America 's Gun Problem, By German Lopez

In “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” written by Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist states his belief on the regulation of cars and how it relates to the regulation of guns. In this article, Kristoff shows his stance of strongly believing that guns should be regulated as cars and their drivers are for a change and the saving of lives to occur. He states that before the combination of cars and guns killed more than 30,000 Americans every year. With all the car regulations in place, it is shown that there is one car fatality per 100 million miles driven. Due to these statistics, Kristoff believes that with gun regulation 10,000 lives could be saved. Before the regulation of cars, “…it became

One of the most hotly debated topics for the past several decades has been whether the

Using this definition, a 2016 study published in the journal Violence and Victims reported that 292 mass shooting incidents took place worldwide between 1966 and 2012; nearly one-third of these were in the United States.”(DiLascio, 2017). The statistics are the answer to whether or not limiting firearms in The United States will help in the overall goal of limiting firearm violence. Other Countries such as England and Japan have more regulations on firearms and it limits the firearm related murders in those Countries. “Have some of the tightest gun control measures in the world, also feature some of the world’s lowest gun homicide rates (per 100,000 people, 0.04 killings and 0.03, respectively).The United States, by contrast, has a rate of 3.42 gun murders per 100,000 people-100 times greater than England or Japan” (Ballaro, 2016). Over the years gun crime has decreased a lot. “ Although gun crime declined steadily throughout the 1990s and early 2000s-thanks in part, perhaps, to the assault weapons ban still in force at the time-it increased sharply in 2005 and has been on a steady rise since. In 2008, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group of 300 US mayors, found that homicides from handguns were highest in states with the most lenient gun laws” (Ballaro,

One of the main topics of debate is whether or not gun laws actually correspond with lower murder rates. “The average annual gun death rate ranged from almost 3 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 18 per 100,000 in Louisiana. Hawaii had 16 gun laws, and along with New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts was among states with the most laws and fewest deaths. States with the fewest laws and most deaths included Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma.” (CBSnews.com). These statistics can lead one to believe that more gun laws equate to lower death rates. What these numbers prove is that some gun regulations help lower death rates. However, what gun control activists would have you believe that a full on gun ban would lower these numbers more. This is not the case as evident in the following, “During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower” (James D.

The majority of anti-gun advocates voice their opinion that more guns would produce more crimes unfortunately for them there is little to no truth in that claim. In reality, when gun ownership increased the amount of murders diminished as well. When states passed concealed weapons laws there was significant drops in the number of multiple victim shootings occurring, the number of deaths, and the number of injuries at these shootings. In 1997 both Wales and England banned handguns and the instantaneous effect was a 50% increase according to crime research. They never saw a day lower than after the year they decided to ban handguns. It has been proven by many surveys that the banning of guns increases crime rate which in turn proves that gun control is not the answer.

In the United States alone, over thirty-one thousand people die annually as a root to firearms. The American Medical Journal concluded, “there is a positive correlation between guns per capita and firearm relate deaths” (AMJ 2). This means that when more guns are in circulation, more deaths will occur:

“Interview the survivors of mass shootings and you hear these phrases a lot: Gunfire, they explain, rarely sounds like what it is… Many who have lived through the terror recall thinking it was a joke. A drill. Anything except the awful truth: that they might have only a few seconds to live” (“Stop the Violence” -Brody 220). Some people say guns make us feel safer, but in reality, they cause more harm than good. Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues concluded that, “Sadly, buying a gun does not make you safer. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that bringing a gun into your home increases the chances you will be killed” (“Feeling safe” -Vyse 27). Gun violence poses a very big threat to the U.S. “The U.S. has many more guns--and gun deaths--than any other developed country. In 2014, there were more than 33,000 such deaths in this country” (“Fight Over” 12). Guns are extremely dangerous and many deaths occur due to them, including murder, suicide, and accidental deaths, so stricter gun laws and technology should be used to decrease the number of gun deaths in the U.S.

While this graph is based on data from 2012 and thus out of date, it still shows a fairly clear correlation between gun ownership and gun related deaths. It is hard to deny the fact that more guns is the reason for, especially when you take into account that the U.S. is relatively average when it comes to other, non-violent crime rates. Moreover, one comprehensive review by a doctoral student at Columbia University examined nearly 130 different studies on the effects of gun control laws. The trend overall was that the more restrictions there were, the fewer gun deaths there were. One especially revealing study found that after the Fire Arms Act, which required background checks, training, and banned fully automatic guns, among other things, was passed in South Africa in 2000, there was a “decreasing trend (13.6% per year) for firearm homicides [in five major cities] through the implementation of the program and until 1 year after the law was fully implemented” (Santaella-Tenorio et al. 151). Reviews of studies on the effect of similar laws in other countries show a distinct correlation between reducing gun ownership and a fall in homicide

They make a very good point about how the United States compares to other countries, England and Japan. The authors write that England and Japan, who, “Have some of the tightest gun control measures in the world, also feature some of the world’s lowest gun homicide rates (per 100,000 people, 0.04 killings and 0.03,respectively)” (Ballaro and Finley). They then talk about, The United States, which has very little gun restrictions, “Has a rate of 3.42 gun murders per 100,000 people-100 times greater than England or Japan” (citation). This helps bolster their claim, that gun control is the greatest tool available to fight gun violence (Ballaro and Finley), because it uses facts to prove that in countries with tight gun control regulations, there are less gun killings.

