Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
negative impact of guns
negative effects of gun violence in society
negative impact of guns
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: negative impact of guns
A gun is a few pieces of metal, it is inanimate. Guns don’t kill people! People Kill people! There are so many hit and runs that occur in America, so why is it that we don’t campaign for the banning of Cars? The possession of a Gun is every American's right. If you want a gun, go and buy one legally, and follow the law. It's those who illegally purchase guns that fire them senselessly. People like that is why we need guns. Banning gun use for the general public will never stop them from being used.
The United States being the leader in per-capita gun deaths among industrialized nations, massive shooting such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech, and an average of 33 people dying in the United States everyday due to gun related violence are all reasons that we not only should, but need to regulate gun laws.
In Louisiana, gun ownership is one of the most valued rights because many see it as the only means for self-defense. Though it is a right, if crime rate increases due to gun violence, should self-defense hamper with the enforcement of gun-control laws? Currently, gun related crime is at “18.9 [...] deaths for every 100,000 people [...]” (“States With The Most Gun Violence: 24/7 Wall St.”). This statistic places Louisiana in one of the top spots for gun related crime, thus reminding us that gun-control is necessary. Gun-control measures can include restricting weapons such as the AK-47; a gun designed for battle-like encounters. Why would ordinary citizens need AK-47's anyway?
“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.
With all the shootings and random acts of violence, such as the shooting at the movie theatre in Colorado, or the Sandy Hook shootings, stricter gun control laws have been a hot topic in politics and the national mainstream media. The government thinks that gun control being stricter would help to make less of these tragic incidences occur. I am against this thought because I believe that the law-abiding citizens will be the only ones to give up their guns and criminals will then have an upper hand on the innocent. Even though banning guns is supposed to save lives, cities such as Chicago have already shown that stricter gun laws should not be passed because violent murders are still prevalent in these types of cities and strict gun laws have not worked like they were supposed to.
Gun violence in the United States is higher than ever, and criminals with guns will “…kill as many as 1000 people each day” (Alpers&Wilson). Taking this into perspective, it is only right to fight fire with fire or, in this case, use a gun to protect yourself and those around you. Gun control does not only decrease the ability for protection, it also decreases our rights as U.S citizens. The constitution clearly states that we are given the right to bear arms, meaning we may carry fire arms. Even if we have stricter laws for guns, it will not stop killers from shooting innocent people. These men and women causing damage to the lives of numerous individuals do not care if there is a law banning guns, because all they truly want to do is hurt others. The pain citizens endure every day from losing a family member, friend, or even just a colleague is repulsive. These permanent deaths continue to make people fearful and it causes damage in their lives; unless something is done. Most people agree that action needs to be taken to stop this inhumane cruelty, but the question is; what can be done? Americans need protection, rights, and power to break this inexcusable gun violence circling America. Gun restrictions for trustworthy and reliable gun owners have not been proven to weaken gun violence in the United States; therefore, gun control should be limited because it is only hurting America, not helping it.
According to The Chicago Tribune “Close to 3,000 people have been shot in Chicago so far this year.”In 2016 chicago homicide rate was at an all time high,last year there have been reported 762 people died from gun violence,”3,550 shooting incidents, and 4,331 shooting victims.”Hundreds of people have died from gun violence every year and also a portion of the murder rate is made up of innocent people that have also died from a firearm violence.Also in the united states the number of fatalities from a firearm were “33,594” according to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.I believe we should ban the use of firearms because the number of people that die or get injured from a firearm keeps dangerously increasing each year.
When looking at all of the important issues of today’s society, one of the most neglected issues revolves around guns. Guns serve two different purposes: to defend and to kill. Even though I’ve been on this Earth for only 21 years, I’ve become keen and have taken an interest in the study of guns and how they pose more problems in society than any other issue. My interest all started around the time of the Columbine shooting in Colorado and how society has taken steps since that point in history. Going back to the two different purposes, both have been used to help explain the differences in the distinctions of different gun related events that continue to occur, such as mass shootings. Problem analysis, as stated, will help to explain how guns can be seen differently from each individual and what can be gained or lost from a deep analysis.
The first reason handguns should be outlawed for ordinary citizens is because their main purpose is simply to kill other human beings. Why would our country allow us to have the right to own an object that is deadly? Our government seems to want to protect us. For example, seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws were created to protect our lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces pollution laws to keep us safe and healthy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects food and tests drugs to make sure American citizens are not harmed by nasty food and dangerous drugs. Yet, our government allows just about anybody to own and walk around with guns. It does not appear our government really cares about our safety. If it did, handguns would be outlawed for the general public, because their only purpose is to kill people.
Take a look at the history of our country and the role guns have played in it. According to the second amendment gun ownership is perfectly legal and guaranteed as a right. There were and are good reasons for this, luckily they are still practiced today. Back in the day guns used to be for hunting and, on the occasion self defense. But when the colonists of this country had enough of British rule, they picked up there own personal guns and went to war and the British saw first hand how powerful the rough band of average American gun owners were. Our forefathers knew that the general population if armed would be key in winning the war. And it was.
If the second amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” why do our lawmakers constantly debate the topic of weapons? Radical Democrats wish to make all guns illegal, meaning only policemen and servicemen would be equipped with guns (“Mission”). Radical Republicans (i.e. Charlton Heston), on the other hand, wish to place no restrictions whatsoever on guns, making semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns available to everybody living in or visiting the United States, without a background check or profile of the gun buyer (Heston). It seems that every time a terrible crime is committed in the United States involving a gun, the debate about gun control flares up again. The Columbine massacre and other school shootings, shootings at churches and in the workplace, the serial sniper near Washington D.C., and rises in gang activity are all examples of such events that have sparked debates in Washington.
The Reasons for the government attempting to ban the vast majority of firearms comes from all the violence that is caused using them. The government’s aim is to make a safer environment for the people. That is a reasonable goal, but most crimes are dealt using illegal firearms. Banning firearms most likely wouldn't cause much of a decline in gun related crime. Majority of the crimes are done by people who have had a prior past of criminal activity. Guns are not the reason for the violent crimes. The crimes are caused by the typical person with a violent past with them. Most people would agree that the firearms they have are used either for recreational activities or home protection in times of need. So they believe that without firearms, they are defenseless. Most will also tell anybody that the weapons aren't the ones causing the harm.
For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.
Guns have been the weapon of choice for some of the most brutal massacres on America soil. Since early history guns have been used mainly for militia and defense purposes. But, the development of new gun technology has made firearms more accessible and deadly. Although the second amendment gives the right to bear arms, guns should be controlled and monitored by the government because guns have contributed to a lot of killings in America and will increase crime rates.
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.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.