Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the disadvantages of widespread gun ownership
Gun control and crime rates
The consequences of gun control
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“The most effective way to avoid tragedies like this is not to start an arms race among teachers/students.This quote basically states that teachers should not be able to carry an armed weapon on them. I predict that the more guns we have in America, the more deaths and shootings we would have.
Some people say the more guns we have, the less crime there will be, but I say that that isn’t really true. Nearly half of Americans keep a gun in their home, and the majority say the main reason they do is to defend themselves. A correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg concludes ”That with so many guns already in the hands of Americans and the police incapable of protecting us, the situation is pretty much hopeless, so we’re probably better off arming ourselves
…show more content…
There in fact, rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home increases the risk of violent death in the home. John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, explained “It’s hard to make the case, as some have done, that right-to-carry laws will lead to an enormous increase in violence.” The reason why we have so many mass shootings and the US has a higher homicide rate 7 times bigger than other developed countries, is because we don’t allow enough concealed carry of firearms. A question was also, brought up in the article, “ If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?” More than 1,500 murders, 4,000 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults “would have been avoided yearly” if more states adopted right-to-carry …show more content…
For real the only way to stop the incident would have been to prevent the offender from getting guns in the first place. “Of course the more guns there are, the more deaths you’re going to have.” Some people argue that the more guns there are, the less violence there will be. Guns can be used to do evil, but guns can also be used to do good. Twelve years ago, Matthew Shepard’s murder Jonathan Ranch launched a national movement when he wrote an article for Salon arguing that gay people should arm themselves against violent bigots. Some moderate gun-control activists, have trouble accepting that guns in private hands can work effectively to counteract violence. Do we want to live “In which the answer to violence is more violence, where the answer to guns is violence ?” The other side is wrong because they say that, “Guns can do evil and good?” But that's still more violence either way you look at it. They also say that, ”Gun ownership with Stricter Controls Could Reduce Gun Violence.” Now They say stricter gun controls could reduce gun violence, but it really may not because there still will be violence
Tragedy after tragedy, people find themselves mourning over the lives lost. And over and over again, they look back to see how they could have prevented it. People continue to argue and constantly debate what actions should be taken, and while doing so, more and more people lose their lives at the hands of gun violence. It’s clear to see that not much has been done to keep these weapons out of the wrongs hands: the shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech have shown that. What would happen if there were to be another devastating shooting to occur? How would people react? Or would they just argue some more, while the wrong people can still easily get a hold of guns? The only way they can ever gain control of anything is by controlling the source of the problem, where people are able to freely purchase guns without restrictions. In order to reduce gun-related crime, unlicensed gun sellers should be required to run background checks on their customers.
In a world full of hatred and hostility, gun control may seem like an easy fix to the ongoing issue of mass shootings and murders in the United States, but in reality placing restrictions on guns will not eliminate the problem entirely. Nicholas Kristof argues about this issue in his article, “A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths,” posted in 2015 in the New York Times. Kristof claims that instead of banning guns entirely we should learn how to coexist with them. He argues that for change to occur throughout the world, it would be nearly impossible to rid the world of guns and that evil will always remain, but serious government threats could potentially eliminate this problem. Kristof builds his credibility by including statistics, incorporating
Michael Eisinger an eighth grade science teacher says, "If a gunman is going to cause violence in a school, they are going to have the element of surprise," "My guess is that they would still be able to shoot teachers, students or whoever else they wanted before some sort of coherent response materialized. (Huffington Post) Arming teachers isn’t going to solve the problem. We still will end up with deaths in schools. The gunman may decide to take the professors gun as well, which will result in the enemy having another harmful weapon.
One of the biggest debates in education is how to respond to gun violence in schools. According to BBC, “There were 64 school shootings in 2015” (BBC). One response to the rise in gun violence in schools is to arm teachers. Even our President has mentioned “giving a bonus” (Davis 2) to teachers that The fact that the idea of arming teachers is even being discussed is disappointing. Bringing more guns into a school is not the answer to gun violence. Most people that defend the idea that guns will “help” keep schools safe have basically three points: (1) teachers will be trained in gun safety, (2) it helps deter potential school shooters, and (3) it will make the students feel more safe. Even though there is some truth to those points, I think that the cons of arming teachers vastly outweigh the pros of arming teachers.
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes 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 “Vulnerable Schools Need Protection: Guns, Training For Teachers may be the answer”, published in a 2008 edition of the Chicago Tribune, David McGrath argues that some teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon for protection. First, McGrath states that if a random psychotic gunman were searching for someplace to attack, his classroom would make an easy target. He feels that if he was trained and armed, his class would not be trapped without a chance of survival because he would be able to defend against the gunman. Sec...
