with fear; in return we put a gun in their hand. In the end bad things are going to happen. The fact that it is so easy to purchase a gun in the U. S.
is scary to me and I think that something should be done about it. Guns should not be easy to get and I feel that the U. S. needs to restrict the purchasing of guns. Society shapes our lives, it affects the decisions we make, the way we behave, and who we are as people.Poor people do not ask to be poor, white people do not ask to be white, and African Americans do not ask to be black.
If society does not change then how can we expect anything else to change? We need to change the way we treat each other, the way we see each other and the way we treat ourselves. We are Americans; we should be helping each other not killing each other. Our society has a lot of problems and until we find a way to change that I fear we will continue down the path that we are going.
Gun Control In America Sample 8
In 1988, handguns killed 7 people in Great Britain, 19 in Sweden, 53 in Switzerland, 25 in Israel, 13 in Australia, 8 in Canada, and 8,915 in the United States. These figures are shocking and there doesn’t seem to be a solution. Gun control is a problem that our country has got to face. (“Gun Control”).
One of the most alarming issues dealing with gun control is juvenile violence. A large percent of crimes committed with guns are by children. No one has yet been able to pinpoint the exact reason children committed such a terrible crime. Many experts feel that risk factors associated with juvenile crime are poverty, repeated exposure to violence, drugs, easy access to firearms, and unstable family life. All of these issues play a big role in the increase of juvenile crime. Possibly out of all of these issues the most important, is the deteration of the family. Many of these children are not being brought up in a nice environment at home. (“Reasons”).
Juveniles are not the only ones committing crimes with guns. Adults are just as guilty at contributing to the nations violence. It is even easier for an adult to purchase a firearm. Even if the adult has a felony, it is still easy for them to get a gun. There are many people willing to sell a felon a gun, if the price is right. If they can not buy one, they can easily pay someone to buy one for them. If an individual wants a firearm bad enough, chances are they will get one. (Brennen and Polsby 2).
Myth #1: Guns cause crime. There is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership increased by 45% while the homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10%.
Myth #2: Gun control laws reduce crime. Firearms have not been regulated in the United States for most the past thirty years. The number of firearms in private hands has increased continuously by millions per year. Yet the rate of crime, violent crime,
and homicide has shown no significant correlation.
Myth #3: Gun control laws stop friends from killing friends. Most murderers and victims of homicide have criminal records and they are likely to have other criminals as friends. While it is true that in many cases of homicide the offender and victim know each other, it is not true that these “friends killing friends” are the plain ordinary folks often portrayed in the anti-gun propaganda.
Myth #4: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, only 7% of criminals’ handguns were obtained from legitimate sources. Three-fourths of the felons report that they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released.
Myth #5: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. The Brady Bill waiting period imposes waiting periods on handguns, the least deadly type of firearm, while imposing no such restriction on much more deadly weapons such as rifles or shotguns. While handguns are preferred by criminals because of their portability and concealability not every criminal who planned to use a handgun will abandon his criminal plans when confronted by a waiting period.
Myth #6: Guns don’t work as self-protection against criminals. Guns are about as valuable to civilians as they are to police officers. As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. Every year potential victims kill between 2,000 and 3,000 criminals, and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only thirty times a year, compared to about 310 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1% of the time. Myth #7: Guns aren’t needed as self-protection. Approximately 83% of the population will be victims in their lives, and there is only one police officer for every 3,300 people.
Myth #8: Gun control laws are needed to prevent the purchase of Saturday Night Specials and “assault weapons.” Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1% to 3% of violent crimes; criminals generally prefer larger caliber and more expensive handguns. In the past fifty years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime, and no UZI has ever been used to kill a police officer.
Myth #9: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent gun accidents in the home. Many people mistakenly conclude that children die frequently in gun accidents and that sharp restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to address the problem. There are accidents that occur in the home, but that number has fallen dramatically. The death rate from firearm accidents is lower than that from accidental drowning, inhalation, and digestion of foreign objects.
Myth #10: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that armed citizens were necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. (“Gun Control”).
One of the largest groups of people that are affected by these types is minorities. Some minorities blame gun makers for their high crime rate. Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP is considering joining others that are filing lawsuits against gunmakers. Mfume was stated as saying, “We represent a significant consistency that is disproportional affected by gun violence.” (“Minorities”).
In 1995, there were a total of 35,957 deaths by firearms. There were 25,438 white deaths. There was a total of 9,643 black deaths. (“Death”).
