More handpicked essays just for you.
Does gun control reduce crime argumentative essay outline
Does gun control reduce crime argumentative essay outline
Does gun control reduce crime argumentative essay outline
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Actor Dennis Quaid says, “Gun Control is as American as Football or Taylor Swift,” Rightly so? Gun control is bad for our society. Gun control laws do not prevent crime, in the least. Naturally, guns owned by law-abiding citizens make for a generally safer society. Switzerland has virtually no gun control laws and one of the lowest crime rates. People do not have a gun problem, they have a sin problem. People commit crimes with weapons other than guns all the time. Gun control laws attempt to limit gun ownership to law abiding citizens, but law-abiding citizens do not commit crimes. Gun control laws simply don’t work, since they don’t really appear to curb crime. Gun ownership is a human right just like freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson
First of all, gun control punishes only innocent citizens, not the dangerous felons. Criminals wanting to purchase a gun can easily obtain a pistol illegally from the black market, so gun control is practically useless to the unsafe villains who threaten public safety. Statistics show that in the U.S, 645,000 times in each year, innocent people ...
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 ...
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.
With all the shootings and random acts of violence, such as the shooting at the movie theatre in Colorado, or the Sandy Hook shootings, stricter gun control laws have been a hot topic in politics and the national mainstream media. The government thinks that gun control being stricter would help to make less of these tragic incidences occur. I am against this thought because I believe that the law-abiding citizens will be the only ones to give up their guns and criminals will then have an upper hand on the innocent. Even though banning guns is supposed to save lives, cities such as Chicago have already shown that stricter gun laws should not be passed because violent murders are still prevalent in these types of cities and strict gun laws have not worked like they were supposed to.
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.
“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.
Gun control was brought into play to protect citizens from criminals and lunatics who shouldn't have guns in the first place. But only 27 percent of the criminals who are in prison for crimes involving guns have obtained them legally (Henderson 23). If criminals can find guns illegally now, how is more gun control going to stop them from getting them later? Groups against gun control,the most dominant being the NRA (National Rifle Association), are afraid gun control is the first step in outlawing guns.
”(Gopinak, 2007, p. 458 ). This demonstrates that United States is just not inclined to take any action on gun control which is leading to deaths of children and adults. Some individuals believe handguns are not needed in American 's society. Then those who oppose gun control argue guns are a necessity to: hunting in the wild, self-defense, and it is part of the American culture. Furthermore, gun violence is having a vast impact on loved ones; losing a family member can have enormous affect socially, physical and mentally.
Is scary to think about family members or close friends dying innocently because they were victims of a gun shooting. The recent shooting at a 7-Eleven store, across from Cerritos College, has many people talking about gun violence. In America, on of the biggest issue is gun violence. Throughout the years, the gun violence in America has been increasing. Most of the time, the shootings occur at schools, stores and at public places where lots of innocent people get injured or dies. When a shooting happens, the news reporter, social media or at the front page of a newspaper talks about the problems with guns. There are two sides in this gun debate, one is making more laws and the other is more guns. Individuals must consider which side of the debate offers the greatest gain for the least cost. Looking back to laws, making more laws will not work because individuals will break the rules. Many will not stop until they own a gun, legally or illegally. Even though, some individuals do not favor the right to own a gun, owning a gun will determine the live or death of an individual by making sure the individual is safe. Having the right to own guns might help save more people’s lives because a gun will be a really good source of protection. In terms of the gun debate in America, individuals should prioritize personal liberty because having more guns people might feel more safe and protected.
Of Americans 3% own half the country's 265 million guns, that means each of those 3% own more than one gun. We have the individual right to own and use these arms. Gun control is a big debate in politics right now. I personally do not believe in gun control, i just feel like if a good guy had a gun then he would be able to stop things like shootings from happening. So do organizations like the NRA (National Rifle Association), the GOA (Gun Owners of America), and the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) “The answer to crime is not gun control, its law enforcement and self-control” (Alan Keyes political activist) This violates our second amendment right of the U.S. constitution to keep and bear arms. So it's all in the best interest that we keep gun control from happening, so that we can keep our second amendment.
“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.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
Firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence, and gun control means crime control. There are some countries in the world that have introduced stricter laws and were successful to control the crimes ...
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.
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.