Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

Gun control would only make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. Gun ownership reduces the amount of crime. States with concealed carry regulations have a higher rate of crime. States with stricter concealed carry have higher rates of crime because criminals can commit crime without worry of being stopped by gun owners. If guns are banned, criminals would be the only ones with guns. Citizens that follow the laws would still follow the laws, whereas criminals would still break the law. Gun Ownership reduces crime, not gun control.

(Tucci 1). Kleck has written many books about gun control and self-defense, and received the Michael J. Hindelang award in 1993. Kleck studied 2,000 households and found that guns have been used more for self-defense than committing crimes. Kleck did research in 1993 on self-defense and found much information regarding crime versus self-defense. Research has found that robbery and assault rates are lower when the victims are armed with guns. The study on guns and use of self-defense was one of the most damaging arguments against restricted gun rights (Garrett 1). The two most relied on surveys are National Self-Defense Survey, researched by Marc Gertz and Gary Kleck in 1995, and the Police Foundation Survey done in 1996. During 1988-1993, “there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the United States”. It has been proven that “…defensive uses of guns are about three to four times more common than criminal uses of guns” (Kleck 2). Out of all the criminal gun assaults, only 3% involve anyone being injured. The

What would the world be like if guns were banned? Would chaos break out, or would the United States have peace? The Second Amendment grants U.S. Citizens the right to keep and bear arms. While some people believe banning guns will make the world safer, others believe the world will only be in more danger. Prohibition did not work for alcohol and drugs, so why would it work for guns? Guns should not be banned because crime rate would increase, people need guns for self-defense, and it will eliminate some of the citizens’ rights.

Anyone who believes strengthening the gun control laws would reduce gun violence is correct. However, if someone wants to kill someone, not having a gun is unfortunately not going to stop him or her. If a gun is not accessible, a person who wishes to kill someone will use another weapon that is accessible, such as a knife or bludgeon of sorts. Banning guns will lessen gun violence, but will bring up a rise in violence with other weapons.

People with this viewpoint think that if there are less legal guns on the street, crime rate and murders will go down. People with this viewpoint also believe that Americans would be overall safer with less legal guns. Although this may seem true on the surface, if firearms were made illegal, the criminals would still have them. Even if gun control laws were stricter, criminals would not turn their guns in as normal citizens would. This would overall make America more dangerous in terms of crime. There will always be people that get ahold of guns “There will always be people who fall through the cracks. There will always be evil men among us.” (Robert Farago). This quote explains why gun control may not be as effective as some people may think.

It is commonly thought that many people believe in having gun bans and stricter laws will lower crime levels as well as lower firearm related deaths and injuries. This idea is opposed by many as they believe that, if ordinary, law abiding citizens are punished and have their rights to own firearms taken away, the only people who will have guns are criminals who acquire them illegally

Death by firearm would decrease if a ban were placed, but other equipments capable killing would merely take it’s place. For example, suicide by handgun will be replaced with drug overdosing. Gun control is often a sensitive topic to discuss due to the involvement of human life, and often can stir debates. Both parties for and against gun control have claims that closely counter each other. Those for control believe that crime would decrease if weapon sales were governed. However, this won’t reduce crime at all, for the criminals would find other means of intimidation.

Regardless of the possibility that firearms were taken away, culprits would utilize diverse weapons to slaughter; for example, blades, bats, and broken jugs. Humans with malicious intends will still harm others, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or not: therefore, there is reason to impact gun restrictions. Firearms can be utilized to perpetrate demonstrations of viciousness and disregard human rights; nonetheless, they can likewise be utilized to keep those things and keep our country free of corruption and wrongdoing.

