Stephen P Halbrook Gun Control Laws

Many tragedies have occurred recently that have spurred the debate on whether or not we need tighter gun controls. On one side of the debate are the gun control supporters, who claim that the easy access to guns is the primary cause for high rates of crime plaguing the United States. On the other side are people who argue that gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, since they will continue to get them illegally. Guns are used for protection when in the hands of people who obey the law. It is crucial to not hinder law-abiding citizen’s ability to possess firearms with stricter gun laws, since gun laws do not lower crime, and guns can keep people safe.

One of the most important legislation part for control violence in today's society are certainly the laws related to gun control. As with every important question, there are two opposite opinions on whether in Wisconsin we should have about gun control. My opinion is that we should have more gun control in Wisconsin. My point of view is based on the ability to better protect women from domestic abuse; the threat of people who already passed background check, and the necessity to reduce mass shooting in Wisconsin.

“Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the legal use of guns” (pg.125). Author James Q. Wilson, a professor of management and public policy at the University of California in Los Angeles writes the article “Just Take Away Their Guns” to provide the American public with evidence of why taking away their guns will have little effect on crime in the United States. “Just Take Away Their Guns” was published into the New York Times Magazine in March, 1994. Professor Wilson, author of many books such as “Thinking about Crime,” “Bureaucracy,” “The Moral Sense,” and “Moral Judgment” uses statistics to advocate for perspective on gun control. The article not only addresses the use of guns but also provides a lot of textual evidence to support the author’s claims related to legal restraints on lawful purchases of guns. Firearms present in the homes of American citizens, while potentially dangerous, provide these citizens with a sense of security.

Therefore, if the United States makes gun controls stricter, criminals will have the most access to guns. Gun control laws have a very good intention in mind -keeping Americans safe. Having stricter gun control laws makes it difficult to achieve the goal of American safety because only the law abiding Americans follow gun control laws. Many criminals are willing to murder, rape, assault, and rob people easily, hence buying an illegal firearm is not an issue for them. Gun control laws could take away ninety-nine point nine percent of the guns in the United States, leaving the remaining 200,000 to criminals (Epstein). This not only leaves stand-up citizens defenseless during an attack, but it also gives all of the power to the criminals. The opposing side argues that a law will fix this, but the government will forever be unable to pass laws that affects the criminals, due to the fact that they will not follow it. The issue is not the gun, or even the rules that come along with gun ownership; it’s the people behind the firearm. Gun control laws cannot¬¬¬¬¬ change the person, but it can give them more

‘“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.”’ (“Gun Control”) Due to firearms, more than 30,000 people die in America every year. Mass shootings happen frequently and people die because of the lack of laws and their security. The United States needs better gun control laws because automatic assault rifles are easy to buy, the mentally ill can purchase guns, and many die from guns each year.

The violence in the United States is a big issue, but making more gun laws is not the answer. It is an inevitable fact that making it harder to get access to guns would only lead people to turn to black markets and more underhanded deals. In an article for the Los Angeles Times, James Q. Wilson writes, “It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow” (Wilson). Dramatic changes within gun controls laws would, in itself, make more people mad and possibly lead to riots. In many people's minds, more gun control laws would mean to taking guns away. Gun control laws within themself are not a bad thing, the extent to which they are taken within a nation

Americans are faced with a big issue of violence in the streets, these streets where elderly people are beaten for their money and women are attacked and raped. Sadly, some people believe that the best way to deal with these violent occurrences is to pass gun control laws that take away legally owned guns from everyone. Not only does gun control end up disarming the innocent but it also violates the Second Amendment. By taking away guns from the American citizens, whom the Second Amendment bestowed onto us this act violates our rights. Unfortunately for those who have legally armed themselves for self-defense, gun control would eventually strip away their ability to fend for themselves. Gun control will also end up causing a rise in crime. By taking away arms from good law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless, it makes things much easier for criminals by knowing that their victims are not armed. Although the gun ban would take away guns from stores, a criminal will find a way to get their hands on one, imagine that. Gun controls are taking away our rights as citizens. If a law abiding citizen happens to enjoy hunting, they will lose that right. Gun controls are also taking away weapons from citizens. Gun control is not having a positive effect on America because it violates the second amendment, takes away rights and it won’t reduce the crime rate.

