Why Gun Control
Mass shootings are where four or more people are shot in one incident. Everytown For Gun Safety is an American organization that supports gun control. They conducted a case study from January 2009 thru July 2015 using the FBI data and media reports. The study showed that there were, at least, one hundred and thirty-three mass shootings in the six and a half year span. An average of nearly two mass shootings per month happened in thirty-nine states. Eighty-eight to ninety-one Americans are killed every day with guns (“Analysis of mass shootings”, 2015). On March 5, 2015 Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Giffords husband purchased an AR-15 assault rifle and a 1911 style semi-automatic pistol along with some high capacity magazines. These
…show more content…
A study by the Justice Department in 2004 found clear evidence that there was a reduction in their use in crimes during the ban on the manufacture and transfer of assault weapons. The use of assault weapons used in crimes dropped by seventy percent between 1993 and 2002. The ban had depleted the resources of assault weapons in less than a decade (Beckett, 2014). The number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims has tripled per year since the gun ban expired in 2004. The studies showed that the ban worked and should be enacted again to reduce the number of mass shootings. Law abiding citizens should not have to turn in any assault weapons they may have, but they should have to have them registered in case they are ever stolen and used in a crime. It is a known fact that assault weapons fire more rounds and kill or wound more innocent people. A ban on assault weapons will not stop all gun crimes, but it would help to stop the mass shootings. Besides putting a ban on assault weapons, there needs to be a gun licensing law for longer review periods between purchasing a gun and the taking of possession of the weapon. It should be a uniform law for all states, where now each state sets their own law. Some states have no waiting review period, and some states have as little as three days with some ranging up to ten days. A thirty-day review period would allow for a complete background check to be done on an individual. In the case of the Charleston church shooting in June of 2015, if the shooter had to wait thirty days instead of three days his drug history may have been enough to deny him of getting a license for a gun (Smith, 2015). A thirty day review (or cooling off period) could also decrease suicides by guns and pre-meditated murders of family
Each person has a different view on the world. If a person is asked about their view on a certain subject, they will likely show support or disdain for the subject. For example, some people believe abortion is morally wrong. Others view abortion as the mother’s choice since she is carrying the child. On the issue of gun control, people are usually either for or against stricter gun laws. Why do people view the world in the way they do? How do people decide what stance to take on an issue? To answer these questions, sociologists look at the sociological perspective which “stresses the social contexts in which people live” and “examines how these contexts influence people’s lives” (Henslin, 2013, p. 4). Furthermore, the sociological perspective
Public policies are developed in response to the existence of a perceived problem or an opportunity. The analysis delves into a public issue or problem and assesses a set of proposed government action for addressing the issue. The job of the analyst is to describe the background and status of an issue and then, using research and analysis, determine a proper government action to resolve the issue. By comparing options and weighing their expected benefits, the analyst should conclude with a recommended course of action or inaction to addressing the issue.
A growing number of publicized tragedies caused by gun violence have caused a great stir in the American community. Recently, President Barack Obama has made proposals to tighten the regulation of and the restrictions on the possession of weapons in America to lessen these tragedies. Should the legislative branch decide in favor of his proposals, all American citizens who do or wish to own the type of weapons in question or who use current loopholes in existing policy would be directly affected. His proposals, which are to “require background checks for all gun sales, strengthen the background check system for gun sales, pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons, limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets, give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime, end the freeze on gun violence research, make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates, [and] ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people,” have been cause for a large amount of recent debate (whitehouse.gov).
Enforcing an assault weapons ban can reduce the all-too-familiar occurrences of mass shooting and massacres. When Adam Lanza shot 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary School..police say he largely relied upon a Bushmaster AR-15 "assault-type weapon," a semiautomatic rifle that could rapidly fire multiple high-velocity rounds. He was also equipped with magazines that held 30 bullets each (Plumer). As a chart from Princeton's Sam Wang shows, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the [1994 Assault Weapons Ban] was in effect...and the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired (Plumer). This statistic clearly shows the effectiveness of the ban passed by Congress and signed by former president Bill Clinton as part of the V...
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.
