Essay On Police Shootings

During the past few years, the number of school shootings has increased markedly. In 2013, there were 19 school shootings that occurred, taking so many innocent lives. Some may remember the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14th, 2013. It was the second deadliest massacre shooting in United States history, behind the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre. Adam Lanza shot twenty children, six staff, his mother, and himself that day. School shootings are tragic. Violence continues to increase with these shootings, as well as with violence within the schools among the students. The big question is, how do we protect ourselves from these horrible occurrences? How do teachers protect the innocent lives of their students? One common suggestion is for the teachers and administration to be armed. The premise is that if the school staff has possession of firearms this would discourage shooters, thereby making the schools much safer. However, it is my belief that teachers should not be able to have access to weapons. There should never be any type firearm on a school property, excluding trained security personnel, such as police officers and security guards.

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.

The reason why the school shooting problem is a load of crap with the people that own guns is because the people who make these horrible choices have mental problems and could not get the correct help that they needed. Out of a recent survey from propublica.org 61.5% of the school shooters have a substance abuse problem. 43.5 % of the shooters were victims of bullying. This concludes that many of the people that decided to do these horrible things like school shooting have had problems in the past that affected them mentally, and if they chose taking innocent students lives as a solution, they had a mental problem and did not get the correct help. Not every homeowner that has a gun in their house is going to go shoot up a school. Its also true that the police need guns to protect themselves. Police using these guns are using them as self protection. They do not just do a drive by on people or kill anyone without a reason. They are here to protect the people and the town so they need weapons on them to be able to protect every

Gun control will reduce police deaths, lower the number of murders, and reduce the number of accidental deaths due to firearms. In many situations, police officers have died at the hands of civilians with firearms. If the civilians did not have firearms fewer officers would have been killed. Gun control would lower the murder rate because it would be more difficult for someone to get a gun and then stand 100 yards away and shoot. If guns aren't readily available, people would have more time to think about what they are doing so they might stop. Accidental deaths occur each year due to firearms. If access to firearms was more controlled, then those deaths would not happen therefore cutting the accidental death rate.

The recent terrorist situations in America could have turned out differently if the victims had been armed. There have been too many terrorist situations lately in America. Many people who are not in favor of gun rights want to make it more difficult or even impossible for citizens to purchase weapons. When stricter gun control is enforced, then citizens may not be able to protect themselves. We need to find a way to prevent gun related tragedies, but that does not involve taking guns away from citizens (Hockley). We need more guns in the hands of citizens, then they will be able to protect themselves during violent crimes (Goldberg). The call for increased gun rights in America is vital for the safety

Is arming teachers the last way to stop violence? The number of school shootings is increasing rapidly in the United States. One of the ways people are thinking to solve this problem, is to arm teachers. Almost all of us understand that arming teachers will stop these school shooting from ever happening again. In this essay I will strongly argue that teachers should have guns, because a shooter can be disarmed, it may prevent the trigger from ever getting pulled, and any teacher to become, will have to prove that they are mentally stable to carry guns.

Police officers are given a pistol and taser, which is rarely used. Police officers would have an enormous amount of power with a firearm in a weaponless country. The fact that they would need one given the circumstance of the rest of the country would be ridiculous. A taser is more than effective in neutralizing a criminal who is on the run or is being uncooperative. Recently in Pleasanton, California police shot an unarmed man who was caught breaking into a car dealership. He was most likely under some sort of drug as police assured that two shots from a stun gun was not enough to subdue the man. The man did end up beating and kicking a police officer in a fight he soon had as they were trying to apprehend him. Seven police officers were up against one man yet they shot him. Seven police officers is plenty when dealing with one person. The ease of having a firearm in your holster is too good of a temptation to use. Had the police officers been trained differently then to shoot to kill they may have handled the situation differently. Police officers in the U.K. are a good example of police without firearms. They carry a taser and the ability to neutralise a tense situation. Many police officers in the U.S., not all, are some what out of shape when they reach a certain age and rely on firearms to make up for it.Police officers men and women must be tough and trained very well so that they are the alpha when time comes to face a

Officer-involved shootings are some of the most complex cases to document. A lot of questions need to be answered after an officer-involved shooting. Such as, Could lethal force have been avoided? Who was truly threatened, the officer or the suspect? How could the incident have been avoided?

Introduction: I believe that gun control laws will actually increase robberies, murders, and other crime. Think of it like this ok, you and your kids are sleeping in your beds. Then you hear your front door being kicked in. You see people walking around your house stealing your tv’s, your kids game systems, computers, and jewelry. You begin to go for the phone and call 911, but they see you and they start to run at you and your kids with a knife. Would you rather have a gun or another knife in this situation? The point is, that criminals don’t want to go try and rob somebody if that person has an arsenal in their closet. If people don’t have guns then criminals

After the tragic Sandy hook school shooting the National Rifle Association released a statement saying that “all American schools should have armed gunman or cops in schools to prevent these type of mass shooting happening in the future”.This statement was not taken lightly to left wing democrats that said things like,“dystonia vision," about the NRA statement. But the only problem I can see with the NRA's proposal is that it does not go far enough. All of these grievous situations can be prevented with the arming of the people most at risk in these situations, aka the children. Forsome reason nobody in this country is willing to admit the obvious, which is that the kids in that school would have been able to protect themselves and their peers ,if only we'd let them.

In this essay I will be discussing if I believe that teachers should be able to carry guns with them for school safety. Teachers would be carrying guns also called a sidearm to prevent or to defend themselves and the children from an active school shooter. I don’t believe that teachers should be able to carry guns.

In 2015 990 were shot by police. From January to September 2016, it is estimated that 681 people have been shot and killed by police officers (Fatal Force). The incredibly high number of deaths in that short time span should not only shock one but give concern. Police officers are supposed to serve and protect, not be the cause of all the murders of the people they are supposed to be protecting. Police officers have gotten too comfortable in reaching for their gun when feeling uneasy about a situation. Many, if not all, of the murders could have been prevented if police officers were not allowed to carry any lethal weapons. There are various options in preventing these murdering without jeopardizing the safety of police officers. Police officers should only be allowed to carry non lethal weapons in order to optimize the safety of the people.

And before I get bombarded with a wave of ambiguous questions and angry protests saying “How many times do we hear of policemen being killed, surely guns could stop all this?” No. They couldn’t. Even more people would have needlessly died if the policemen were to have pulled out a gun as youths get even more scared at this and it can lead to reckless actions from both the policemen and the guilty party. There would also be mistakes, and with armed policemen, this could lead to innocent people being shot. This can happen either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate information, or because they are bystanders caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. If we arm everybody, it would also mean that there would be less training in gun control, so mistakes would rise there. The world saw this in cases such as the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York in 1999, or the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell underground station in 2005. Would we like more of these to happen? All those that would vote for

Armed police are required to become skilled at responding to events that demand the use of firearms (Fyfe, 1981). Arguments arise from the public's failure to recognise the police’s difficulty in making a straightforward judgment as to whether coercive force or the use of guns is required in events (Dick, 2005). When police do use guns, there is a risk that police may misfire and consequently cause more victims as a result (McCulloch, 1989). Furthermore, in circumstances that require force, natural biological impulses kick in; informally known as the fight or