As it is well known gun violence is a major problem in today’s society, places like Chicago and New York City have a serious epidemic on their hands. It is not uncommon to hear about an incident where a gun was involved in these big cities on a day to day basis, but it’s not just the big cities, these type of things are happening nationwide. There has been an argument for many decades whether the cause of such violence is due to the lack of gun control laws or the restrictions put on firearms. Both sides of the isle will argue, the more liberal individual will tell you there is not enough while the conservative individual will tell you the laws put in place are too strict.

The author makes several main claims throughout his articles such as, “national news stories are virtually never done on permit holders stopping mass public shootings,” and “the proposals put forward by gun control advocates wouldn’t have stopped this attack.” The columnist firmly believes in the power of the second amendment and as such, he wants to limit the amount of new laws that control how much the people can hold and use weapons. The claims listed are claims of fact and policy respectively. He gives several examples of how these different prevented mass shootings were not widely advertised and how the ones that were not stopped were all over news stations to convince people that guns are not helping the common people. The author then proposes that the changes that gun control advocates propose will not make a difference and begins to give reasons why which makes this a claim of policy. He says that making a change will not make any change so the laws should be left the same as they are now, or they should be more inclusive to allow more people to carry a concealed weapon.

Gun control is often considered as an effective means of protecting ordinary citizens. We all want to feel safe, and it's easy to ascribe notions of safety to the idea of gun control. Unfortunately, feeling safe and actually being safe can be very different things. Gun control sounds wonderful in theory: no guns means no shootings. If only it were that simple. When one considers some of the worst shootings and gun-related crimes in recent history, it's peculiar to realize how often these occurred in places where guns were illegal to carry or even own. It's downright disturbing to realize that, in some cases, the only armed person in sight was the one planning a crime. A sign that says 'no guns' might as well say 'no resistance'.

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.

However, gun control in America is one of the most difficult things for many people to have an open perspective on. The Vidette Online says that it appears that caring about someone’s right to a gun is more important than caring about someone’s right to live. What many people don’t understand that is many gun control advocates say that if gun laws made it much more difficult to purchase firearms and if more firearms were banned people would be much safer (Haskins). For instance, many states with the lowest crime rates including homicide rates also have the fewest limits on gun ownership (Haskins). There is data to prove that even the states with higher gun ownership rates which include Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia, and Wyoming (Haskins). If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of firearms these six states would have a significantly higher crime rate (Haskins). On the other hand, many cities with low legal gun ownership rates such as Chicago have extremely high gun related murder rates (Haskins). It is not about the gun laws that are going to put an end to mass shootings.

Furthermore, opponents on gun restrictions argue that, the government should not control gun ownership to the extreme, but give them freedom town guns since it is their constitutional right. They argue that, gun control does not help reduce crimes; instead, gun related crimes will likely go up. According to them, criminals to steal and even murder will target helpless citizens without firearm. However, if they are allowed to use guns, this will be the most effective way of self-defense (Carter 102). Therefore, all citizens

n this article, Cooke examines many of the most horrific mass shootings of recent years with the purpose of hypothesizing whether stricter gun control laws would have prevented any or all of those tragedies. His conclusion is that they would not have. He then extends this contention to state that gun control laws in general are useless, because they clearly do not prevent acts of mass violence.

While achieving a balance between a law abiding citizens’ right to own guns and keeping guns away from criminals may be challenging, it is something we should all strive for. A victim’s inability to protect themselves or the one’s they love, will always be an issue with certain laws. Those laws which restrict gun ownership would essentially hinder one’s ability to protect themselves and leave them wide open for an attack. We have seen these stories in the news day after day. McDowall states, “Restrictions on carrying concealed weapons are among the most common gun control policies.” (193). When it comes to concealed carry, Mc Dowell states, “These statutes limit who may have a deadly weapon-usually a handgun- hidden on their person when outside the home.” (193). On a daily basis, you can see reports of