Gunpowder Increasing Crime

While it is true that the United States possesses an unparalleled amount of firearms, nowhere does it say that those firearms must be used for violence. Yet, there are nearly 33,594 gun related deaths per year (National Center for Health Statistics, 2016, p. 1). The reason behind this outbreak of illegal usage of firearms is something known as deviance; more specifically, criminal deviance. Deviance is the recognized violation of cultural norms, while crime is the violation of a society’s formally enacted criminal law (Macionis, 2014, p. 238). People tend to forget that there is a biological element to crime. Not every criminal consciously chooses the life of crime, some are genetically pre-disposed; others may have a mental illness that prohibits them from thinking and judging clearly. All of these biological factors cannot be overlooked when assessing gun violence. While there have been recently developed mental screenings, it is nearly impossible to determine every individual that potentially poses a risk with a firearm. Of course, biology is not the only aspect of gun violence. Many individuals have been faced with situations in life where they feel the only answer is to harm another human being with a firearm. Perhaps an individual breaks into a home yielding a weapon and the homeowners feel that the only viable option was to fatally harm the individual. There are also people who “become deviant as others define them that way” (Macionis, 2014, p. 241). Each

In the column “Guns do kill People,” Phillip Caputo draws the attention of people who disagree in gun shootings by trying to make them understand that guns are to blame for all of the deaths related to shootings. In order to rebute, her states that libertarians and gun-rights lobbyists state that, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” In the beginning, Caputo wants to support his argument on how guns are the problem, but he then switches the topic of his discussion to how people are the problem. He gives reasons and explanations for both sides of the topic so that he seems more reliable and makes more people understand and agree with him. Caputo compares how one would react to an animal in danger and a child in danger. He claims that,

If more guns does not indicate an increase in levels of violence, then what can be attributed to this relationship? According to Dudler, Cantor, and de Moore (2007), blaming a weapon for a crime is an illogical solution to the issue of gun violence. Furthermore,

Strict gun laws do not lower crime rates in fact they increase crime, there has been numerous tests that back this up for every issue there are people that oppose the idea. There are studies that have proven without debate that states that have the most restricting gun laws have the highest crime rates. Studies show that states that adopt “shall issue laws” reduce murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, assault by 7% and robbery by 3%, which translates to 1570 murders, 4177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies (Lott 1). So criminals respond strongly to deterrence threats and the thought of a criminal’s victim potentially being armed deters them. Shall-issue laws are laws that if you take a state certified state and pass a background check you can receive a concealed carry license, this means that you must conceal the weapon, generally a pistol. Benefits of concealed carry do not just benefit those who carry them or use them in self-defense. The very fact that those weapons are concealed keeps criminals uncertain as to whether potential victims will be able to defend themselves with lethal force. The most support for strict gun laws are in large cities where crime rates are the highest and shall-issue laws would help out tremendously, people that are uneducated on the real use of weapons know how useful they can be and they can save lives. Many of the supporters of strict gun laws have no knowledge on firearms and make their call strictly on emotion and not rational

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

According to the Congressional Digest, in an article called Gun Violence Prevention, it states, “Firearms fatalities increased by 3.8 percent in 2005 to 30,694, by 0.7 percent in 2006 to 30,897, and by 1.1 percent in 2007 to 31,224” (Gun Violence Prevention 4). In today’s world, it is becoming a commonplace for us to flip on the news and hear about some tragic murder, mass shooting, etc. It has become extremely evident that we are sweeping these tragedies under the carpet, because, in fact, there is something we can do. What if the solution was a simple as a ban? What if we could decrease gun related violence drastically with one small change? Through my extended research of this topic, I have

Due to the high rate of crimes committed throughout big cities by gun violence, it is essential for Law Enforcement to enforce a solution to prevent violent, brutal crimes from occurring. Both Federal and local Law Enforcement must work together to promote a solution for reducing gun violence. Back in Bush’s first term as President it was significant for Bush’s administration to create a project to “get the message out there” about deterrence and the increasing number of crimes committed through the use of guns. Bush’s administration came up with the project known as the Project Safe Neighborhoods. The goal for Project Safe Neighborhoods is to inhibit criminal behavior by using deterrence and incapacitation. Through deterrence and incapacitation Law Enforcement can provide safe neighborhoods across the country.

