Gun Control Control Laws Decrease Crime Rates Essays

In today’s society the majority of the crimes are still being committed by people who have possessed a firearm that has been obtained illegally or without proper permits. That being said there has been a strong push for gun control because of the rise of shootings involving a large group of people such as the Columbine massacre, Virginia Tech shooting and latest Aurora movie theater shooting involving people who have purchased firearms legally. Gun control laws in the United States have been established for many years but to maintain a civilized society with limited crime stronger control laws need to be enforced in which will help reduce crime in our country. Establishing stronger gun control laws will educate

Gun control is a very big issue in the United States today. Many people don't agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Many people have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns are not very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection. The second amendment states "the right to bear arms" does this grant everyone a right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for a good guy to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea.

When the state of Virginia enacted its one-gun-a-month law, specifically targeted at reducing the amount of gun trafficking, there was a significant drop in the number of out of state crime guns traced back to Virginia dealers. In twelve states where child access prevention laws were put in place and in effect for over a year, unintentional firearm deaths fell by 23 percent among children under the age of 15. Following Maryland’s adoption of a ban on “gun junk” firearm homicides dropped by 8.6 percent, a total of 40 lives saved. Finally, after the passage of the Brady Law in 1994, which required background checks to be issued prior to purchasing a firearm, aggravated assaults with a weapon dropped by 35 percent and a total of five hundred thousand people with a criminal record were legally prevented from obtaining a gun (Gun Control, 2013). According to gun control proponents, these few examples are more than enough evidence to show that sensible gun laws can and do work and that if more laws like them were put in place the results would be astonishing. In addition to sensible gun laws being put in place, gun control proponents strongly believe that closing loopholes is a key component that can reduce crime and make society safer. Gun control proponents like to point out that although some gun regulations are

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

A literal arms race for firepower has become a reality in the United States. People buy guns to keep themselves safe, which makes others uncomfortable, and motivates the next person to buy their own gun. Gun control would create a safer environment for everyone. With a population of 323 million, it’s estimated that there are 357 million guns in the United States.

Over the past couple of years, being able to access a gun has been too easy for criminals. They have been able to easily pass background checks. This is why there needs to be stronger background checks to protect people from criminals. Also, gun laws do not need to be too strong so that no one can protect themselves. “In 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law [in Grundy, Virginia]. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him”(Guns Save Lives). This is an example of why having guns could help. If there were laws that prevented these 2 students to own guns, the whole situation could have been worse. There could have been more deaths but instead, since they had guns, they were able to control the situation and protect themselves. Lastly, Americans have always had the right to bear arms. “The right to bear arms has been a long American tradition. From the time the colonists settled on North American soil, Americans have held weapons to protect themselves”(The History of the Right to Bear Arms). If there were always laws then America would not have been America. Changing this would just lead more people to be mad and cause more problems. It will be better off if the laws remain the same. Limiting the amount of gun laws will allow people to own a gun and protect themselves and having stricter background checks will make it harder for a criminal to acquire a

After the incident, James Brady devoted his life to the fight for gun control. (Johnson, 2014) In 1993 the Brady Handgun Violence and Prevention Act bill passed. The law requires background checks on firearms purchases from federally licensed dealers in the United States, and imposed a five- day waiting on purchases. (Johnson, 2014) Some have argued that the Brady law has no impact of the gun control issues and the Brady Bill seems to have been a failure. In 2012 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre government officials and Congress revisit the impact of gun control that Brady Law has. (Johnson, 2014) Yet, other believe that Brady Law had a lasting impact on gun

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

The Brady Campaign and the NRA provide evidence from opposing points of view on the success of the Brady Act. The Brady Campaign praises the Brady Act, providing statistics which they feel is hard proof that the Brady Act has reduced gun violence and gun related deaths. The NRA’s evidence paints a different picture. The NRA has provided statistics indicating the Brady Act and waiting periods had no effect on homicide and suicide rates across the country. The NRA firmly believes Instant Check, when used for criminal background checks for firearms purchases, is the leading contributor for the reduction in gun violence.

In the United States, Gun control has always been a topic of discussion. Due to the recent outbreak of mass shootings here in the United States, talks about making gun control stricter has ignited. To make gun control stricter, laws such as The Brady Bill was created to prohibit any federal licenses to be sold to people who are considered to be dangerous. In a way this helped the United States, but The United States has to make their gun control laws a lot stricter in order to prevent any more mass shootings. (put in citation)

However, even in the 18th century, many abused this right, murdering and provoking grief throughout thousands across the country. Therefore, limitations were inflicted upon the people, later termed as gun control laws. The “Gun Control” database defines gun control laws as regulations that “can hinder certain individuals from gaining access to firearms and can limit possession of certain types of weapons to the police and the military,” which is a resolute statement, but is overly optimistic and fails to address those whose sole purpose is to inflict harm upon society in every way possible. Since the the creation of the United States, many laws, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, have been passed for one sole purpose; to diminish gun brutality as much as possible (“History of Gun-Control Legislation”). Unfortunately, they have not always produced their desired effects, either having loopholes that allowed criminals continue their work, or simply being unable to thwart motivated villains. These unavoidable facts create the enigma of whether it is necessary to augment the security of guns with supplementary gun laws, or if it is best to rely on the American people and stop raising attention to the

Gun control should be enforced because it will help reduce crime rate. Alex Yablon states “The Stanford team found precisely the opposite: ‘Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws,’ they write, ‘violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law”(Yablon). This proves that gun laws are way too lenient and need to be enforced more because the RTC law made it easier for people to get their hands on firearms which was supposed to decrease the crime rate but as stated in the evidence it instead had the opposite effect. So gun laws would have a beneficial impact, reducing the crime rate. Douglas Weil discusses “We know that well-tailored gun laws work. The Brady Law is working to prevent easy access to handguns by criminals. Since the law was first implemented, eighty-five felons a day have been denied access to a handgun that they tried to purchase from licensed gun dealers. Virginia 's law limiting handgun purchases to one gun a month has had an enormous impact on gun trafficking patterns along the east coast”(Weil). This shows that the Brady Law is help enforcing gun control by preventing easy access to guns which is reducing crimes such as felonies. It also proves how gun laws were not strict enough because after the Brady law was put into action, a great amount of people trying purchase handguns were not legible to do so and before this law,

In the United States there are many issues under hot debate. Some people are so set in their belief on a subject that they won’t even consider an opposing argument. Gun control is third on the list of subjects in which people are not willing to listen to the opposition’s argument. One side of the gun control argument is that we need more gun control. The opposing side says we don’t need stronger laws, or we need fewer laws. My stand on the argument is that we do not need stronger gun control laws. The thesis of this paper will focus on the argument against tougher gun laws. The anti thesis will focus on the opposition’s belief that there should be stronger gun control laws. Finally, the synthesis will focus on refuting the

Gun laws are a subject many people feel strongly about, and as with any subject people feel strongly about there are no shortage of data and statistics that seem to support either side. I decided to look into any correlation I could find between gun laws and deaths in the US. Just like with political parties and deficit spending I didn't really have any expectations, but would probably guess that there wasn't much correlation.

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