Essay On Gun Control

This is why people say guns should be enforced heavily and avoided especially, if possible. Some also say that guns are used mostly for harming or hurting other people, but most Americans look at their guns as safety tools for their families. Stripping that away would leave a family susceptible to a burglary. Some say that if expensive guns are made, the violence will stop and crime rate will drop. However, expensive guns will do little to aid in the safety of Americans.

Under a strict Gun Control law, when a holdup happens, the attacker is less likely to have a gun, and even if the attacker did somehow obtain a firearm, the victim would not have one to use carelessly and get himself killed. Crimes with Gun Control will be much less violent for the people that obey the law, and most criminals will be deterred from even attempting a crime if they cannot buy a gun. Similarly, Gun Control will help prevent terrorism of this country. Terrorism, now a big issue for the United States, can be prevented in many cases if Gun Control laws are put into affect. Many terrorists use easily concealed guns that come from the United States, getting the guns from either exportation or in the country.

In addition, ninety percent of law enforcement officials believe that gun control will make agencies less efficient and will diminish their personnel’s ability to combat crime (Duke). In essence, implementin... ... middle of paper ... ...hrough illegal sources. Not only will individual citizens not be able to defend themselves as a result of gun control but unarmed citizens will not be as protected by the “third-party” effect gun owners create. Undoubtedly, gun control does not result in crime reduction because guns are not the problem it is the behavior of criminals that leads to crime. Works Cited Kates, Don B., and Gary Maunser.

They should do background checks for any mental illnesses, past criminal activity including petty crime, and whether or not they contribute to the community. Government should not be able to dictate that a normal law abiding citizen who owns a gun for personal protection of home and property is responsible for all of the crime. What the law makers do not understand is that criminals are going to get guns no matter what. It does not matter how strict the laws are. They could ban gun sales all together and it would not stop criminals from obtaining guns.

Don’t change the laws, just enforce them better. Gun control is a very large and very controversial issue in our country today. Disarming civilians, though, is not the way to deal with armed criminals. The government should let us keep our rifles, shotguns, and handguns, because we have proven ourselves by means of a background check to be responsible citizens. If we ban guns, we lose our best chance at defending ourselves from criminals who get guns illegally.

So these gun control laws should be stopped. They should find other ways to deal with gun related crimes and violence. This country was founded on the people of the country owning guns to protect what they think is right. The constitution gives the people the right to bare arms and protect themselves. Any law against guns should be unconstitutional but the laws were made because it is what some people want.

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.

The belief that enforcing stricter gun laws on those who use guns for good(gun owners who protect themselves, their families, and potentially prevent crimes) will keep guns off the streets(from those who buy guns off the black market rather than a gun store – obviously requiring no permit, no background check, etc) is very foolish. If this method were actually effective, then illegal drugs would not be an issue. Vilifying gun owners by imposing gun restrictions make it tougher for registered, law abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms and does nearly nothing to prevent real criminals from acquiring them. Is gun control the solution to deterring heinous acts and creating less crime? Gun control is legislation that is specifically aimed at imposing measures to make it harder for an individual to acquire a firearm.

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.

Some misattribute such decreases to gun control laws already in place, neglecting to make connections between what the law does, and what crimes decreased. Firearms play an important role in defense of life and property not only for citizens, but for law enforcement individuals as well. Though some state that higher gun control would protect citizens, there is no correlation between state murder rates and gun control laws. Rather, there is a direct correlation regard murder rates and poverty. Many also neglect to state that the United State has very few gun laws compared to many European countries and that these countries have much higher crime rates.