Handgun Control Inc. is the major organization for lobbying, and introducing legislation on gun control. It is headed by Sarah Brady, wife of former White House Press Secretary James Brady. She also was the one that introduced a bill to congress about waiting periods. (“Gun Control”)
Gun control, as we know it, consists of the government restricting the ability of citizens to purchase weapons. The waiting period method of gun control is basically a two-step process. The first step in the procedure is that the person wanting a gun goes to his local shop to place the initial order. Then, he must wait one to two weeks while the government performs a small background check for past criminal activities. The problem with this method of gun control is that it stops the ordinary citizen from purchasing a gun on the whim, but it actually protects the common criminal. If a burglar enters a house with full intention to maim or kill; the innocent victim, who cant get a gun to protect his family because he was arrested for drunk driving seven years ago. This method supports the black market trade. (Pooley 15 and Larson 1).
Many cities are taking stands and suing gun makers.
They say that they are seeking compensation for cost incurred from gun violence. Many believe that gun makers intentionally feed an illegal gun supply by negligently marketing and distributing their products in states with weak gun registration laws. The overflow eventually leads to a large, unregulated tide of guns in states with strict gun laws. The states with strict gun laws claim that 90% of all gun violence comes from guns sold in other states. (Prichard).
Another group that is being targeted, is the video game manufacturer. Parents of three slain girls in the Heath school shootings are going after the manufacturers. They feel that particular violent video game is partially responsible for their children’s death. They claim that the video game taught the shooter how to be and excellent marksman. The boy had never used a gun, but was skilled enough to hit eight moving targets in only eight shots. Another fact that looks backup the parent’s belief is that of military training. Each year billions of dollars are spent to train police and military how to shoot. Video simulation is the best way to help overcome the natural resistance that most people have about shooting someone. Studies show that people are extraordinary susceptible to programming. One main difference between military training and video games, military instructions are constantly pausing the action, where the video game in constant action. (Blakemore).
Firearms are nowhere near the root of the problem of violence and arguably are almost completely separated from it. As long as people come in unlike sizes, ages, shapes, and temperament. If they diverge in their task for risk and their willingness and capacity to prey on other people or to defend themselves from perdition; and, above all, as long as some people have little or nothing to lose by spending their lives in crime, dispositions to violence will persist. (Polsby and Brennen).
Blakemore, Bill. “Creating Killers?” ABCNEWS. New York: 12 May 1998.
Brennen, Dennis and Daniel D. Polsby. Taking Aim at Gun Control. 30 Oct 1995.
“Death by Firearms 1979-1995”. Time Almanac. 1999.
Hollis, Harry Jr. The Shoot-em-up Society.
“Gun Industry”. Daily News. 11 Feb 1998. New York. 30 Sep 1999.
Larson, Erik. “The Story of a Gun”. The Atlantic Monthly. Jan 1993.
“Minorities”. Daily News. 21 Feb 1999. Washington: 1 Oct 1999.
Pooley, Eric. “Kids with Guns”. New York: 5 Aug 1991.
Prichard, James. “Fighting Back”. Associated Press. Paducah. 12 Apr 1998. 29 Sep 1999. *http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/daileynews/paducah990412.html*.
Gun Control Sample 9
Guns are there a right to all American citizens, or are they an out of date way of defense. In this paper you will find many examples of how guns are a right for Americans. Also necessary way of defense.
People who are for gun control, assume that when guns are taken away there will no longer be any gun related crime. This is far from the truth, in many places where strict gun control bills have been passed; the murder rate has risen by a huge amount. In the following paragraphs you will find many examples of how gun control just means more violence.
New Jersey adopted what experts described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966: two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the robbery rate had nearly doubled. Another example, in 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures on firearms its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 people per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, DC passed one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national rate dropped 2 percent. The defenders of the Washington law claim that it isn’t working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. However just across the Potomac River, in Arlington Va. has a murder rate less than one tenth of what Washington has?
In the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 of which have strict police on gun ownership. 20 percent of the United States homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington D.C. Respectfully each of these cities has virtual made it illegal to own a handgun. New York on its own has 20 percent of the armed robberies in the country.
These states are not only limited to the United States; Canada passed a gun control law in 1977. After this took place they saw an increase in armed robbery and burglary.
Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the entire world. The reason why it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their homes. Israel, is a country, which has an extremely low crime rate but is vulnerable to many enemies including terrorists? They depend on the of widespread civilian gun possession. There are many other examples of countries will low gun control and low crime violence. Also examples of countries with high gun control and high crime rate.
Another reason that people give for gun control is that it is not a constitutional right to own a gun. This statement is far from the truth, the second amendment, which states “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Note that the founding fathers made this the second right out of ten. Which means that it most of been of great important to them.
