Persuasive Essay On Gun Reform

One of the biggest arguments against gun control is that it does not prevent criminals from committing violent crimes, such as murder. Based on information gathered by Argesti and Smith, this A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) study showed that when a handgun ban was put in effect in Washington D.C. “the murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law” (Argesti and Smith). Another report from the FBI showed that when Florida and Texas implemented a right-to-carry law, their murder rates dropped by 30 and 36 percent (qtd. in Argesti and Smith). It is blatantly obvious that areas with high crime will continue to have the same level of crime, even after the implementation of stricter gun control laws.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. If gun laws become opposed to the law, then only criminals will have guns. Stricter gun laws will not stop a madman from killing. In fact, 34% of mass shooters were prohibited from owning weapons; although, a surveyed showed 57% of gun owners believe guns are too easy to buy and 35% of people who carry guns would make Americans feel safer. Gun control will only affect the law-biding citizens simultaneously as the demand of illegal weapons on the black-market increases. Background checks will only restrict criminals from legally buying a firearm, but that does not stop a mentally ill person; which are usually the ones to start a shooting massacre. The second amendment literally states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Protected by the second amendment, it will be hard to regulate guns because now every single individual has a right to bear arms. For example, the Texas Baptist church shooter was gun downed by an armed citizen. Had there been stricter gun laws in Texas towards not being able to have a concealed firearm in public, the shooter could have gotten away. People should have the right to exercise the second amendment; therefore, gun control will not work because criminals will always find a way to obtain guns, supply and demand on the black market will increase and there are more existing weapons than people in the U.S.

Gun Control Laws have been proven ineffective. Cities like Chicago and Detroit have very strict gun control laws, yet they have some of the highest crime rates, whereas cities with more guns have lower crime rates. Places that have a higher rate of gun ownership, have less murders. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from breaking the law. Criminals will still obtain firearms, or

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.

One of the main topics concerning gun control is crime rate. Crime rate could increase if guns are banned. It is so easy for criminals to get their hands on guns, whether they are illegal or not. Guns are not the problem in the country, it is the person with the weapon. It does not matter how much the government regulates gun control, they cannot regulate the people. Banning guns will not stop crime rate from going up. The U.S. has an estimated amount of 220+ million guns and machine tools, so criminals can easily make their own weapons (“Will You Be”). The United States will only be in more trouble if guns are banned. Banning guns does not mean criminals will automatically stop what they are doing. Most criminals illegally make and buy their own weapons, anyway. Most of the crimes committed are not with the use of a gun. Many are used with different types of weapons or tools. “Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence. Some people think that

What makes gun control reform even more difficult is that many Democrats themselves can’t support gun control without risking their seats. Many representatives or senators come from districts and states that vote Democrat for different reasons, such as union strength in the Midwest or rising immigration numbers in the Southwest. However, states like Wisconsin, Florida, or New Mexico also are strong supporters of guns, putting Democratic lawmakers in a precarious position (Scher 2017). This split in the party makes it nigh on impossible for bills to get anywhere. Indeed we saw this to be true after the Sandy Hook shooting. Senator Dianne Feinstein has been a passionate advocate for gun control nearly her entire tenure as a Senator, becoming one of the leading Democratic senators in the push for gun control (Friedman 2013). Feinstein represents a state where gun control measures such as assault weapons bans are extremely popular (California), so there is no constituent fear from her to back off gun control (Wheaton 2017). After the Sandy Hook shooting, Senator Feinstein introduced a new Assault Weapons bill to replace the previous one which had expired in 2004. It made the sale, manufacture, or transfer of 150 semi-automatic weapons illegal, which had features like magazine releases and thumbhole stocks, restricted large capacity magazines, and used a one feature test to determine whether or not a gun was an assault weapon (Feinstien 2013). Democratic majority leader Harry

