Guns Increase Crime Rates

With the popular culture providing positive images of guns, the United States has a gun prevalence that is very rare in the modern world. While many people appreciate the “gun culture”, guns are heavily involved in violence in the United States. According to U.S. Department of Justice, since 1960, more than 750,000 Americans have died under firearms, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries. The figure 1 provides a comprehensive survey of U.S. violent crimes for the period from 1993 to 2011.This figure illustrates that from 1993 to 2011, about 60% to 70% of homicides were associated with a firearm. Over the same period, between 6% and 9% of all nonfatal violence, with about 20% to 30% of robberies and 22% to 32% of aggravated assaults involving a firearm.

C. Thesis Statement (position on topic – preview main ideas – outline of speech); A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides).

The most common reason why people argue that they need to have a gun is for safety, so they can protect themselves against burglars. If a burglar would come into your house, you would have a better chance defending yourself and your family with a gun, than if you did not have a gun. The number of concealed weapon owners is at an all time high. In comparison the number of homicides had drastically decreased alongside the growing rate of legal concealed weapons. This number had been nearly cut in half in the past 20 years(Goldberg).

What my father, and the others don’t know, is that a gun kept in a home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, suicide, or criminal assault, rather than be used in self-defense. That sure doesn’t make me feel safe as I lay down in bed at

There is no reason why so many people, living in what is supposed to be a peaceful society, possess guns. About 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2014. Of these, about 10,886, or 67%, were committed with firearms. A nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a

With the crime rate commonly believed to be detrimental to the safety of society, one might assume to inflict stricter gun control laws. But, just how effective are these laws in reducing the amount of crime committed? As examined by Kleck and Patterson (2006), the rationale for gun control must first include the assumption that the availability of guns entails a significantly positive correlation on violence rates. But, Kates and Mauser (2006) studied the aggregate relationship between gun control and lower crime rate and found no evidence of this correlation.

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

Studies have demonstrated, repeatedly, that homes with a firearm are no safer than those without guns. In fact, the sight of a gun during an intrusion is cause for action, deterring thought, which could make all the difference between life and unnecessary death. Besides which, most gun murders at home aren 't perpetrated by an intruder, but rather by a family member or an acquaintance.

The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is important because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. This means that a gun allows anyone regardless of their statuette or physical health, they to can defend themselves from a criminal no matter how big or strong the criminal may be. Guns can also be a great way to prevent crime. It is likely that gun ownership can cut the rate of violent crimes because a criminal thinks you might be armed, they may be less likely to choose you as a victim.

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

In this article, Robert McCartney, a newspaper reporter from the Washington Post who also has his own radio show, interviews a Washington D.C. doctor about gun violence. Dr. Janis Orlowski, former chief medical officer of a D.C. area hospital, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, is all but a stranger to the effects of gun violence. Growing up in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, she was one of eight siblings, and her father loved to hunt. She stated that she had been around guns all of her life, not only at home, but throughout her community. While she does believe that something needs to be done about the gun laws, and she would support them, she also believes it is not “the sole answer.” This is coming from a doctor, who sees the awful, tragic effects of gunshot wounds every single day. As the chief medical officer, she is in charge of over 6,000 staff members. During a news brief following a shooting at a Navy yard, her sincere though trajectory had inadvertently made her a local and national celebrity. She said; “Put my trauma center out of business…. I would like to not be an expert on gunshots.”

In history time and time again it has been proven that Gun control does nothing but increase violent crime and prohibit its people from protecting themselves. China: 20 million dissidents were murdered, Cambodia: 30 million people were murdered, 1939 to 1945: 10 million Jews and other prisoners were murdered at Nazi concentration camps, Soviet Union: 20 million murdered either in slave labor camps or by Stalin’s cronies. Every single nation that has had a genocide of some sort has implemented or used existing Gun control laws to control its people. Modernly when these laws are introduced violent crime rates sky rocket and overall Gun violence does not decrease. “Crime statistics from the late 1980s and 1990s indicate that the measure failed to have a significant impact on firearm-related crime.” (Boston Globe UK). Why would somebody that stands on the

In looking over how gun control single handily affects crime, advocates of gun control continue to argue that restrictions on firearm accessibility, handguns in particular can reduce the rate of firearm-related crimes, suicides, and accidental deaths.. People that oppose gun control argue that it won’t reduce crime, because it would embolden criminals, who manages to secure firearms, to attack citizens whom are to be believed unarmed. When it comes to debating the issue as to whether or not gun control is constitutional, the focus is mainly on the Second Amendment and it’s what it means. Gun-control advocates argue that the Second Amendment refers only to the arming of a State militia and cite court cases that have offered this interpretation. Gun-control opponents maintain that the "right to bear arms" is guaranteed not only to members of a State militia but also to every citizen. In debating whether or not gun ownership is an effective means of self-defense, opponents of gun control use situations where as gun ownership stopped or prevented a crime from happening. Gun- control advocates tend to use statistics that show a gun in the home place is more likely to kill a family member rather than its intended purpose.

Gun violence has been on the rise for many years and there seems to be no solution. People feel more protected with guns in their home, but actually this increases their risk to be in harm’s way of being hurt or killed because of the gun. The majority of gun ownership is owned by civilians “75 percent of the world’s 875 million guns are civilian controlled”(Gun Violence). People also feel more protected when they carry a gun on their person but this also increases their risk of being harmed “Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun" and that "his odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater when armed”(Gun Violence). If people knew that it increases their risk of being killed then not very many people will carry a gun around.