Banning Handguns is not right Handguns can be easily concealed, so they are usually the weapon of choice for for people to protect themselves. But, they are also the weapon of choice for criminals. Since handguns are easy for criminals to steal, handguns are almost always available on the black market; this makes handguns a solid good choice for criminals. The majority of crimes involving firearms are stuck on the fact of using a handgun; this is a serious problem in America today. Although most would agree that something must be done, no one seems to have the answer at this point. Some gun control supporters believe that completely banning handguns is the best way to protect citizens. However, banning handguns fails to protect people because …show more content…
There are several cities that have employed handgun bans in the past, and the results were not promising. On September 24, 1976, Washington, D.C. placed a ban on all handguns; the ban was later overturned on June 26, 2008. Under the regulations of this law, no one other than a police officer was permitted to own a handgun. Authors Agresti and Smith (2010) state that “during the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.” Clearly, banning handguns in D.C. did not reduce the amount of murders and crimes that were committed, and the number of murders actually increased drastically. Gun control supporters would argue this information by saying that the statistics are misleading , and that it is necessary to consider other factors such as the changing of times as well as the rise of drug and gang violence. They may have a point, but as Washington, D.C.’s murder rate increased by 73%, the rest of the United States as a whole experienced an 11% decrease in murders (Agresti & Smith, 2010). This is difficult for them to explain. A second illustration of the ineffectiveness of banning handguns is that of Chicago, Illinois. In 1982, Chicago passed a ban on all …show more content…
When an individual is responsible and trained properly, handguns are easily the most effective form of self-defense, and a handgun ban takes this option away from them. John Stossel (2008), who is a nationally well known newspaper columnist, as well as a journalist and reporter for Fox News Channel, explains that laws against guns are really laws against self-defense, and mandatory gun-free zones are in actuality free crime zones. Handgun bans will not stop criminals from acquiring guns; they will, however, prevent a law abiding citizen from buying a gun for self-defense. While he may be a little extreme in stating that laws against guns are laws against self-defense, he does have a good point. Banning handguns leaves citizens with less self-defense options. When people are stripped of the most effective form of self-defense, they are vulnerable, and this is a serious problem. Stossel (2008) is right about gun bans preventing law abiding citizens from using guns in self-defense, and this gives the advantage to the criminal. A law abiding citizen will not break the law and own a handgun if they are banned, but a criminal will. If an individual desires to rob a bank or murder someone, he or she is not going to be worried about breaking a gun ordinance. Handgun bans remove an extremely valuable self-defense
Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access.
Firstly, the claims that guns contributing to higher crime rates are completely over exaggerated. Most people are spoon-fed by the mainstream media that guns contribute to higher crime rates. In fact, in large cities like Chicago it has been proven that laws like handgun bans have worsened crime rather than alleviate it. When they did this in Chicago, politicians were hoping that this would bring crime levels down (Peterson 25). In the midst of all this, everyone as soon as the politicians proclaimed it would work, was singing their praises and saying that it would, or so they thought. So did the handgun ban succeed? Not necessarily, the article A Splendid, Precarious Victory proves this point. The author Dan Peterson provides very gut wrenching statistics. It states, “in recent years, while the handgun ban was in place, the percentage committed with handguns has consistently been 70 percent or more” (Peterson 25). Clearly, this proves that the mainstream media, anti-gun groups and politicians have distorted the truth about just how hazardous gun control is. This disturbing information should be a wake up call to those who feel that gun control works. Finally, this proves that gun control is unproductive. These kinds of laws ...
New York Times writer Jeff McMahan argues in his 2012 article, “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough”, that the United States should ban gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely. (McMahan, 1) McMahan creates his main argument around the idea that when more and more citizens become armed, “criminals work to be better armed and more efficient in their use of guns.” (McMahan, 1) Ultimately, he argues that although some with guns may be safer than if they were without the guns, but the without guns become much more vulnerable. So why not just arm everyone with guns as gun activists would say, then wouldn't everyone be safer? No. As McMahan points out, “When more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would have once have got in a fistfight
The Economist (2015) article also states that since Obama’s election into office, there has been 450% increace of American gun makers Smith & Wesson’s share price.
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.
Guns and crime are two words that people tend to relate, some people say more guns means more crime, and others say less guns is more crime. One thing is for sure, the current gun control measures are not working. Two articles, one by John C Moorhouse and Brent Wanner, another one by William J vizzard, take this topic and convey their own opinion about it. In their article, “Does Gun Control, Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, Moorhouse and Wanner, come to the conclusion that Gun Control doesn’t reduce crime. Moorhouse and Wanner, believe that the current gun control measure fail to make any difference, on the contrary, more crime is increasing gun control. Likewise, “The Current And Future State of Gun Policy In The United
We have all been through that pain of losing a love one either it was to an incurable disease, old age, and car accident or during time of war. Nevertheless, we have lost more love ones through gun violence. People have own guns since the time guns were invented, but “Are guns for everyone?” We have heard of gun laws throughout the whole United States of America some enforce those laws and other do not. The government enforce stricter gun control laws so the public can be safe, to stop gun violence, and to avoid incidents that can lead to the tragedy.
