More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control literature review
Gun control can reduce crime essay
Is gun control effective in reducing crime essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control literature review
Does gun control reduce crime rates? Actually, gun control does not significantly reduce crime. In fact, strict gun control regulations do not stop criminals from getting guns because only law-abiding citizens comply with the law. In contrast, criminals do not obey gun control laws just as they do not obey many other laws. Gun advocates argue that less available guns results in less crime, however research has shown the opposite. Gun control is an ineffective way of reducing crime because gun control does not target the underlying causes of crime. Criminals are individuals that by definition do not respect the law. Therefore, more laws and regulations will not change criminals’ conduct. In the academic journal Does Gun Control Reduce Crime
Moorhouse, John C., and Brent Wanner. "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?" CATO Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-24. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2015.
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 ...
“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it”. -- Clint Eastwood
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.
In "Just Take Away Their Guns," author James Q. Wilson argues that "Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns" (Wilson 63). Wilson points out that it would be tough to remove all legally purchased guns from the streets and nearly impossible to confiscate illegally purchased guns. Gun advocate J. Warren Cassidy argues that "The American people have a right 'to keep and bear arms'. This right is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. . ." in an article titled "The Case for Firearms" (Cassidy 275). James B. Jacobs and Kimberly A. Potter wrote in an article called "Keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands: the Brady law and limits of regulations" that "US law enforcement should concentrate on stiff sentences for crimes committed with guns and recognize that gun control laws do not keep guns from the wrong people" (Jacobs and Potter 1 of 27). 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. Another reason why more gun control legislation will backfire is that those who want to purchase guns to protect themselves a...
First of all, banning guns will not stop criminals from having them, and there are so many ways that these people can obtain guns. It is pretty plain and simple; if you ban guns from everyone crimes will still be committed. Gun control “…ignores the reality that even if guns disappear, bad people will find ways to do bad things” (Wil...
Those against guns might simply say that removing guns entirely would substantially lower crime rates.They are upset that criminals can illegally obtain firearms just as easily as law abiding citizens can obtain legal firearms. Having absolutely no gun control would most likely result in more violent crime and shootings. With no gun control, this means that anybody can legally obtain a firearm. Currently, all states employ a system of background checks that every individual must mass before they are permitted to purchase a firearm. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968.
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.
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
John Luik author of the article “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime” and Sabina Thaler the author of the article “The Claim of Increased Gun Availability Reduces Crime is Unfounded” are two examples of people having different opinions on such a debatable topic. Both authors talk about guns taking people’s lives, Thalers article focuses on guns taking innocent people’s lives, and Luiks article focuses on guns being innocent people’s protection. Many gun supporters will say that more guns will bring down the crime rate. These same believers will give facts stating that the more guns in a state, the less likely gun owners will use them. “The chances of innocent people being the victims of violent crime, including murder, decrease—not increase—when access to guns is made easier” (Luik).
“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.
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. Those who argue for gun control usually state guns are a part of most violent crimes. However, this is not always true. While it is true that limiting gun ownership with laws could prevent individuals from possessing guns, it does not prevent people from illegally having or using guns. Those who carry guns legally are not the problem.
...nforcement and criminal imprisonment had more of an effect on crime then any gun control law. Gun education and hunter’s education also improved. Focusing efforts on the root of the problem has yielded results and lowered crime. Crime rate has steadily lowered as more guns entered the private market.
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.