Multiple mass shootings such in Aurora, Colorado, Roseburg, Oregon and Newport, Connecticut has sparked massive gun control disagreement. The media has influenced two point of views regarding this topic. One side argues that increasing gun control decreases casualties of mass shootings, while the other side claims decreasing gun control increases self-defense. In a US News article by Susan Milligan, she argues that “although gun control does not stop criminal activity, it decreases accidental deaths and suicide”, thus saving lives. LA Times writer and social policy professor, James Wilson claims gun control does not solve gun violence and makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Both authors use language to convince the
Despite Norway’s strict requirements in order to own a gun, they couldn’t prevent a mass shooting that took the lives of 77 people in 2011 (Masters). One thing you don’t hear very often from the leaders of our country, is the idea that more guns could prevent shootings. In the United States, we have “gun free zones,” which include schools and other public places. In these areas, guns are strictly prohibited, and instead of preventing shootings have actually became a target for them.Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “found that 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 have taken place in designated gun-free zones” (Blackwell). The author of “Ban gun-free zones,” Ken Blackwell claims that those who commit mass shootings want the publicity, and will go where they know they can do the most damage, because the more serious the shooting is, the more publicity it will receive. Blackwell goes on to say, “most mass shootings don’t end until the police arrive. Killers typically have several minutes to slaughter as many victims as they can without fear of interference” (Blackwell). John Lott, the author of “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,” backs up Blackwell’s claims of mass shooters targeting places where guns are prohibited. Lott uses evidence from mass shooters themselves as his evidence, and one very recent tragedy is the shooting in a Charleston, South Carolina church, in June 2015. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, cited by Lott in his article, the shooter told those around him about his plans to carry out the shooting. His original plan was to go to the College of Charleston, but apparently veered away from the college when he realized that there was heavily armed security, obviously settling for the Church. Another example is James Holmes, who committed a mass shooting in a movie theatre. Holmes had what Lott referred to as a
“I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets”, quoted President Barack Obama ("Barack Obama on Gun Control", n.d., para. 3). The debate on whether stricter gun laws will help deter crime has gained much attention since crime rates started to increase. Many research studies show that stricter gun laws are very effective at inhibiting crime. Arguing on the affirmative side, stricter gun laws will help deter crime by banning ownership of military-style assault weapons, by banning weapons with high-capacity magazines, and by creating new gun regulations that delays the process of gun ownership while significantly limiting weapon access at the same time. If stricter gun laws are incorporated into the system, we will be able to envision a bright and crime-free future ahead of us.
The conversation of gun control and gun regulation has been a great debate over the decades. NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, in his speech on Newtown Shooting that occurred on December 21st, 2012, addresses the topic of gun control and argues that guns are not the cause of gun violence. LaPierre's project is to instead of gun control and decreasing the numbers of guns, increase the numbers of guns to solve the problem of gun violence. On the other side of debate, an American journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his journal, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" argues that guns are the cause of gun violence, but they should not be banned. Kristof's project is to regulate guns with many cautions. While these two authors have different arguments and projects, they use similar strategies to advance their claims. This paper will focus on the way each author strategically uses compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem-solution to advance their claims and how effective these strategies are used.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. To many people gun control is a crime issue, to others it is a rights issue. The US should not adopt stricter gun control laws because, it 's the best source of protection, laws will not control criminals, and it takes away your Second Amendment rights. The majority of U.S. gun owners does not represent a threat to society ( Gun Control Reform par. 1). The other part is either mentally ill or a criminal.
Gun violence is studied to determine its causes and how to reduce it within society. In many studies, it has been proven that firearm owners have used their weapons in self defense many times (“Methodologies for Studying” 2). When citizens were given the right to concealed carry, crime was reduced, especially violent crime (“Methodologies for Studying” 3). This has been proven in Florida, where the concealed carry law has been active since 1987. However, there will always be some form of danger around when guns are present. One theory is that often, a person killed in a homicide is an owner of a firearm, proving that being around guns causes crime (“Methodologies for Studying” 2). Studies say that even if firearms were inaccessible to criminals, they would not hesitate to use other legal weapons to commit acts of violence. Crazy people do not grasp reality the way normal people do. This prob...
John Luik author of the article “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime” and Sabina Thaler the author of the article “The Claim of Increased Gun Availability Reduces Crime is Unfounded” are two examples of people having different opinions on such a debatable topic. Both authors talk about guns taking people’s lives, Thalers article focuses on guns taking innocent people’s lives, and Luiks article focuses on guns being innocent people’s protection. Many gun supporters will say that more guns will bring down the crime rate. These same believers will give facts stating that the more guns in a state, the less likely gun owners will use them. “The chances of innocent people being the victims of violent crime, including murder, decrease—not increase—when access to guns is made easier” (Luik).
Guns are not all bad they provide protection and have recreational benefits. When guns get in the wrong hands is when violence occurs. Keeping them out of the wrong hands is more difficult than you would think; “30 to 40 Percent of all guns in circulation were purchased without a licensed firearm dealer.” Many stolen guns are used in crimes with 500,000 guns stolen on average each year (Ludwig, Cook 4). People argue that if you take away guns you can reduce violence but, violence can occur without guns. If you take away a childs toy are they going to stop having fun or find another thing to play with? Although guns make for more lethal crime they can also be used to fend off crimes(Ludwig, Cook 3). Guns are a necessity for many families in the United States, especially in the south. Many people believe that the number of guns affect violent crime rates. In the 1960s and 1970s the United states had an increase in violent crime rates; in the 1990s violent rates dropped substantially. The amount of guns owned by Americans increased every year(Burger, Warren 13). The amount of guns in circulation will keep increasing and the violent crime rates will fluctuate with other variables if this stays true. The Kansas City Gun Experiment, a test where poli...
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.