Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The consequences of gun control
Effect of gun control
The consequences of gun control
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the United States many people believe gun control will decrease the amount of crime, but gun control merely takes guns away from citizens who use firearms for protection; taking away people’s rights to carry a gun will not stop a criminal from obtaining a weapon. There has been studies shown that gun control does not decrease the crime rate. Criminals do not need a gun to harm someone, a criminal can use anything to hurt someone. Making gun control more strict is depriving citizens of their rights. Making gun control laws more strict is leaving citizens helpless if they do not have any means of protection against a would-be shooter. The gun violence cannot be avoided by taking guns away. Crime in the United States has been blamed …show more content…
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaves them helpless against someone with a gun. There would be a higher crime rate if citizens were not allowed to have a concealed firearm. “ Gun control deters violent crime about as well as the death penalty. Worse, stricter gun control is the surest way to insure that virtually every would-be shooter is successful.” (Hunter How Gun Control...) People who intend on hurting other people does not care about gun control laws because they will find a way to get a weapon. If no one in a crowd of people has a gun and an armed felon walks in and begins shooting there is no one to stop him. “Two days after the Sandy Hook Elementary rampage, a gunman in San Antonio, Texas attempted to open fire on a movie crowd watching “The Hobbit.” Luckily, the man’s gun jammed. Even more luckily, there was an off-duty police officer who stopped that man with one bullet.”(Hunter How Gun Control...) If there was a strict gun control law that officer would not have had his weapon on him at the time, and the United States would have another tragedy to think …show more content…
Less people would buy ammunition and guns. Gun manufacturers would choose to leave areas with more strict gun control. “Amongst the companies that have chosen to relocate is Magpul Industries of Erie, Colo., a manufacturer of AR-15 parts, accessories and magazines. Magpul warned the state in February that the company would move if legislation banning standard capacity magazines passed. In March, Gov. Hickenlooper signed a ban, and Magpul set out in search of a new home, possibly in Texas.”( NRA-ILA Gun Control Costing...) There will be less jobs in areas of more strict gun control because of the company deciding to move. There has been multiple companies move locations because of gun control laws changing in states.”PTR Industries, a maker of semiautomatic rifles in Bristol, Conn., has also chosen to move. In reaction to Connecticut’s recently enacted legislation, the company confirmed in June that it would be moving to Aynor, S.C. Similarly, fellow Connecticut gun maker Stag Arms and the Palmetto State have shown mutual interest.”(NRA-ILA Gun Control Costing...) Strict gun control has many negative outcomes and losing jobs and money is a very important
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.
In conclusion, enabling stricter gun control laws will help to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, and children and teens. With these laws put into place there will be more assurance of the safety of American citizens. It is not necessary to strip citizens of their right to own a gun, but we should be able to make it harder to get guns. If you are someone with a clear record and using a gun for recreation use, you will have no trouble obtaining a gun. In the long run increase the laws on gun control hurts nobody. Despite historic events where governments seized firearms and killed millions of citizens, today we have a different problem, which is making sure guns are in the right hands.
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.
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.
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...
Gun control and gun banning have been a highly controversial issue since all the gun crimes hitting the news in America. Crimes like Sandy-Hook , Aurora , San Berdindno , and Oregon have lawmakers thinking about banning guns by enacting laws that allows them to. Lawmakers believe guns are the prime suspect in all these gun violence crimes and they believe it well reduce murder and violence. Banning guns well do nothing to reduce the mass killings. If a criminal has the intent to commit a crime nothing can stop them. Also a criminal doesn’t abide by the law that is why they are criminals. Gun banning would only disarm the legal law abiding citizen leaving them defenseless. Also the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constution and the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers have the courage take away one Constutional right they will have the courage to keep going, I have three logical reasons why gun banning well not work.
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.
“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.
A family is sitting together on the couch watching their favorite TV show. Suddenly, the father turns to the news channel. A shooting at a local bank has killed fifteen people so far. Many are still being held hostage. Gun control should be more regulated because people abuse the privilege, everyone would be safer, and violence would decrease.
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.
Firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence, and gun control means crime control. There are some countries in the world that have introduced stricter laws and were successful to control the crimes ...
Supporters on this side say that without guns in our system, less homicides will happen and shooters will have a harder time finding weapons to use. This perspective does deliver a thought-provoking fight; according to chicagotribune.com, from January 1st, 2015- October 8, 2015, over 2,360 people were victims of shooting in Chicago and in an article from CNN.com, in Australia, a country where guns are banned, the risk of being killed by a gunshot has dropped over 50% since a tight gun control laws were established. Although a ban on guns seems like a great decision, there are many downfalls that will come with this policy. On Washingtonpost.com, a Gallop Poll was done and showed that 51% of people felt safer in homes with a gun. If guns became banned, the percentage would drop, and criminals, like rapists or burglars would have more motivation to commit crimes. In Australia, a country with extremely tight gun control, the rate of sexual assaults is 28.6% and in America, a country with loose gun control, the rate is 27.3%, so it is obvious that if America were to ban guns, the rate would increase. Another repercussion that results in taking away guns is actually more violence happening. According to politifact.com, in 1976, Washington DC required for all new handguns at home to be stored unloaded and disassembled at home. This led criminals into committing more crimes because they knew that the
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.