Gun control and gun banning have been a highly controversial issue since all the gun crimes hitting the news in America. Crimes like Sandy-Hook , Aurora , San Berdindno , and Oregon have lawmakers thinking about banning guns by enacting laws that allows them to. Lawmakers believe guns are the prime suspect in all these gun violence crimes and they believe it well reduce murder and violence. Banning guns well do nothing to reduce the mass killings. If a criminal has the intent to commit a crime nothing can stop them. Also a criminal doesn’t abide by the law that is why they are criminals. Gun banning would only disarm the legal law abiding citizen leaving them defenseless. Also the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constution and the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers have the courage take away one Constutional right they will have the courage to keep going, I have three logical reasons why gun banning well not work.
Author Asha Bendele talks about this subject in her article, “Loss & Hope.” She states that, “According to The U.S Census Bureau, it (Chicago) has the highest crime rate throughout the nation” (112). The average person in Chicago cannot legally get access to a firearm, but yet people still are able to get their hands on them. This significantly proves that a gun ban will do nothing but hurt this country and make criminal activity rise. Most of those against the Second Amendment, want other major cities to model what Chicago has done with gun laws. Once these other cities begin to model themselves after the city of Chicago, we would immediately start to see an increase of violence, drug use and firearm related crime. Schools have also become victim to the “gun free zone” curse. Serious criminals know that, in these areas, there is no one that can stand up to them, which gives them plenty of time to commit these evil acts and get away unharmed. Author Grant Arnold discusses this in, “Arming the Good Guys: School Zones and the Second Amendment.” He states, “Policies making areas ‘gun free’ provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren 't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it 's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law” (487). We need to realize that “gun free zones” are really just an area for the people there to be sitting ducks. The last thing we ever want to see on the news, is the death of a child who was unprotected due to these laws. The only way we can ever think to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
Gun control activists claim that banning handgun purchases will reduce murder and other gun related crimes. However, cases where handguns were declared illegal were shown to be ineffective. During the years in which the Washington, D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower (Agresti and Smith). Not only in Washington, D.C. was this banning of guns unsuccessful, but also in Chicago. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect (Agresti and Smith). Chicago has recently been named the nation’s murder capital by the FBI and had about as many murders in 2012 as the entire country of Japan, further demonstrating how these ordinances are ineffective. More than 8.5 million Americans legally carry concealed handguns, yet only at a rate of less of 1% do they commit fire...
Imagine you are woken up to a noise in your home at 2:00 a.m. An intruder has broken into your home and is armed with an illegally obtained handgun. Guns are outlawed where you live, so you have no way to defend yourself. A call to the police might work, but the police are ten minutes away. In this situation, ten minutes could mean life or death for you and your family. What are you going to do? You do not have very many options. Banning guns is a very illogical idea because not all murders involve guns, guns are used for recreation and hunting, and criminals do not obey laws. Gun control laws have been starting to become more prominent in American culture as a result of the increase in the number of mass shootings around the country. These laws do not necessarily decrease the murder rate, and in some cases, banning guns has resulted in the murder rate increasing, which defeats the whole purpose of the gun ban.
Justin King once stated that “The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing”. The United Kingdom tried a 15 year ban of guns and all it did was increase the rate of crimes. From 1990 until the ban was put into work the homicide rate went from 10.9 to 13 per million. After the ban was there for a while the homicides reached to 18.0 in 2003. In the same year the UK flooded the country with over 20,00 cops so the homicide rates would decrease. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, gun rights activist, once said that "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them”. While the country takes its time to check and take away every gun that is legal and ignore the fact that just like there are legal guns there are illegal guns as well. Taking away the legal gun would be like unarming everyone to be useless when the time to defend themselves comes.
“It’s not gun control we need, it’s sin control” (Si Robertson). The government can’t control what people do with their firearms or who has them in their possession. Gun control does not decrease crime. With or without guns people will still find ways to harm others and even with a gun ban people will still find away to either make or buy a gun illegally. With a gun control law in place there is no good way for citizens to protect themselves. Even though some may say it that it will stop some of the crime, there are many reasons that prove that gun control doesn't decrease crime.
Research shows that guns are used much more often to prevent crimes then they are used to aid crimes. Therefore, laws that hinder the ordinary citizens right to self-defense with a fire arm tend to cause a net increase in crime. (Connell, Shaun) Gun control advocates want to take the most important necessity for safety away. People say it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with the gun. This statement is very true, if a criminal with a gun comes to a movie theater to kill and the movie theater is a no gun zone. What do you do? There is nothing to do, that 's why gun control laws do not work to keep people safe. If there were no ban on handguns, then maybe you get a fighting chance for your life. Look at the recent Orlando shooting, 49 dead by one person. Your telling me if a couple of people in that club had handguns on them there would be a did rent outcome. Some pro-gun control advocates say that take guns away and the crime will stop, NOT TRUE! If you take guns away, it just puts more good people at risk because criminals will get the illegally like they already do. The safety of the people is what the government needs to focus on. Gun control acts are stupid because they are putting people at risk. I have known countless number of Samaritans that a gun has saved their life just pointing during a robbery or