Gun Laws Should Not Be Necessary Essay

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

Guns are a major problem in our society and the numbers of these gun-related murders are continuing to rise. On top of the murders you also have people losing their lives through misfire and gun-related suicides. The total death toll of all gun-related deaths averages over 30,000 per year in the U.S. (http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/03/07/u-s-gun-deaths-visualizing-the-numbers/). I believe that enforcing stricter gun laws will contribute to getting these numbers lower. The numbers do not lie, we as a society have a problem with gun-violence and we need to do something to fix it.

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

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.

The majority of anti-gun advocates voice their opinion that more guns would produce more crimes unfortunately for them there is little to no truth in that claim. In reality, when gun ownership increased the amount of murders diminished as well. When states passed concealed weapons laws there was significant drops in the number of multiple victim shootings occurring, the number of deaths, and the number of injuries at these shootings. In 1997 both Wales and England banned handguns and the instantaneous effect was a 50% increase according to crime research. They never saw a day lower than after the year they decided to ban handguns. It has been proven by many surveys that the banning of guns increases crime rate which in turn proves that gun control is not the answer.

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.

Gun control is often considered as an effective means of protecting ordinary citizens. We all want to feel safe, and it's easy to ascribe notions of safety to the idea of gun control. Unfortunately, feeling safe and actually being safe can be very different things. Gun control sounds wonderful in theory: no guns means no shootings. If only it were that simple. When one considers some of the worst shootings and gun-related crimes in recent history, it's peculiar to realize how often these occurred in places where guns were illegal to carry or even own. It's downright disturbing to realize that, in some cases, the only armed person in sight was the one planning a crime. A sign that says 'no guns' might as well say 'no resistance'.

Anyone who believes strengthening the gun control laws would reduce gun violence is correct. However, if someone wants to kill someone, not having a gun is unfortunately not going to stop him or her. If a gun is not accessible, a person who wishes to kill someone will use another weapon that is accessible, such as a knife or bludgeon of sorts. Banning guns will lessen gun violence, but will bring up a rise in violence with other weapons.

The first reason that there should be more gun control laws is that it would prevent thousands of deaths. For example, “guns are the leading cause of death by homicide and by suicide;” along with that, firearms are the “12th leading cause of all deaths [overall]” (Gun Control, n.p.). With this in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that there were “270,237 firearm suicides in the United States,” including more than half of the total suicides throughout the years of 1999 and 2013 (Centers for Disease, n.p.). As a result, it would also decrease gun violence significantly and reduce the costs of gun violence-related expenses. According to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, “gun violence cost each person in the United States around $564” (Gun Control, n.p.). Ted Miller also estimated that the “annual firearm injury costs an average of $645 per gun, in America” (PIRE, n.p.). Not to mention, statistics show that “every day, 315 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides and suicide

In the space separating 1982 and 2012 the U.S. had approximately sixty-two mass shootings. Just because of this statement gun control should be fortified in order to reduce crime rate. Gun control laws in the U.S. are too facile. An example of this is that you can walk into a Walmart with money and an I.D. and walk out with a handgun. There are restrictions to gun ownership but they are not enforced. Usually the opposing crowd who do not want to bolster gun control use the Second Amendment as an excuse to not agree with the idea that emphasizing gun control will help the U.S. in many ways. Gun control in the U.S. should and needs to be

Gun control has not been effective in the history of the United States. Even with laws that restrict gun ownership, it will not deter or prevent criminals from obtaining weapons or crimes from happening. Statistics can back up both sides of the gun control argument, but in reality simply having stricter gun laws does not stop crimes. Even with stringent gun laws criminals will find ways around them legally or illegally.

“United Nations study revealed that the US had 3.21 firearm homicides per 100,000 in 2010” said by Richard Pérez-Peña. If the amount of guns in the US was shrunk by at least half there would be so many less deaths. “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence, but what if we tried to stop even one?” I think the sooner the government does something about the problem then it could save many lives. There are so many risks and accidents that can happen when so many people own guns. This why I think that having gun control would lessen the number of yearly deaths, and mass

The Second Amendment to the Constitution upholds the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Throughout American history there have been many regulations placed on gun ownership, but they prove to be ineffective as almost anyone can obtain a gun through both legal and illegal methods. Many gun control legislations meant to regulate gun ownership have been stalled in Congress. Recent events in the past decade, such as the Las Vegas shooting in October 2017 and the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, seem to provide more than enough reason for stricter gun control laws in the United States, but there is not much progress being made to establish stricter laws as both sides of the debate cannot come to a fair compromise. If the United States were to adopt stricter gun control laws, there would be fewer mass shootings, a lower murder rate, and less violent crime. The United States should pursue new gun laws to create a safer environment for everyone.

Not only does implementing more gun control go against an American's second amendment right, but it would also be ineffective. Gun-related homicides only account for about thirty-three percent of the nation's gun-related death rate. The other majority of the deaths (about sixty

“Laws requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms reduce illegal gun trafficking making it easier for law enforcement to ensure that deadly weapons do not make their way into dangers people's hands.From preventing straw purchases to disarming prohibited persons,reporting laws protect citizens by making sure illegal firearm transfers don’t fall through the cracks.Background laws that require firearm owners to notify law enforcement about the loss or theft of a firearm serve several public safety functions.Those laws help deter gun trafficking and straw purchasing and help law enforcement recover and return lost or stolen guns to their rightful owners.That nearly a quarter of the investigations involved stolen firearms and that ten percent of the investigations involved guns stolen from residences.Laws requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms are useful to law enforcement for several reasons.First, when a criminal gun is traced by law enforcement to the last purchaser of record,the person who purchased the gun may often claim that the weapon was lost or stolen to hide his or her involvement in the crime or intentionally trade the gun to a prohibited person. Reporting laws provide an import tool for law enforcement to detect this behavior and charge criminals who