More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on why new gun laws are not necessary
Gun control negative effects
Essays on why new gun laws are not necessary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on why new gun laws are not necessary
Guns kill people therefore I must own the laziest guns, since mine haven’t done anything yet. In my essay I will explain why making guns illegal is pointless and giving the government more control over us as U.S. citizens. I’ll show results of countries doing similar things. I will also voice my opinion on why my views are this way.
First of all, the absent of guns from legal owners have a higher crime rate in their area. For an example when Australia put strict gun laws on people one- third of their people gave back their guns. This did not help at all because it was only the responsible people giving them back, so in other word’s the true criminals kept their weapons leaving people vulnerable. Crime has sky rocketed in Australia after the weapons pretty much became illegal. States with harsh gun rules see more crime because people cannot protect themselves against thugs or killers. States that allow more freedom of weapons see that those areas see a lot less crime because people are more protected and criminals think twice before they attempt to harm someone who has a gun.
Second...
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises come into play, either everyone has guns, including criminals, or nobody has guns. “Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them” McMahan remarks, but ultimately that will just leave the country open to more violence and tragedies. “As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes a matter of self help, and the unarmed have an incentive to get guns.” (McMahan, 2) Now everyone is armed, and everyone has the ability to kill anyone in an instant, making everyone less secure. Just as all the states would be safer if nobody were to possess the nuclear weapons, our country would be safer if guns were banned from private individuals and criminals.
This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. I will be talking about the 2nd amendment, public safety, home safety, and do gun control laws really control guns. I hope after you have read this you will be more educated, and can pick your side of the gun control debate. So keep reading and find out more about the gun control laws that the federal and some state governments want to enforce on U.S. Citizens.
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.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
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...
First off most citizens do not have any training on how to carry or shoot a gun. This can result in someone being hurt or killed on accident. Secondly a citizen carrying a gun could result in a murder of another citizen over an argument over something. For example in 2014 a retired police officer shot and killed another man over an argument text messaging in a movie theater. Thirdly this gives criminals access to carry a gun and commit a crime wherever they may go. Fourthly a citizen that can carry a gun wherever will also encourage a criminal to carry a gun to counteract the citizen who with the gun. The Inter –university Consortium for Political and Social Research did a survey and found that 75% of criminals carry a gun because they are afraid that the victim has a gun. Fifthly people who do not believe in carrying a gun will be most vulnerable. Say for example an unarmed citizen is in a bar full of other citizens that are armed. If an argument were to start between them and everyone pulled out their weapons on each other than the unarmed citizen would be most vulnerable. Lastly all citizens have different viewpoints on just about everything. With different viewpoints a citizen who is armed could try to us their gun to solve any problems that person may
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.
People against gun control feel that it is a violation of the Constitution to control the sale and distribution and the registration of guns and gun owners (Band, The Editorial 2) . But it is necessary for there to be certain limits on the way that firearms are handled in this country because of the homicide rate involving guns, and because of the violence created by criminals using guns. If gun control legislation were to go through; there would be a significant decline in gun related crimes and fatalities (Sowell 2). Gun control should be control in this society, and laws should be enforced. Gun violence, protection, and safety and fall into this category. The laws should protect people’s safety and also people’s self-defense. I do believe that gun control has a big impact on society because of: gun violence, gun laws, and people’s protection (Sowell
This is caused because the more guns there, are the less violence there is. Dangerous criminals will think twice about robbing someone that has a gun. A victim with a gun is no longer a victim because they can not fight back against the attacker. Therefore, they can save their lives and save lives of the public which need help at that moment. Lott states, “The estimated annual gain from 1992 from allowing concealed handguns was over $5.74 billion” (House Report). This states that when a decline in violence goes down the amount of money goes up. Concealed guns can only benefit everyone in multiple ways. Concealed weapons can help create the feeling of safety and reduce violence. No one wants to live in
Gun control in the United States has been a major debate for hundreds of years. Many people believe that guns should be highly regulated while others believe that anyone should have the ability to own one. Each side has a plausible argument. Throughout this essay it will be show how not having gun control can increase violence and death rates, the right for everyone to own a gun is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and how over usage of guns has played a role in the diminishing populations of animals.
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).
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. According to Mark Gius, the author of “Gun Ownership and the Gun Control Index”, “…only about 25% of total violent crime is committed by a person using a gun, no inferences...
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.