Do More Gun Laws Lower Crime Rate?

One of the biggest arguments against gun control is that it does not prevent criminals from committing violent crimes, such as murder. Based on information gathered by Argesti and Smith, this A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) study showed that when a handgun ban was put in effect in Washington D.C. “the murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law” (Argesti and Smith). Another report from the FBI showed that when Florida and Texas implemented a right-to-carry law, their murder rates dropped by 30 and 36 percent (qtd. in Argesti and Smith). It is blatantly obvious that areas with high crime will continue to have the same level of crime, even after the implementation of stricter gun control laws.

Gun Control Laws have been proven ineffective. Cities like Chicago and Detroit have very strict gun control laws, yet they have some of the highest crime rates, whereas cities with more guns have lower crime rates. Places that have a higher rate of gun ownership, have less murders. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from breaking the law. Criminals will still obtain firearms, or

Gun control does not lead to a lower murder rate (Ten myth about gun control). Like i just touched on the murder rate would actually increase instead of decrease. This is caused like i previously said lack of protection and with this comes over worked police forces trying to fill the void lead to a less successful police force. No correlation has been found tieing gun control to lower murder rates (Ten myth about gun control). No really successful data has been found to prove this hypothesis. The only data that has been found contradicts it.

We have had several of the worst mass shootings in our nation's history in quick succession over the past few years. Certain legal restrictions and acts from our government could have prevented numerous deaths. Common sense background checks and limitations to cartridge size and assault weapons would surely have saved many lives at the Las Vegas Massacre, but certain men and women claim that these restrictions violate their second amendment right. They claim that guns aren't the problem. That guns don't kill people, people kill people. So limiting access to devastating guns is just avoiding the problem. The Second Amendment right presumably violated by common sense gun control is “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” (Second Amendment). The Second Amendment states that for the need of a well regulated militia to protect the security of the free state and the right for the people to keep and bear arms. Militias have been inactive for decades so in a sense the intent of the amendment is no longer relevant. Based on the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is not still a valuable and viable document in modern America because it stands in the way of thorough background checks, training courses, and its vague wording and absolute intent make it inefficient to maintain peace and order and should be amended “To the People of the United

More gun laws would have a negative effect on shootings and crime rates. Stricter gun laws would not prevent people from getting guns, would not prevent killings, and would not fare well with the people of the United States. Strict gun laws would only prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns, and criminals would still be able to get them. Crime and shooting rates do not go down after increase in gun-restrictive laws are passed. People in the United States have the right to defend themselves from harm, and the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

Current Gun Control regulations do not deter violence and crime. It has been shown that places that have relaxed their gun control laws have a higher crime and death rate. Data proves that homicide rates “[...] among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states”(Bailey). This is evidence that there is a correlation between gun control and death rates. It is also proven with statistical evidence that places with the least amount of gun control have the most violence. Statistics show that “‘none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register

The Gun Control issue has sparked major controversy in America today. People who support gun control feel that guns are the reason for the soaring crime rate in our country. I disagree with the supporters of gun control. I feel that because of the black market, violent criminals being released from prison early, and the need to ensure personal safety, stricter gun control will have very little impact on violent crime in America.

In Chicago Illinois strict gun laws prevent people from easily obtaining a firearm. However Chicago sees some of the most violent gang violence in the entire country. At the end of 2016 there had been 762 homicides in the chicago area. It’s obvious that these strict gun laws are not working. Gangs are still finding was to obtain firearms and continue to murder. Any restrictive gun laws obviously will make the situation in this country worse. I personally have not experienced severe gun violence and I feel that it correlates to the large amount of firearms that people own in

Even though evidence proves otherwise, many people claim the large quantity of guns in the United States are culpable for the country’s murder rates. While the United States population and number of guns have steadily gone up since 1994, the rates of all different crime types have drastically gone down (Planty). Over the last nineteen years, almost fifty million guns have been added to the US, yet firearm violence has been reduced by more than two thirds (Federal Bureau). This completely contradicts the statement that more guns equal more violence. To compare the two, solely based on these statistics, it looks as though the upsurge of guns and armed citizens has only led to less violence. Another example, that disproves this, is the Firearm Act of 1997. After a school shooting, the United Kingdom passed this act banning almost all of their guns. That year, the UK had initially recorded seven hundred and thirty-four homicides. While only steadily increasing, by the year 2002, they had a recorded one thousand and forty-one homicides (Osborne). This act did not prevent homicides at all, and as a matter of fact it only created more violence. The District of Columbia is another case in point on how the lack of guns does not mean there is any lack of violence. DC has a 3.6% gun ownership ratio of the people living there, ranking it the lowest in the Unites States. At the same time, DC has the highest gun deaths and firearm robberies in the Unites States. The District has a

With the crime rate commonly believed to be detrimental to the safety of society, one might assume to inflict stricter gun control laws. But, just how effective are these laws in reducing the amount of crime committed? As examined by Kleck and Patterson (2006), the rationale for gun control must first include the assumption that the availability of guns entails a significantly positive correlation on violence rates. But, Kates and Mauser (2006) studied the aggregate relationship between gun control and lower crime rate and found no evidence of this correlation.

The United States is in a controversy of whether or not the Second Amendment is protecting our country or killing it. The United States owns approximately 250 million guns, nearly one for each citizen, and grows about 7 million each year. Experts believe that the Second Amendment in the Constitution is rational and legal, author of, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment Don B. Kates states that the “Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; however, they do not say that you can go around shooting people and claiming that you are

America has always prided itself on being the land of the free. Our national Constitution and Bill of Rights have ensured that the people of America maintain their basic rights. Nevertheless, many of the rights guaranteed in these historic documents are often the subject of heated debate. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination, the First Amendment’s protection of speech and petitioning activity, all of these issues have been subject to contentious arguments in courts of law and the courts of public opinion. Of late, however, the most lengthy, argumentative and noisy debates have focused on gun control. Some people think that

According to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, “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.” In this very amendment lies the main issue of gun control. “To many, the language of the amendment appears to grant to the people the absolute right to bear arms. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the amendment merely protects the right of states to form a state militia.” (Kimberlin) Gun control, or the controlling of firearms, is any act or proposal by any local, state, or federal agency to inhibit, deter,

Gun control would not really reduce the rate of violent crime. Firearms kill Sixty percent of all murder victims in the United States. Firearms injure another seventy thousand per year. Medicare paid out 14 billion dollars last year for injuries involving firearms (Lindermann 1). Professor Donald B. Kates said that a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin said, "Gun-control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rate of violent crime. The study considered economic, demographic, and racial variables. Congressman Bill Goodling says that the willful criminal is the real cause of most violent crime, not the gun (Gottlieb 18).

Many think that with limiting guns and having a stricter laws on guns would actually lower gun related crimes, but Chicago is an example that that myth is not true. In