More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control can reduce crime essay
Does gun control work research thesis
Is gun control an effective method of reducing crime argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Restrictive gun controls can be a bad thing for current gun owners, and people looking to own a gun. My first reason against such restrictive gun control is that gun control laws do not prevent crime, gun ownership does. My second argument against gun control laws is that gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense, and they can deny people a sense of safety. My third and final argument against gun control is gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. These prior reasons and my following justifications will hopefully change your point of view on this subject. Gun laws can be a bad thing. I believe that gun control laws do not prevent crime, gun ownership does. What I mean by this is that
Some people believe that guns should be heavily regulated. In fact, According to Handgun Control ¨laws such as the Brady Act, which requires background checks on gun buyers, have prevented four hundred thousand felons and other prohibited purchasers from buying handguns.” These laws have done their job. This system still has its flaws. They are trying to fix a system that is not broken and usually when someone tries to fix something that is not broken they break it. Also, when there are new laws for gun
Gun control is an important issue in the United States. The big issue with gun control is some people want stricter gun laws. On the other side of the argument people that supports the usage of a firearm thinks that it is an individual’s right under the Second Amendment and guns are needed for self-defense.
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.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
So even with all the shootings and random acts of violence, gun control laws should not happen because people will be safer with guns around. It seems as though the government has not looked at the ways that guns can provide safety. Also how gun control laws are not working in those areas that have them. Even though guns get a bad reputation by the government and gun control supporters as being dangerous, I think that they are necessary for obvious reasons, and that gun control will not help stop those violent crimes.
Gun control, in and of itself, is not evil or even a bad idea. The biggest issue is that, for the most part, it is not particularly successful.
Gun control is both a crime issue, as well as a safety issue. It can range from moderate to extreme. Gun control goes as back as the 17th century where Japan was using guns for war making as to current tragedies occurring in schools. Guns have never disappeared, they have only multiplied in numbers to numerous amount of guns, ranging from small to big. Gun control isn't only a problem but it can also be solution depending on how it is being used and the person using it. Gun control can be controlled with many methods but in the end it matters how the person is going to use the weaponry.
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.
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
Proponents of gun control generally argue that widespread gun ownership increases the danger of gun-related crime, homicide, and suicide. Opponents argue that gun control does not reduce gun-related injuries, murder, or suicide, and some argue that certain regulations violate individual liberties.
Since people think gun ownership discourage crime then that is it. They think if they have guns with them then, they are more safe. It may sound like it is the truth, it may save yourself, however, people with not a gun is not going to be safe because of the gun ownership people. Third pro side of the gun control is High-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder. According to the Mother Jones investigation, high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%. If the constitution passes laws on high capacity magazines guns, then it will reduce the gun ownership. It proves that these guns are making people from killer into a massive killer. People are inspired by others. When an individual sees other people using a gun, then, they become interested to use that machine too because that is the nature of human. Con side of the third gun control law is Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for
Gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding people and it does nothing to stop criminals from buying illegal guns, who are unlikely to obey the law and register their guns at all. Most of the time the term gun control is improperly used. The definition of gun control is the government regulation of possession and use of firearms by private citizens. The government is using it as way to take our right to bear arms away from us.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...
Most people agree that gun control is a good thing. Guns are dangerous and should be kept out of the hands of the wrong people. But the Second Amendment provides a clear statement on what the government position with regard to gun control should be. But the regulations now are starting to conflict with the amendment. This would be acceptable if crime has been drastically reduced. But that is not the case. The only effect gun control laws have are to punish the common citizen. There should be restrictions as to who can purchase a firearm, not what types of firearms one can purchase. This would ensure that criminals are left out, but the people that are legally able can have no restriction on their rights.