According to Dr. John R. Lott Jr, world recognized economist, this is not the case at all. Lott holds a Ph.D in economics from the University of California of Los Angeles has rigorgously decidated to finding the correlation between violence and guns within the United States. According to this findings “Consealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States” several misconceptions where cleared in a scienfic manner. First, the number of consealed handgun permits are increasing each year. Just within the past 2015 year, 1.7 million additional permits were issued. This has resulted in a 15.4% increase in permits within one calendar year. Where John R. Lott Jr. makes a distinction in his research center, that although permits are increasing, this does not neccesarily mean that violence is increasing as well. To the contrary belief violence is decreasing at a significant rate. Just between the years of 2007 and 2014 murder rates have fallen to an dismounting rate of 4.2 per 100,000 people. Looking at both variables closely this has represented a 25% drop in overall murder rate while the percentage of permits have increased at a rate of 175%. This provides a basis that lets concerned families, verterans and students that the possession of Firearms is not a direct correlation to violence within

In the article Sager argues that "Higher levels of gun ownership do not produce a safer society and often lead to a higher number of deaths due to gun violence" (Sager, 2012). While this argument seems valid, it's based on assumption not fact. It's assumed that higher levels of gun ownership would lead to higher crime but that's not the case. A gun can actually prevent a criminal from proceeding with a crime. The criminal starts to hesitate to pursue any crime when he sees that the victims involved have firearms to protect themselves. Many robbers and criminals confess that their biggest fear when committing any crime is that the person owns a gun (Connuck, 2013). If these criminals are actually telling the truth about this then we can assume that the fear instilled in them will cut crime rates. Therefore, allowing citizens to own a firearm leads to less criminal activity. Additionally, armed citizens will be safer in society. By keeping gun laws as they are, crime is actually reduced in society (Annear, 2013). Conversely, if a policy to control guns was, in effect, criminals would still find ways to get guns illegally and victims would be easier targets. Citizens having ownership, protect themselves against gun violence and therefore lower crime

As far as overall gun violence is concerned, according to the FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, the overall violent crime rate in the US decreased about 7%. Robbery alone declined by 11%, the lowest since 1969. In addition, murder dropped by 7%, the lowest since 1967. More significantly, despite the fact the number of firearms and handguns owned by individual Americans continued to increase from 1997-1998, the FBI also reported the rate of firearms used to commit murder and robberies decreased in 1998. (1998 Uniform Crime Reports). These facts conclusively prove that firearms owned by peaceable citizens do not lead to increased murder or violent crime rates. In fact, they demonstrate that armed citizens lead to reduced rates of violent crime. When the gun is in the hands of a well-rounded person, it is no more of a weapon than your every day curling iron.

The general argument made by Thomas P. in his work, “How Not to Respond to the Rising Murder Rate” is we need gun control in our society. Without gun control, the society would fall apart and there would be a number of crimes that should not happen. There is no reason to have deaths occur that should not so maintaining better control of guns would be beneficial to everyone even if some people may not agree. It is important to keep the society running smoothly so that everyone is pleased and safe. No one wants to live somewhere where they will never feel safe. More specifically, Thomas argues that we need a better way to control guns. He writes, “Many argue that guns are the crux of that problem, so they push for legal restrictions on

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Guns are not the problem in today’s society. Criminals will kill regardless of gun control. Before guns were created, people were killing people. Yes a gun is a deadly weapon and yes people are killed from gun related incidents everyday, but guns do not have the ability to harm any one on their own. It is true that some of the largest mass murders have been shootings. Many tragedies have occurred because of one person with a gun (Refuting). However, those murderers would not have been stopped if a good guy with a gun didn’t stop them. If the police wouldn’t have stopped many of these killers, they would have continued to kill more people. It is known that many of these mass murders have occurred in gun-free zones. The Sandy Hook shooting happened on school grounds, Virginia Tech and Columbine also on school grounds, and Colorado movie theater shooting all

Guns need to be controlled more because they hurt people. My first evidence to prove why gun violence needs to be controlled from the first article is, “The macabre tragedy in Aurora, Colorado [July 20, 2012], which left at least 12 people dead and 58 seriously wounded, is a grim reminder of the helpless position in which innocent people can find themselves at the hands of a maniac.” this shows that there are bad people in the world and the use guns to cause harm. So, if there where strict laws this might never have happened.my next evidence to prove that guns are bad and need to be controlled is, ”the media should refrain from showing videos and images of recorded murders. Referring to a video of the fatal shooting of two journalists by their ex-coworker in Virginia, Heer contends that showing such footage is disrespectful, is harmful to the victims’ loved ones, and in the case of the Virginia shooting, provides the deceased shooter with the exposure he had hoped for”. This shows that if guns were as controlled as they should then the guy would have never have killed the co-workers. My final evidence for this article is,” Nonfatal firearm-related violent victimizations against persons age 12 or older declined 70%, from 1.5 million in 1993 to 456,500 in 2004”. This shows that gun violence is decreasing because it is being controlled. From this, readers can learn to only use guns for self-defense, and to avoid guns at all costs.