Elizabeth Hartfield Controlling Gun Violence Analysis

Another solution is to redesign the background checks on every individual wanting to purchase a gun. Each state has their own law on this one and many are not very strict. By creating a national background checking system for everyone trying to purchase guns which would include a national mental health check; guns entering the hands of an individual mentally unstable could be prevented better. Thirdly, designing tougher sentencing laws could aid in lowering crimes involving guns. Totally removing guns would not be beneficial because the criminals are still going to find a way to have a gun in order to continue their criminal lifestyle. The key to finding the perfect solution is tough due to many loopholes and the effects it could have on everyone’s second amendment right. In looking at the three potential ways to control guns and violence; the perfect way to aid in controlling guns and the violence is to put in place a law that contains tougher sentences, more in depth background checks, a large database to account for every gun purchased or sold and require every gun owner to go through a course to teach gun safety and the laws that are in place.

The violence in the United States is a big issue, but making more gun laws is not the answer. It is an inevitable fact that making it harder to get access to guns would only lead people to turn to black markets and more underhanded deals. In an article for the Los Angeles Times, James Q. Wilson writes, “It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow” (Wilson). Dramatic changes within gun controls laws would, in itself, make more people mad and possibly lead to riots. In many people's minds, more gun control laws would mean to taking guns away. Gun control laws within themself are not a bad thing, the extent to which they are taken within a nation

Eighty-nine people depart from this earth due to gun violence in the US every day. From school children, to victims of domestic violence, to people going about their daily lives, this status quo is unacceptable. On Tuesday January 5th, 2016 President Obama announced that he would send proposals on reducing gun violence in America to Congress. His spokesman, Jay Carney, mentioned that this is “a complex problem that will require a complex solution.” The ability to own a gun is considered by some a birthright of Americans. However, with crime rates involving handguns rising each day it has become quite clear. Handgun laws must become stricter in order to reduce homicide and crime. The question is, “which solution in most effective in decreasing gun violence?” Gun control is a major conflict that is constantly reoccurring and the US is seemingly divided over it.

Gun violence is one of the most serious problems in the United States. Each year in the U.S., more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nations. In 1997, approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States were committed with guns. However, ironically, the United States also is the country that has the most gun control laws. Gun control laws generally focus on passing legislation—by local state, or national government—to restrict legal ownership of certain firearms. Seemingly, gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, but in fact the same laws also have their negative effects. Thus, the controversy over gun control is always heated. But my paper is not

The thought of guns and the ability to commit mass murder is a chilling one. According to the The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, “an average of more than 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States” (Just the Facts: Gun Violence in America). Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions, surpassing rates of gun-related violence in other developed, high-income nations by 25 percent (Preidt). There is an urgent need for tighter gun laws in America. (5) In order to put an end to the growing trend of gun violence, the United States needs stricter legislation regarding the purchase and ownership of firearms. Although most gun advocates believe that stricter gun laws would not prevent mass shootings, stricter gun

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

For this reason, it is incredibly hard for the country to agree or disagree on controversial topics such as gun control. Gun control laws and restrictions are methods in reducing the accessibility of firearms to the ordinary citizen. The belief is that with less dangerous firearms in the streets, the less crime there will be. Numerous studies and evidence show that a reduction of gun ownership can ironically increase the crime rate. This trend might seem counter intuitive but when seen at a different perspective, it becomes logical. When law abiding citizens are not able to purchase a weapon but a criminal is through illegal means such as the black market, it leaves people helpless against the gunman. Many advocates for gun control seem to ignore the facts and trends that show that gun ownership and crime rate does not have any correlation. Instead, these advocates seem to rely on the emotional appeal of people, exploiting the tragedies that are caused by shootings, wars, and criminal activities. The purpose of this essay is to educate people on the negative side effects of gun control and on how guns can actually decrease

This article is one of the many articles that provides a realistic approach to the things that can be done about gun control. It shows that it is not as easy as it seems to just get all the guns off of the streets and put a new gun law in place. In fact, it will probably make things worse. It gives readers the bigger picture and gives them something to think about.