It is argued that the right to bear arms is conditional upon the need to have armed citizens as part of the national defense. Therefore, if the need for armed citizens were not need, the founding fathers would no have asserted the right.
In the modern era, supposedly the need is not there. Does this mean there is no longer any constitutional right to own guns? No, at the time that the constitution was written, “militia” had two meanings. The first one a “select militia” which was the forerunner of our modern National Guard. The second meaning was “general militia” which are all able-bodied men with arms. “Militia” means that any able-bodied person is able to own a gun.
The founding fathers strongly believed in the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms, and not just for defense against foreigners. People feared the new federal government and its standing army as much as they feared foreign invaders. As James Madison explained in the federalist Papers, the primary check on the government tyranny and an abusive army was citizens with their own arms. This still is a factor in today world, even though the armed forces have more weapons than the armed citizens do.
In an off note the Revolutionary War was sparked by the British attempt to confiscate the patriots’ privately owned arms at Lexington and Concord. Thus the notion that the founding fathers thought that the government had a no right to disarm peaceable citizens. The fact the founding fathers fought for the right to keep and bear arms.
Firearms are used in about 12 percent of violent crimes; it is unlikely that any kind of gun control legislation could remove more than a handful of those firearms from felons’ hands. There is no evidence that the disarmed criminals using them would not then turn to other weapons. All the gun control laws that are passed by the government will also not normally affect criminals. For the reason that they today get there weapons from unconventional sources.
The only thing that gun control bills really do is disarmament the peaceful people who own guns. In doing so, it takes away from that the normal citizen being able to protect its self from criminals.
There are many studies been done about why criminals acquire handguns. Most of these studied brought up the fact that they own them for self-defense, because they associate with other criminals and are likely to be victims. In a survey was given to imprisoned felons, 54 percent said protection was a very important reason for getting a handgun and 26 percent said that it was some what important. Only 25 percent said that the reason that they own handguns was to commit crime.
Over the years, police and other expert have changed their recommendations about how to deal with criminals. In early and middle 70’s, they advised cooperating with robbers and rapists to minimize chances of personal injury. Today, the people that gave that advice tacitly admit that it was misguiding. They now urge resistance in many instances, especially for rape victims. Studies show that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense.
Advocates of gun control have paid for several studies, hoping to prove that guns are not useful for self-defense. But every study has shown the opposite: Handguns are used at least as often in repelling crimes as in committing them and are particularly successful as weapons of defense. For This reason why 88 percent of the nation’s command-rank police officials disagree with the statement; “The banning of private ownership of firearms will result in fewer crimes from firearms.” Shunt the police know whether that gun control will stop criminals from acting out with a firearm. More than any other person for the fact that they are the ones who have to face these criminals on the streets.
In the 1960s a New York-based antigun group printed signs for its members to post on their homes, the sign read “ THERE ARE NO GUNS IN HIS HOUSE.” Lets just say these homes were robbed or burglarized more than another house. For the fact that criminals did not have to fear a gun in the house. Criminals do not have feared the police as much as they fear the citizen with a gun. An armed citizen kills 3 times as much criminals as the police does, a 2,000 to 3,000 criminals a killed a year by citizens. Americans use firearms for protect an estimated one million times each year. If we make guns illegal that is one million more crimes that will be susseful.
A survey has been done of 1,874 felons in 10 states, that they are more afraid of running into an armed victim then to running into the police. 42 percent reported they had encounter a victim armed with a gun, and 38 percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.
Another main reason that guns are needed for self-defense is that there are about 500,000 police officers in the United States. Adjusting for three shifts per day, vacations, desk duty, etc. That leaves about 75,000 police on patrol at any moment to protect 250 million Americans. That’s one police officer for every 3,360 potential victims. 1 per 3,360 that is a very bad average. Every year five million people are victims of violent crimes – murder, rape, robbery, or life threatening assaults. That would or could be stooped be a yielding armed citizen.
Supreme Court held a case in 1856 and decided that local law enforcement officers had a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person. In 1982 a federal court of appeals said: “…there is no constitutional right to protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendments or, we suppose any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: its tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” These rulings are consistent with the original intent of the founding fathers. They assumed that law abiding citizen would be able it fend for them self. This becoming impossible with all the gun control bills that are being passed.
Gun controls are issues that are facing the people in the United States today. As you have seen demistrated in this paper. Gun control does not take guns away from the criminals, it just take them away from the every day peaceful citizen, who need then for the self-defense.
I.Higher Crime with more Gun Control
C.Dealing with Criminals
E.New York example