The general assumption among these studies, is that gun control, one way or another, will have some sort of effect on levels of violence. Studies done within America suggest that the prevalence of guns among citizens curtails violence (Lott, 1998, 5). However there exists research done on a macro scale which supports the notion that prevalence of guns is positively correlated with the level of violence (Bangalore & Mersserli, 2013, p. 873). It is however probable that both of these theories are deficient, with some researchers suggesting that violence need be the independent variable rather than guns (Kates & Mauser). Describe shortcomings vaguely.
Biochemical epidemiology of cervical neoplasia: measuring cigarette smoke constituents in the cervix. Cancer Res 1987;47:3886. 19. Prokopczyk B, Cox JE, Hoffman D, et al. Identification of tobacco-specific carcinogens in the cervical mucus of smokers and nonsmokers.
Also if everybody was armed, Criminals and under-the-radar insane people would all want to perform heinous acts against society. In Gun Control by Earl Kruschke he states, “Someone who keeps a gun in their house for self-defense is more likely to injure themselves than to ward off an attacker” (Kruschke 34). That means owning a gun for self-defense and recreational use is statistically not worth doing, but it may offer some much needed peace of mind. Many citizens believe that owning a gun in a home can be an effective way to defend their
", but are the laws that the Obama administration are attempting to make paving the way for Americans being disarmed in the future? In this paper, I hope to help the reader realize that Obama does not want to take our guns, but the actions we are taking now may not be the best decisions for the present or the future. The majority of the time that gun control is discussed, you will hear points made such as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Anti-gun-control lobbyists argue that Obama blames mass shootings, homicides, and suicides on guns. Is Obama placing blame in the wrong place?
If they want to make any proposals they need to estimate what the real problem is behind the violent crimes and the answer is the people. We need to evaluate who should and should not own a gun because guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It is hard to change the overall statistic of high crime rates due to firearms because each state has its own laws for usage of firearms, and rightfully so. It wouldn’t be fair to make one universal law for the usage of firearms because in some states the violent crime right is much higher than it may be in other states. For example, in a peer reviewed article called, "Mandatory Sentencing And Firearms Violence: Evaluating An Alternative To Gun Control" there was a study done in the city of Detroit, Michigan.
Introduction The implementation of gun control in the United states is a large problem as it will take away the 2nd Amendment rights and would also stop the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals who obtain guns illegally. The right to bear arms is promised to citizens of the United States, and to put gun control into effect is to take away their Constitutional rights. Crime is very high in cities that have few gun control laws. However, the problem will not be solved by taking guns away from people who are registered and licensed to carry them. Americans have never responded well historically to prohibitions.
Homicide trends in the United States, 1980-2008 (NCJ 236018). Retrieved from website: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf • Huesmann, L. R., & Taylor, L. D. (2006). The role of media violence in violent behavior. Annu.Rev. Public Health, (27), 393-415.
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.
As one senior Republican aide put it, “This amounts to a purity pissing contest on who’s going to best protect the Second Amendment.” Gius, Mark. "Gun Ownership and the Gun Control Index." Atlantic Economic Journal 36 (2008): 497-498 MasterFILE Premier. 30 Oct.2013 In this article the author talks about the relationship between gun control laws and gun ownership rates in relation to crime rates. He informs his readers of the studies to determine whether gun ownership rates have any effect on criminal activity being that firearms are the leading cause of murders; and if by making gun control laws stricter will it lower the violent crime rates, and overall homicide rates.
Daniel B. Polsby, author of "The false promise: gun control and crime," simply states, "Gun control laws don't work" (Polsby 1 of 11). Polsby feels that "gun control laws are ineffective because [they] have not been proven to be a deterrent to crime" (1 of 11). James D. Wright states, in his article "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," that "If there were fewer guns around, there would also be less crime and less violence" (Wright 93). More gun control laws will only make it a hassle for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. They will not keep guns out of the criminal's hands because they have other methods of obtaining guns, such as the secondary market which is the illegal sale of firearms.