One of the main issues with gun laws in the United States is the lack of uniformity in the restrictions held by the states. “We looked at five types of gun control enacted at the state level: assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans, gun possession prohibitions for high-risk individuals [those convicted

Mass-shootings — defined by the FBI as four or more murders occurring during the same calamity, with no distinctive time period between the homicides (Serial Murder) — have stricken across the United States at the rate of about one every two weeks since 2006 (Database of Mass Shootings, 2006-2013). This abysmal statistic has rightfully triggered much debate concerning gun restraints. The theory of gun control pertains towards any efforts intended to regulate, define, or limit the possession, production, sales, and use of guns. Since its conception, the Second Amendment — guaranteeing the “right to bear arms” — has been wildly controversial. Gun control advocates suggest that confining gun ownership would reduce the number of violent gun-related crimes, suicides, and deaths; rigorous background checks and mandatory waiting periods would help to deter criminals and possible tragedies; and that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines should be banned from public use, as police officers and military personnel are the only officials who actually need them. Adversaries argue that criminals will always find a way to get their guns, consequently leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless; crimes are often prevented by the prophylactic effect of the possibility of victim gun possession; and that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects individuals’ right to gun ownership. Gun control is a considerable system that galvanizes Americans apropos several quandaries; therefore is it vital to be conscious of the pure facts associated with gun restriction, and even more crucial to comprehend the advantages and disadvantages.

Former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer once said "Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror". Spitzer’s words makes one think: should we fear the person behind the gun or the gun itself? The majority of violent crimes that happen in America are not only caused by a criminal, but also the weapon in which the criminal is holding. America’s gun violence problem stems from the increasing accessibility of firearms. Many of the mass shootings in America could have been prevented if access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons were completely banned. Gun violence is an arising issue, and a change needs to be made concerning the gun laws in the U.S. Stricter gun control laws is necessary to prevent high accessibility to firearms and mass shootings, also research shows that Australia’s strict gun control laws are proven to be more efficient in preventing gun violence.

This article describes why the main problem in the U.S isn’t Gun laws, the main problem is the people who own guns. It then goes on to quote the Sandy Hook Homicide, and suggestions the president should do in order for gun violence to decrease. It gives a view that opposes gun control by saying that the president should be more strict against those who own a gun. This also offers facts and suggestions about gun laws. This will be a useful source because it opens more on gun violence than gun laws and how the U.S should interpret people who own guns in the U.S. Although it provides one person's view, it does show specific facts and recent crimes to show that person’s view.

Over the past few years, with numerous deaths taking place, the debate over whether or not gun licenses are a sufficient and effective process towards guaranteeing safety and reducing the deaths of innocent people, has risen substantially. While supporters of firearms argue for less gun control laws, and contend that gun licenses are a sufficient method towards reducing crime, since it monitors who purchases and owns firearms. Recent tragedies have demonstrated the en-forcement of stricter gun control laws in the United States is an extremely essential process, since gun license no longer guarantee the safety of citizens throughout the country. Even if a citizen has a gun license and is qualified to own and operate a firearm, the chances of

There has been a lot of controversy about banning semi automatic weapons. First a semi-automatic weapon is not fully auto and therefore legal in the United States (Reasons). People want them banned, others not so much. The people that don’t want them banned is because of self-defence. This brings up gun free zones. In gun free zones people don’t believe in self-defence that is why they ban weapons. This is exactly like banning semi-automatic weapons. The Second Amendment protects weapons such as semi-autos. Gun free zones should not be in use today because it causes more terror. This is why semi-automatic weapons should not be banned in the United States.

The banning of guns at the hands of the American government would leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against armed thieves. In America, many criminals use guns to commit an inconsiderable amount of crimes, such as murder and robbery. To prepare for a worst-case scenario, people who have a gun license arm themselves with multiple firearms to protect their families. By arming themselves, gun owners feel some sense of security, should they be involved in a gun-related incident. In the article “The NRA Is Right, But We Still Need to Ban Handguns,” the author states that “One tenet of the National Rifle Association’s faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns” (Sugarmann). If the