In a speech regarding the Charleston, South Carolina shooting in June of 2015, President Obama stated, “More than 11,000 people were killed by gun violence in 2013 alone.” After the Sandy Hook shooting, in Newtown, Connecticut with a death toll of 26, Congress has still failed to pass these regulations which 90% of Americans wish to have. While tightening the gun control may not guarantee the complete absence of mass shootings or gun violence and crime, it has definately been shown to significantly reduce these rates. America is in need of tighter gun control laws because current regulations do not deter violence and crime, and the interpretation of the constitutional right has since been misconstrued.
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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
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.
The studies and research on gun control has opened up many ideas on how weak the current laws really are. Crime rates consist of high numbers. “Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii”
FBI statistics accumulated on a countrywide level show that in states that have strict gun control laws, there are higher crime rates. If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime! For instance, New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977. In opposition, states with liberal gun carry laws have much lower crime rates. In Florida the homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 percent below the national average after the state changed its concealed carry law in 1987. In 1987, Florida’s murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 compared with the national rate of 8.2. By 1992, the national rate had risen to 9.3 per 100,000 while Florida’s had dropped to 9, and in 1993, it continued to drop another .3 to 8.7 per 100,000. Between 1987 and 1992, rape increased nationally by 14.4 percent. But in Florida, it increased only 2.9 percent and in 1993 rape in Florida decreased .2 percent. Florida issued 204,108 concealed carry licenses during the first six and half years
If gun control is regulated, then we will have less crime. Access to firearms makes killing easy, efficient, and impersonal, which increases the lethality of crime. Josh Sugarmann, the Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center has once said, "We recoil in horror and search for explanations, but we never face up to the obvious preventive measure: a ban on the handy killing machines that make crimes so easy.”Allowing untrained people to carry guns puts others at risk and it can result in self-inflicting injuries both by suicide and unintentional incidents. Gun violence in America kills more than 30,000 and injures almost 70,000 each year. Guns can be misused and abused, which is why gun
The study found that “states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides.” Although this result cannot draw a causal relationship between gun control policies and homicides, it proves that legislative strength and firearm deaths and ownership are negatively correlated.
Sandy Hook Elementary. Aurora, Colorado. San Bernardino, California. Las Vegas, Nevada. Orlando, Florida. (Words with Negative Connotation) These are just some of the biggest mass shootings that have swept America in the past few years. Hundreds of lives are lost each year to gun related violence in the United States alone. Gun control has been a topic in our country since our founding fathers adopted the second amendment to the US constitution. Although recently controversy has sparked to an all-new extent in America due to the recent spike in mass shootings and gun related homicides. So many families and loves ones are affected each year in the United States because of gun related violence and other mass killing events, because of these events gun control laws need to be revamped and strengthened in American in order to protect the citizens.
President obama said at a press conference on October 01, 2015 “The solution to such violence is obvious. It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.” (Simple Minded Gun Control). Gun control is a controversial issue worldwide. The reason why this has attracted so much attention is because not everyone is in favor of gun control and each side brings up excellent points about the issue. Research related to this issue strongly supports the claim that there SHOULD be more gun control laws. Three arguments that prove this position are (1) Incidents like Sandy Hook will be less likely to occur (2) It reduces the high rates of accidental deaths (3) As the years pass by and technology updates the laws should be up to date as well. Members from the National Rifles Association state that No law-abiding American should be forced to face evil with empty hands. I say I agree with President Obama there SHOULD be more gun control laws because it should not be as easy as it is for someone who wants to inflict harm on others to get their hands on a weapon.
One of the main topics of debate is whether or not gun laws actually correspond with lower murder rates. “The average annual gun death rate ranged from almost 3 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 18 per 100,000 in Louisiana. Hawaii had 16 gun laws, and along with New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts was among states with the most laws and fewest deaths. States with the fewest laws and most deaths included Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma.” (CBSnews.com). These statistics can lead one to believe that more gun laws equate to lower death rates. What these numbers prove is that some gun regulations help lower death rates. However, what gun control activists would have you believe that a full on gun ban would lower these numbers more. This is not the case as evident in the following, “During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower” (James D.
A majority of the American people feel that gun control laws will help reduce crime rates because the waiting period would allow time for a person’s temper to cool down. They also feel that gun control will prevent repeat offenders because when a person tries to purchase a handgun, he will have to fill out a lengthy questionnaire. The questionnaire will include questions about the buyer’s past, for example, if they have a criminal record or a record of any mental illness. If there is a criminal record in that person’s history, he will not be able to make the purchase. Restricting handgun ownership would also reduce crime, because guns are used most often in robberies and murders (Mayer 28). They are very easily concealed under a coat, or even in the waistband of pants.
This paper examines concealed handgun laws in the United States with the purpose of measuring the effects of the laws on crime rates. There is a lot of previously done research on the subject of concealed handgun laws with conflicting results and opinions. Many researchers are in agreement that more research on the subject needs to be done. In this study, states that have implemented the concealed handgun law are compared to crime rates before it was in effect as well as other states that have implemented the law. The results of this project show evidence that when citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons __________ lower/raise crime rates, in particular, violent crime rates.
The typical argument for gun control is that it lowers crime rate. This article finds that there is no solid evidence that gun control lowers crime rates. It is known however that crime reduction is the basic premise behind gun control. The findings are that high crime rates lead to efforts for more gun control and that the number of Democrats in office is positively related to the passing of gun control laws. This article is relative to my topic because it discusses the issues of civil liberties with gun control that would be extensive and stringent enough to effectively control all transfers of firearms. This article derives most of its data from reputable United States government
Isenstein writing for the National Journal proposes that there is a distinct correlation between states with strict gun laws and gun violence. “The states that im¬pose the most re¬stric¬tions on gun users also have the low¬est rates of gun-re¬lated deaths, while states with few¬er reg¬u¬la¬tions typ¬ic-ally have a much high¬er death rate from guns.” (Isenstein) The charts that are presented in the article support the claim, but again bring up the question about the variables used to define death rates from guns. Annotations to the article imply that some outside influence caused a revision to update some charts to only display gun-related homicides and exclude suicides and accidental deaths. Sullum critiques the study and points out a different perspective from the same data. He underscores that the rankings can be drastically altered by focusing on homicides and not including suicides. Wyoming is ranked for having a high suicide rate but a low homicide rate whereas the District of Columbia has a low suicide rate but high homicide rate. (Sullum) The National Journal shows that the six states with the lowest rates of gun-related deaths in 2013 also have relatively strict gun policies when considering the laws for purchasing and carrying handguns. Additionally, these states do not have a ‘stand your ground’ law. (Isenstein) Sullum contends that these states alone have a correlation between gun deaths and strict gun control laws. His example of a contradiction is New
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
There are new proposed gun control laws in the aftermath of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut that occurred on December 14th, 2012. This incident claimed the lives of twenty 1st graders and six adults and has set the government in motion to try to prevent future acts of violence by strengthening gun control laws in the United States (Smith). This has been a topic that has been an extremely emotional debate with people on both sides unwilling to compromise. Gun advocates and critics of the new proposed gun laws argue that these new laws infringe on our constitutional
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