In the United States, we have issues that affect many Americans in their day to day lives. They live always wondering when the next breaking news alert will show up on their television, smart phone, or computer; listening to the constant blast of sirens running through the downtown city streets, from police cars, firetrucks, and ambulances. Anything from burglaries, high speed car chases, or shootings keep these emergency personnel on the clock 24/7. The government has many laws established to prevent these outbreaks yet they still constantly happen. Although many of our laws do keep must of our daily lives in a safer routine such as traffic laws and laws meant to keep humans civil such as laws about murder and theft, you would think …show more content…
Criminals do not always intend to use the weapon even if they have it; for instance, in armed robberies criminals use weapons as a scare tactic to get the victim to comply. Going into the crime they did not have intentions of actually using the weapon for harm. Not all crimes are planned out as well; they could possibly be a last-minute decision that a person sees as their only escape from their issues. According to the above statistic even if the government completely removed firearms from the public it would only stop 8 percent of all violent crimes. That does not seem to be a logically effective solution. Even if the government somehow effectively strips all firearms away from criminals they would just resort to using the next best weapon of choice. Criminals are not going to let the government’s laws get in their way; when they became a criminal, they decided the law was no longer important to them so just because a new gun control law is introduced does not mean the criminals are going to pay any attention to its purpose. According to the FBI, in 2014 there was 1,567 murders committed with knives or a sharp object and only 248 murders committed with a rifle (FBI: UCR). That is over six times the amount of murders committed with a knife than a rifle, including the infamous assault rifle. Even if the laws effectively eliminated the use of these weapons in crimes,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Thousands of deaths can be prevented with a firearm, there needs to be a more of an extensive background checks than just restricting the weapon itself. In 2011 according to the FBI the total amount of firearm murders (not just rifles but all guns) came to 8,583, And according to Bill Whitte studies show that firearms prevent anywhere from 800,000 to over two million violent crimes every year. That’s 1% of the population. With a regular background check, a previous criminal offense will prevent gun ownership, but it doesn't check for any signs for a potential criminal.
Paul Waldman states “The question isn’t whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It’s whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people.” It’s true that we can make it harder for a murderer to get their hands on a gun, but what about other things they could use such as knives, fire, rope, a bat, their hands, drugs, objects lying around, and nifty little things that they create themselves at home? If someone is actually looking to kill, and are very intent to do so, they will find a way. If they’re not intent on it, and it just comes as a random burst of outrage or drunkenness, they can still use random objects lying around (or their hands).Even if we put a million laws on guns (as well as other things that seem like more obvious “killing tools” like kitchen knives and such) , like I said before, they could create
The modern day anti-gun advocate will cry out that if guns were outlawed, then the violent crime rate would drop dramatically. However, this is the type of ignorance that creates these dangerous situations. If guns were still outlawed, the criminal with a desire to attain a gun would still be able to get them. Most violent criminals do not buy guns legally in the first place, so then why take that right from law abiding citizens? The crime rate does not come from the availability of firearms, but from the lack respect in today's society for other people's lives and property. If guns were made illegal, the same effect as de-legalizing narcotics and alcohol would resurface,absolutely nothing.
Having a gun readily available can empower an individual to commit a violent crime by escalating the level of violence and potentially produce a murder had no firearm been available. (Conklin, 2013, p. 226). In Japan, their policy of ownership of firearms is stringent. Nevertheless, in Switzerland, traditionally interpersonal disputes are not settled using guns. Accordingly, Switzerland has a low rate of criminal violence. (Conklin, 2013, p. 226). There is “little to no conclusive evidence to show that gun ownership among the larger population is, per se, an important cause of criminal violence” (Conklin, 2013, p. 226). Furthermore, it would appear that armed citizens do have a deterrent effect on crime. (Wright, Rossi, 1983, p. 1). In summary, my opinion is that gun control of law abiding citizens is not the answer to effectively reducing crime in the United States; controlling how the offenders obtain guns could be.
