Guns Don't Kill People, Criminals Do Essay

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,

* Guns kept in the home were 22 times more likely to be used in unintentional shootings, murder or assault, and suicide attempts than in an act of self-defense.

“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it”. -- Clint Eastwood

School shootings, gang violence, drive by shootings, murder, and thousands of acts of violence are committed every day. Members of our society criticize their own people for this violence while they continue to sit back and do nothing about it. These acts of violence have many contributing factors. Violence in our country today is escalating because we don't control the distribution of the guns sold. There are not enough restrictions on guns sold legally. The illegal purchase of guns through the black market is out of control. There is not enough education on the usage and storage of guns.

In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

In the African American community, 83 percent of homicides are due to gun violence. In black communities gun violence is commonly misunderstood as gang affiliation, which is false. Studies show over 50 percent of gun crimes committed were not related to a felony, but were due to some disagreement. The gun epidemic in predominantly black communities aren’t just disagreements, but race wars, police brutality, gang related, and even no reason at all.

Everyday 93 Americans are killed by guns. Whether it is due to homicide or suicide, it does not matter. At the end of the day gun violence is increasing exponentially. In numerous states, gun laws have been placed in the hopes of reducing gun violence. But now many people believe that gun violence should be treated as a public health problem. I for one feel that gun violence should be put in the category of public health. Every year more than 30,000 people are victims to gun related incidents. It has become such an issue that gun violence is causing more deaths than some life threatening diseases.

According to the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms should not be altered.(Bill of Rights). Many American citizens believe this amendment is an individual right, while others believe that it is a collective right intended to restrict Congress from taking away a state's right to self-defense. This, along with other current events, has given rise to heated debate on the topic of gun control. History has shown that there are positive and negative effects of gun control laws and high profile events that have lead to a highly controversial debate.

Congress expanded the original ban on "Tests or devices" to apply nationwide in 1970, and in 1975, Congress made the ban permanent.

In 2015, 13,367 people lost their lives due to gun violence according to Gun Violence Archive. The Archive also states that out of that number, 693 were children from ages 0-11. We can all agree that there is indeed a problem that we have to address. The solution to that problem, however, has been debated by many. I believe the solution to this problem exists in three parts: Mandatory training and licensing along with more heavily secure gun storage, stricter regulations on the purchasing of a firearm—disabilities and criminal records should be more deeply looked into before transaction—and finally, equipping teachers at highs schools with the right kind of weaponry to prevent mass shootings.

arms is not always a good idea, especially during times of peace without clear and present dangers. In

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

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.