Given the statistics of vicious crimes committed in the United States versus the amount of firearms privately owned, guns are not the problem in our country and should not be banned. A great deal of society believes gun-free zones will help lower the amount of violent crimes committed in the United States. In reality a great deal of cities and countries that have strict gun-free zones report the opposite results. A British CNN reporter known as Piers Morgan is one of the biggest advocates for banning guns. In the United Kingdom there was a shooting spree in Scotland that resulted in a law banning private ownership of firearms.
For example, gun control protects: law-abiding citizens, children, and any other type of citizen from other harmful citizens, such as criminals. It keeps guns out of criminal’s hands -- especially the mentally ill. Not only is there the fact that gun control will make it harder for criminals to achieve a gun, stricter background checks placed will help protect everyone. However, one of the most important reasons to implement gun control would be saving the lives of the thousands of people per year who are killed by handguns. Yet, all these seemingly satisfactory advantages are based upon protecting citi... ... middle of paper ... ...dnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>. . "
This flaw let 3,722 prohibited buyers to have access to guns. States also have the ... ... middle of paper ... ...em with the corrections mentioned before it will increase the safety of the U.S. people. The United States needs to have a nationwide gun sale background check system that will correct the flawed system right now, reduce homicides in the country, and protect the mentally unstable citizens from harming themselves or others without taking away their rights. Works Cited “Murder victims by weapon, 2007-2011.” The FBI. Table 8.
He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary school shooting, to present his case that gun violence will remain in the United States as long as guns remain high in number and low in regulation. Collier states that if Americans did not intend the consequences of holding an army with almost unlimited access to firearms, they would start demanding laws to control the gun violence: But changes of this magnitude are hardly to be expected—not in a land where a one-gun-per-month purchase limit counts as bold—even “pioneering”—legislation. (The debate over assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, after all, is not about whether people will be killed; it is about how many will be killed, and how quickly). (81) Collier writes his article in a pessimistic view of the future of gun regulation. He uses logos in the quote above by using deductive reasoning.
Guns in America are accepted as long as you are of age and have a permit to legally carry a firearm. The issue of that the US government have no idea of the reasoning why the buyers are equipping these guns, with those guns being handed in to the private hands of American citizens its only by faith what those people will do with this firearm. According to Reno (1993) in Promising strategies, To Reduce Gun Violence, “In 1996 (the most recent year for which are available), 34,00 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional.” (Section I). Guns were meant to protect you and others that may be around but is it ethical to take another man/women’s life?
[online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data [accessed 19th March 2014] 7. The New York Times, 2013. ‘Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll’. [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0 [accessed 21st January 2014] 8. The Guardian, 2013.
It crazy how someone can leave the house in the morning and not come back at night. According to David Lester in his article Police Officers Killed and The Guns Used by Criminals “It may be that criminals who are more likely to kill police officers utilize different types of gun than do criminals who are unlikely to kill police officers” (Par.4). Their should not even have guns. If they did not have the guns, then they would not have killed the police and then maybe they could have caught some more criminals and we would not be having this problem right now. Also, we would be able to have other crimes solved because the police are still alive and not dying for the bad guys.
While using a point-counterpoint style to argue against gun control I will show guns are best controlled by good aim. The government must keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill, and they must not limit the rest of the society from owning them. Gun control advocates will argue that gun ownership is not a right and is not protected by the 2nd amendment. They further believe guns are harmful to society. Gun control advocates also believe guns are not needed for self-defense.
Too many people will resort to force instead of a chance to runaway; everyone would rather be a hero. At the moment there are 31 states in the United States that permit people to possess a concealed weapon; California is not one of them. Carrying a concealed weapon is a threat to society because there have been too many accidents, concealed weapon laws might cause criminals to act more violently, and finally carrying concealed weapons might stimulate violent confrontation. “Shall use” CCW laws do not cut down the amount of gun violence. Even though these laws are pretty recent, studies show that more carefree concealed weapon laws will not decrease the amount of gun related violence.
Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King III. "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership And Firearm Homicide Rates In The United States, 1981-2010." American Journal Of Public Health 103.11 (2013): 2098-2105. Business Source Premier. Web. 16 Jan. 2014.