With about 200,000,000 home burglaries that re reported in the US each year, it will make it significantly harder for people to protect there houses and families from criminals that most likely have illegally obtained weapons. Banning guns in he US will do the complete opposite of what some people think it will do; instead of lowering the homicide rate it will increase it. For example, the United Kingdom was the first place to ban handguns in 1997 after a man shot and killed 216 elementary students then followed by shooting himself. A year before the ban, in 1996, the murder rate was 1.12 per 100,000 people. In 2002 the homicide rate went up to 2.1 homicides per 100,000 people (Altucher). We are in the situation that the UK was in ten years ago and by the numbers; it is proven that there chose was the wrong one. During violent attacks only three-percent of the

The amount of gun control laws will not stop criminals from obtaining guns or committing crimes . If criminals are able to obtain drugs illegally, then they are most likely able to obtain guns illegally. Whether it's legally purchased or illegally purchased or even borrowed from a family member a criminal will go to whatever lengths to get a gun. Guns will be stolen which will lead to more crimes. A stolen gun being used in a homicide will make it harder to find out who committed the crime because the gun belongs to someone else and not the actual culprit. Guns being taken away does not affect the amount of crimes committed because there are many various other weapons that could be used instead of a gun. People who oppose guns say that high-capacity

Regardless of the possibility that firearms were taken away, culprits would utilize diverse weapons to slaughter; for example, blades, bats, and broken jugs. Humans with malicious intends will still harm others, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or not: therefore, there is reason to impact gun restrictions. Firearms can be utilized to perpetrate demonstrations of viciousness and disregard human rights; nonetheless, they can likewise be utilized to keep those things and keep our country free of corruption and wrongdoing.

Taking guns out of the hands of American citizens will do nothing but create more problems for the United States. About half of Americans believe that enforcing stricter and more gun control will decrease the amount of mass shootings and gun related crimes in the United States. However, this is simply not true. They believe that less guns means less gun violence, but what they do not realize is that when enforcing strict gun control laws, only the law abiding citizens are affected. Most of the time when a gun is used in a crime the gun was obtained illegally. Illegal guns would not be affected by the strict gun control laws which then in turn leaves criminals with guns and law abiding citizens without any means to protect themselves. Allowing the government to take millions of guns away from citizens would result in a government that has way too much power and control over its people. The government would never be able to get back every single gun that is in the United States, only the ones that registered gun owners have. Americans would not only have no way to protect themselves against criminals, but also no way to protect themselves from the powerful government which could result in tyranny. Less Gun Control would be far more beneficial for the United States than trying to get the guns out of the hands of Americans.

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

The facts are that guns are more often used to defend against criminals than used by them. According to Agresti, 60% of Americans own guns for self defense (4). The NRA says that every year guns are used approximately 2.5 million times a year to defend oneself or others. A 2014 Pew survey showed that 57% of people believe that guns make them safer when they’re out and about or at home (“Gun” 3). In fact, the Pew Foundation also found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of women gun owners felt that guns made them safer from criminal acts (“Gun” 3). Their studies show that 64% of people living with gun owners feel safer just having someone else owning a gun(“Gun” 4). It is estimated that approximately 36% to 49% of households and about 23% to 36% of adult individuals have a gun in 2016 (Agresti 3). It’s said well by Nelson Lund, a law professor, that the right to self-defense is a right that branches out from our right to life.

Some claim that stricter firearm regulation would contribute directly to the nation’s collective security by preventing criminals from obtaining firearms through legal means. However, this is a misguided approach in addressing the real issue. A hardened criminal, accustomed to life on the fringes of the legal system would have no qualms about adding the illegal acquisition of a firearm to his repertoire of criminal activity if it suited his purposes. Any suitably motivated individual with a strong enough desire can and will obtain a firearm or an alternative means to accomplish their goal. Take the city of Chicago: “Despite Chicago 's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012” (Procon). The ease with which one can obtain a firearm is laughable and the government deeming them illegal would not change that. If one were to round up every legally owned and registered firearm in the United States and melt them down for scrap, this would still be true. Trying to remove guns in order to prevent violent crime is like banning water to prevent drowning; how do you keep it from slipping through the cracks?