Gun control should not exist at all in the United States. Mass shootings have almost become seen as normal event in the United States. What people do not understand is that gun control is not the answer; there are countries with little to no control that have fewer shootings. According to The Washington Post,Finland is ranked number 4 in countries with the most guns despite that they only had 24 homicides by firearm (“Gun homicides and ownership by countries” n.pag.) . In the article Did Gun Control Work In Australia “it is shown that gun control has reduced the problems but it still has not completely got rid of all firearm deaths”(Matthews n.pag.). The number of murders, homicides, or suicides do not go up due to people just owning more guns. Clayton Perry, a staff writer at the University of Maine, even points out “Stricter gun laws were in place during the Assault Weapons Ban between 1994 and 2004, but that didn't stop the shooters at Columbine in 1999 ”(Perry n. pag.). In Iceland, thirty out of a hundred people own a gun and they have zero homicides caused by guns a year(“Gun Homicides and ownership by country” n. pag.). In this day and age, everything is unpredictable, guns are a form of protection for everyone and there should not be restrictions on protection. The U.S. Department of Justice released a data brief that states, “ On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property”(Rand BJS Statistician n. pag.). The National Sheriffs Association released that the average police response time is at eighteen minutes while the average school shooting only last twelve minutes (“Embracing Technology To Decrease Response Time” n. pag.). Gun control should not exist because other countries do fine without it , high gun ownership has no link with increasing death rates , and guns are not harmful when instructions are followed.

In today's society there is the question ‘Should there be more gun laws?’. The advancements in military weaponry is nothing short of astounding. With these advancements though, come the ramifications of their inventions. More and more, the nation is seeing these weapons in actions. People are fearful and demand more laws, but that is not the answer to this dilemma. More gun laws would not resolve this problem for numerous reasons; more gun laws would lead to more violence, the United States alwardy have an excessive amount on gun laws, and the nation looks at the object not the person. The United States have to address these issues before a change will happen.

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.

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 amount of crimes happening today will only increase with stricter gun control laws because there is a higher temptation to steal guns. An American citizen claims, “Ever since I first learned how to shoot, the issue with gun violence around the nation became clear: Guns are not the problem; people are” (Sherfenski). Police need to lock up these people committing the disastrous crimes that affect so many innocent lives. These blameless people are not prepared when they are being attacked, and that is because most shootings tend to happen in areas where guns are controlled. The former United States Secretary of Education, William Bennett, explains the reason that criminals decide to go to places that have controlled gun laws is because: “These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They show up to schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back” (Bennett). Even if guns are controlled in public places including malls and schools, where there are uncontrolled shootings, why would it make a difference if they were controlled everywhere? It would not make a difference whatsoever because these crimes are done out of pure, revolting pleasure. Committing a crime is one thing, but taking away a right that was given to Americans in the 1790s is a whole different story.

The United States of America has a problem that is growing worse every day. American laws are not protecting its citizens from injury or death. You may think the mass shootings in America the guns used were bought illegally, but “since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shooter carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Of the 139 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns.” (Follman). Times have changed and so should our gun laws. The federal government should enact more control on all personal guns in order to reduce

Gun control is one of the most talked about topics in modern day America. 43 of 50 states have the right to bear arms. Most states have to background check you in order for you to purchase or sell guns. Some other states prevent carrying guns and some other ban assault rifle weapons. People who support the gun laws say that the second amendment was meant for militias and that gun restrictions have always existed. People who oppose that say that guns are needed for self-defense from people who invade houses or are actual threats. Although both of those are correct, there will always be two sides for control laws.

How many people have to die before this world will let go of these dangerous weapons? The Chinese invented gunpowder in the 9th century which lead to the creation of guns. A repeating firearm is a firearm that holds more that one cartridge and can be fired more than once between chargings. Gun control should be enforced more because it will help prevent violence, it can help stop crime, and although some people may argue that gun control should not be enforced because guns can help save people’s lives but they are wrong because people misuse guns.