To formulate an opinion on gun laws relating to places of employment the U.S. Constitution and Indiana Constitution must first be examined. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.” Simply proclaiming people of the U.S. have the preserved and irrevocable right to own and carry firearms to ensure safety and freedom of the people. The 14th Amendment extends these laws to the state by the “equal protection of the laws.” Written as “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” the amendment gives power to the U.S. Constitution over state when a matter of rights is concerned.
Eighty-nine people die from gun violence in the United States every day according to the Brady Campaign , from school children to victims of domestic violence to people going about their daily lives. As we mourn the lives of those killed in incidents of gun violence across the country, we need to take action. We should all do everything in our power to keep tragedies like this from happening again. When it comes to addressing mass shootings, we need new answers
One of the most heavily debated subjects today in the United States is guns. Over the last few years, mass shootings and spree shootings have been covered widely in the media. It leaves many Americans wondering how we can just sit by and let this happen. However, this is no easy task to attempt to solve or something that will just go away overnight. Taking away the guns won 't solve anything or just fix the problem as a whole. The United States constitution not only protects, but guarantees the right to bear arms as an American citizen. Why should we let the acts of a few sick and mentally ill ruin the right for the rest of law abiding citizens. The focus should center more around tougher background checks and mental health. Many Americans,
Taking into account of the recent shooting sprees, the gun control debate has started again. However, people have contemplated: “Why does America need gun laws” and “Why are so many states disagreeing about the restrictions that need to be put in place for civilians looking to purchase firearms.” The reasoning for such contemplation is that the fluxuating strictness of gun laws have led to several incidences within states that have strict gun laws due to the fact that the perpetrators of these incidences have purchased their firearms either from black markets, or states where the severity of gun control is at minimal levels.
“A handgun ban is not realistically enforceable. Confiscating guns would require house-to-house searches and alienate the very individuals whose compliance is essential to the success of any regulation. If gun ownership were prohibited, organized crime would step in to provide the firearms that will continue to be procured with criminal intent” (Done Kates). Over the past decade, the media has reported an increase in the severity of violent crimes as individuals have killed and hurt many others, including kids. Since 2006, there have been over 200 mass murders in the United States.
It seems to be all over the news these days. The next big mass shooting has occurred and the politicians are clambering for stronger regulations. Meanwhile, the American public goes into panic mode and flocks to the nearest gun store to buy anything and everything that soon might be ripped from the market. Time and time again, this same series of events occurs. Questions about how to fix this likely weigh heavily on people 's minds but, there seems to be no solution. Some argue that registration of firearms, bans of certain firearms, and background checks can curb the violence. However, none of these things seem to fix the issue. That is simply because these “solutions” don’t work.
Crime rate in the United States has been at an all-time high in the past few years. According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. According to the gun violence archive, 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, and 26,819 people were injured. As you can see, 2015 was a big year with gun violence in the United States and since then nothing has changed, to this day we are still seeing these statistics for death by guns in the United States. Instead of the government focusing on gun control laws, I believe that they should look at different alternatives. Some of these alternatives could be to register citizens with aggressive mental disabilities and emotional instabilities and increase research for effective treatments and cures because in most of these cases the shooters have been found to have a mental disability. We can also abolish gun-free zones apart from schools, banks, mass transit hubs, hospitals, and government buildings so that concealed carry is legal in these zones. The government can enforce stricter punishments for crimes committed with a deadly weapon and more laws protecting citizens who are forced to use a firearm in self-defense. So, in the case of a civilian using
There are gun control laws to try and reduce the number of violent shootings that occur. They are trying to put limits on weapons that Americans can own. The government is trying to take our guns away mainly because of people that are criminally insane. Most of the people who commit crimes don’t even have the weapons legally. If the government takes away the rights of people who are allowed to have firearms in their possession, it will most definitely cause an outrage. Most people believe that the people should be more capable of maintain proper use of the firearms instead of having them all taken away. Taking the firearms from Americans away would cause a lot more problems than there actually are. The people will be upset with the government taking firearms away because of the horrible people who harm innocent people using them. So they will do anything to their capabilities to keep them.
“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.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.