Elizabeth Hartfield Controlling Gun Violence Analysis

For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control

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

The article “Gun Control Laws: Should the United States adopt stronger gun control laws?” focuses on the debate on passing stricter gun control laws. For example, supporters believe that gun control laws will decrease mass shootings and gun violence. Additionally, adopting these laws does not violate the Second Amendment, and as a result it does not limit the government from the use of fire arms when it is necessary. However, opponents argue that the gun control laws will not stop gun violence. The problem is the people holding the gun and not the gun itself. Furthermore, opponents gathered that stronger gun control laws do violate the Second Amendment. The author illustrates the debate on whether the United States should or should not adopt stronger gun control laws.

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

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.

Throughout the past 20 years, the purchase of guns have increased drastically but at the same time, crimes with firearms are down a shocking 69% (Snyder). Gun control is often used to create laws for the intention of reducing gun injuries or death by gun and might involve background checks or creating difficulty to own a gun altogether. Some believe strict gun laws will help America reduce murder rates. However, others believe gun control will remove the right to bear arms as an individual. America needs to refrain from enforcing gun control because citizens have the constitutional right to own guns and gun control will fail to decrease murder rates which would better be decreased by a basic education of gun safety.

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

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 control has become an increasingly controversial topic in the nation due to the continuous debates relating to gun control and whether or not laws should be passed to make it harder for guns to be obtained. Guns serve for a variety of purposes that range from good to bad. Guns are not for everyone. Some individuals cannot handle guns properly, and some choose to use guns inappropriately. Lately, guns have become more of a problem in our society. There has been an increasing amount of shootings that have taken many lives and have wounded people emotionally, not just physically. Although guns are used for protection, firearms are reportedly used more in crimes. More and more shootings are breaking out across the nation. As a result, the

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.