In fact, gun control does not reduce Crimes. David Brooks, a New York Times columnist asserts “If they can’t find an easy way to get a new gun, they’ll surely find a new one of the 200 million guns that already exist in the country, or they’ll use a bomb or find another way” (qtd. in Gun Control: Reform). Banning guns will be meaningless to law breakers who will buy them illegally and will lead to more crime because criminals will be better armed than law abiding citizens (“Update: Gun Control”). If more law abiding citizens have guns, criminals are less likely to prey on people when there is a chance they will encounter armed resistance (“Does Gun Control…”). Also, Paul Bucher says “The problems aren’t the guns, it’s the guns in the wrong hands” (qtd. in Gun Control: Reform). People who use guns to commit crimes are not going to be affected by stronger gun restriction but the law abiding citizens will (“Special Interview…”). Another example of gun control that affects the wrong people is the assault weapon ban, several people testified that they had used guns which are now banned to defend their lives and to prevent crimes (“Update: Gun Control”). Moreover, to lower crime rate, stiffened gun control laws are not the way to go. Gun control is not a major factor in lowering crime rate (“Gun Control: Update”). Guns are not only
It has been shown that in Australia, after stricter gun laws were passed in 1996, the crime rate involving these weapons fell from 516 deaths in that same year to 211 deaths in 2015. (Alpers) Stricter firearm control saves lives and disallows dangerous people from getting a gun and using it to commit crimes. It’s understandable that people think that if the laws are stricter, criminals will just find another way to obtain guns. This is a valid concern. However, efforts should still be made to stop those criminals from obtaining the guns. Even if criminals will try to circumvent the system, the government shouldn’t just give up completely. Yes, gun laws won’t stop all felons from obtaining such a weapon, but they will dissuade them, and the situation in Australia proves that this
Correspondingly banning guns would in fact reduce the amount of guns in public hands, but it would increase the crime rates. Imagine a situation for a moment. The government outright bans guns and what happens then? Who would there be to actually enforce this ban? Would the police go door to door asking for your guns? Would they have an all out gun war? Or would they even attempt to take the guns from the people? Would it be worth risking their lives? Now imagine that they do manage to get guns from anyone willing to turn them over. What would stop criminals from still having these weapons? Do you believe that fear of the police alone would be enough to stop criminals. Would it be enough to stop these people from robbing every place in sight knowing that they will face little resistance? These are some of the most important questions to ask before even thinking about banning guns. They clearly all lead to a clear answer that if guns ever were banned that it would only bring upon civil war and higher crime rates. According to Pat Roberts a writer for Huffington Post and Forbes, “Banning guns for civilians would have very little if any net effect on murder and suicide rates”. The main reasons that he gives for this is something called supplication. If guns were to go away another way of murder and suicide would just take its place.
The main problem with guns and weapons now a day is that they are used for murders and illegal uses. Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. But that is still extremely less than the number of those who lose their lives because of someone who uses guns incorrectly. Guns are not all entirely bad to the public, they should not be completely banished or not provided to the people, and instead they should be enforced more strictly to avoid a great number of deaths.
Have you ever been walking late at night and worried because you know that your city allows guns? Guns have many downsides that create problems in different areas. The reasons for many murders come from guns. Guns are bad in most situations than good. We are in the twenty-first century where most people don’t need a gun. In this country the law has a big impact on what people buy and what they use. Guns need to be abolished from society because they are a danger to citizens, they increase stress for people walking around knowing that there are guns around them, and they decrease safety in areas that allow guns.
The issue with gun control law will not deter violence, there are other weapons used to commit violent crimes, knives, tasers, stunned gun and homemade bombs. These weapons are used just about the same to commit crimes with just as guns.
People who support gun control have stated that two out of three homicides are committed with a firearm. However, even with gun control, homicides would most certainly continue because murderers would just turn to another weapon and we would see more homicides committed with other weapons. If someone wants to kill badly enough, everyday items can be made into weapons. Statistics have shown that in cities where there are many gun
Guns have been a part of history since the first firearm was made in 1364. Over the last few years there have been many shootings across the Country. This makes many people view guns negatively, others not so much. I am a proud supporter of the second amendment. Gun control is a waste of time because there are so many ways to learn about guns, it is the person who does the crime and also it is in our second amendment.
This further proves my point that guns are not the problem, people are. And until man’s intent becomes solely of good moral, homicides and crime will never cease to exist. So by eliminating the right to own a gun, crime does not simply dissipate, it makes the common American more vulnerable. There will always be someone who wants to inflict pain and death upon the masses. Because this will never change, it then becomes a matter of will we let ourselves fall victim to this atrocious behavior or will we abide by ideals that allow us to protect ourselves.
Statistics on firearms show that they are not an issue. One of the greatest misconceptions are that firearms cause higher crime rates. In reality that is nothing but a myth. Everyone seems to believe that stricter gun control laws curb violence but that isn’t true or accurate. The Crime Prevention Research Center wrote an article based on an interview titled, “Murder and Homicide Rates Before And After Gun Bans.” The article explores the correlation between guns and crime in England and Wales from 1990-2009 after the country implemented its gun ban. In the article there is a graph entitled, “ Did Homicide Rate Fall After Britain Banned Guns?” The graph showed a spike in homicides from 1997-2003. What all that means is that once the ban took
You hear people every day emphasizing the importance of gun control questioning if the guns are helpful tool or rather killing machines and how the government should ban the guns. If you think of the matter in a logical and realistic way you would realize that most criminals do not have licenses to carry a weapon, none the less a legal and registered weapon. Actually, I think that the majority of people that would be affected by banning guns are the victims that would have been capable of defending themselves only if they had weapons to do so. Also people who own guns could protect innocents around them