In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000.” When a person want to revenge the society for some reason or just want to kill some people before he ends his life, has a gun can make a worse result. Almost at the same date of Sandy Hook, their is another case happened in China. A man who suffered unfair treatment by goverment tring to attact a kindergarten, All weapons he has, is a knife. What result he caused ? Only a teacher get hurted, nobody dead! Why there is a big difference between these two events? Weapons. American have better way to avoid kill and wound when bad thing happened but chinese not because it’s not that often happened to us but I have never heard that a Criminal can kill that much people in school. I believe that if the Chinese criminal has the same weapon as the criminal of Sandy Hook,everything will be changed.This is what guns can change, not only the result. If the criminal don’t have gun, maybe he will not to do that because he almost can’t kill anyone and will get arrest.

controls cause more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively low gun-control laws?

Tragedy struck Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, making Americans fearful. Twenty children between the ages of six and seven were fatally shot in their school. Six more adult victims were part of the carnage. Events such as these - mass shootings, murders, and violence executed with guns - have become increasingly common. With the increase of media coverage of violent crime, a fear response has been elicited by the American public, and many people have chosen to arm themselves against potential harm. Thus, more and more citizens and policymakers alike are viewing the crimes as a result of gun ownership. It is a common belief that by removing guns and increasing gun regulations, crime will decrease. These beliefs are unfounded and are made without

The government wants to take our guns from us. Obama says it’s just a conspiracy theory. Obama claimed that some opposition to gun laws comes from conspiracy theorists who believe it’s a step toward tyranny. I don’t think it’s just a conspiracy theory when it’s all over the news. It is also talked about a lot by the government.

Plus, the main ingredient saltpeter was very rare in Europe whereas the Chinese had large quantities, so it was very difficult for the Europeans to take advantage of the new invention (Temple 225). Due to gunpowder and the invention of these new deadly weapons, the Chinese had strong advantages over different countries. China was already hard to attack, being surrounded by natural borders but now it also had advantages in warlike tactics. Although it’s main use was by the military, fireworks and other things like it, were still used by everyday people in China. Think about your country’s military and the vast number of guns, and explosive weapons used today. If it weren’t for the chinese’s incredible invention of gunpowder, we may today still be using swords, bows, and arrows, a fairly impractical way of defeating your enemies in today’s modern world. If that doesn’t impress you, think about the spectacular fireworks set off every New Year and think about what it would be like without them. Gunpowder clearly made a large impact in China and around the whole world in many different

April 15, 2015 Logan Square Chicago, IL an Uber driver who was a concealed carry licensed holder shoots and wounded 22 year old Everardo Custodio, who opened fire on a crowd of people preventing mass casualties, according to the Chicago Tribune. In Philadelphia earlier this year, Warren Edwards was confronted by a concealed-carry permit holder. Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers at the barber shop… I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there”, said police captain (The Washington Post, 2015). There are much more incidents relating to the ones mentioned above, but news media fails to promote such events. They would much rather exploits stories like the Columbine or Virginia Tech school shootings. Therefore, gun control has been at the center of our country’s debate for many years. The two strong positions on gun control go as follow: The pro-gun control lawmakers believe that stricter or possibly placing a ban on gun laws would reduce violent crime. We all know that a criminal, who cannot buy guns, will steal, borrow or obtain it via other means. The anti-gun control feel that stricter or banning guns is not a solution to solve crimes; rather it put American citizens in vunerable position where they cannot defend themselves. A report from crime in America where the statistic is obtained from the FBI preliminary report, the analysis of the FBI crime statistics found that states with CWP (concealed weapon permits) have reduced the rate in

Guns and crime. These two words sound interesting, right? Now think about it deeply, do they really link to each other? Do guns surely lead to crime and violent issues? If so, should governments set restrictive rules for people who own and use the guns, such as provide the mental health reports, and test the shooting skills before purchasing the guns? These questions have been mentioned and discussed over and over again in today’s world. We can often hear the news about gun violence, such as a tragic mass shooting somewhere around the world and tons of victims who died from the accident, or husband that shot his wife by accident. Thus, many people, especially people in America, are asking, and even doubting whether or not it is beneficial to own guns at home without a license. In my opinion, I think that owning a gun can be helpful sometimes in some ways, as it can always be the extremely powerful and helpful weapon for self-defense, especially when help from the law enforcement officers are not available.

The next major improvement in weapons technology came from the Chinese civilization, the inventers of gun powder. Initially used for the purpose of demolition