Summary: The Ideas That Shaped Africa

On average, there is a shooting throughout the country where the victim was left defenseless each day. even with strict gun control laws set in by the federal government, many Americans still have faith in our second amendment. Gun control is proven ineffective, According to Richard Epstein of the New york University of Law, “We can confidently predict that crime will go up unless and until there is a vast expansion of the public police force.” (Epstein 1). While gun control law are in place there are still too many guns for the federal government to keep track of within the country, Richard Epstein states that “upwards of 200 million firearms of all descriptions are available for general use in the United States.” (Epstein 2). With recent

Taya Kyle, the author of the article “American Sniper Widow: Gun Control Won’t Protect Us”, believes that there are two sides of the argument on gun control. People can use statistics, facts, and real life examples to argue that there should be stricter control of guns in the US, but they cannot eliminate the emotional side of the story. While in the last two decades, violent crime rates have actually been reduced in the US, fears have gone up. Anyone can be a victim of a violent crime because if another person decides to do harm, they will do it under any circumstances.

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

Everyday, the biased news media reports another mass shooting. The media reports the cases of “police brutality” and the media reports the tragic accidents. The media doesn’t report the research by David Burnett and Clayton Cramer who track incidents of defensive gun use. The stories include women fighting off would be rapists and senior citizens protecting themselves from robbers. They are stories that prevent violent crimes from occurring, for they are stories that save lives.

The gun violence, crimes, and cases in the United States is a national epidemic. A lot of people take advantage of guns using them and manipulating their weapon with hardly any thought. Many countless innocent lives have been lost because of the fact that people have been able to obtain firearms legally or illegally. These people have taken the notion to be the jury, judge, and executioner in holding someone’s life in their hands. For example, in the article Think Progress the state, “Courts have granted immunity to a man who went back to his car to get a gun, and another who shot a acquaintance for threatening to beat him up.”(Think Progress). Think Progress also states, “In Florida alone, 26 children and teens were killed in Stand Your Ground cases.”(Think Progress). These are very serious cases where people have misused their rights by manipulating the Stand Your Ground Law and their weapon. Gun violence just do not affect the victims, but it also affects poor neighborhoods, family and friends. The Atlantic report confirms great logos with providing statistical facts stating, “There are about 310 million guns in the country. About 40% of households have them.” Guns are so easy to obtain legally and illegally that America has the highest gun rate than any other country in the

This is because it is alleged that 40% illegally obtain firearms on the black market, and as a result, the “good guy” with a gun, would stop the “bad guy” with a gun. Such assumptions, are right – winged propaganda, spurred by pro-gun associations, such as the NRA, in an attempt, to sway the Capital against the need for additional regulated gun reform. Their argument is fallible, because it implies, that an armed populace will deter criminals. Also, it negates the fact, that statistics have shown, that more guns, lead to more unnatural

Now, to put this in perspective we need to look at the recent events of Ferguson, Missouri. 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot six times and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. The shooting sparked civil unrest in the community and resulted in protests, rioting, vandalism, and other such responses. In reaction to the social outcry and protest response, the police force took to militarized procedure to contain the civilians. On August 11, 2014 the local police stations outfitted

However, statistics show he isn’t wrong. Time and time again, law-abiding gun owners use guns for self-defense and to stop criminals. In a thorough study done by the National Research Council, which used science, raw data and research to come to an unbiased conclusion, it was confirmed, “The hypothesis that many Americans use guns for self-protection each year has been repeatedly subjected to empirical test, using the only feasible method for doing so, survey of representative samples of the populations. The results of nineteen consecutive surveys unanimously indicate that each year huge numbers of Americans (700,000 or more) use guns for self-protection. Further, the more technically sound the survey, the higher the defensive gun use estimates” (Pepper Peltrie Wellford 113). Unfortunately, because of a lack of funding by the CDC to study current gun violence, the exact numbers of how many people stop criminals while using guns to protect themselves is unknown, but according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), gun ownership has increased by 66% in the last 20 years (Mantel 238). Despite not having recent numbers, it would be reasonable to conclude using guns for protection should see an increase as gun ownership increases. In addition, while the media rarely publicizes the heroic examples of crimes being thwarted by gun-toting civilians, a simple Internet search unveils many recent examples where violent crimes were stopped at the end of law-abiding gun owners. Gun control advocates push “Gun-Free” zones, when time and time again it is proven these zones do nothing to deter school shootings. Armed guards are used to protect banks, and jewelry stores, but not innocent children in school. Are students not

President Barrack Obama in a Huffington Post article back in 2014 said, “I think it 's probably useful for us to review how the funding has gone, how local law enforcement has used grant dollars, to make sure that what they are purchasing is stuff they actually need. Because there’s a big difference between our military and local law enforcement and we don 't want those lines blurred. That would be contrary to our traditions.” This is all too familiar nowadays. Police Militarization has appeared to have gone too far in local and state police officers. To combat the war on drugs in 1971 President Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs causing a dramatic increase in federal agencies both in size and presence. It wasn’t until 1997 when the 1033 program launched causing billions of dollars of military surplus equipment to be available to local and state law enforcement. Now in 2015 some lawmakers are attempting to stop the program, such as Democratic Florida representative Alan Grayson. Grayson failed in his attempts in June to stop the 1033 program by a 3 to 1 margin by his own Democratic Party. It is unclear how our reliance on high duty weaponry and the latest technology can help police officers who only see the equipment as toys. For example, in August 9th the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri caused unrest when a police officer shot an unarmed man. Putting race aside this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Justice Byron R. White stated that, “The

In the United States of America the right to bear arms gave birth to a phenomenon called the “gun culture,” the term coined in 1970 by a historian Richard Hofstadter, which describes America’s heritage and affection for weapons(1). Not only did gun culture become an inseparable part of American democracy, but also it is considered to be synonymous with independence and freedom, the most important values for American society. Even though the crime rate and murder rate in the U.S. is higher than in any other developed country, U.S. citizens oppose every attempt made to pass gun control legislation(2). However, it may sound like a paradox, but the crime level in the most liberal states, when it comes to gun ownership, is the lowest in the

The typical argument for gun control is that it lowers crime rate. This article finds that there is no solid evidence that gun control lowers crime rates. It is known however that crime reduction is the basic premise behind gun control. The findings are that high crime rates lead to efforts for more gun control and that the number of Democrats in office is positively related to the passing of gun control laws. This article is relative to my topic because it discusses the issues of civil liberties with gun control that would be extensive and stringent enough to effectively control all transfers of firearms. This article derives most of its data from reputable United States government

Perry Chiaramonte’s recent article entitled “Gun groups accused of ‘swatting’ open-carry permit holders, putting lives at risk” is unrealistic in its accusations, as well as inflammatory. This article defines swatting as “the act of tricking an emergency service into dispatching responders based on a false report” and manufatures the outrageous claim that the people with guns are the victims when the people who are calling the police feel as if they are in enough danger to do so. Online campaigns for stricter gun control laws are made out to seem ludicrous in nature and are the enemy of the sane public. The usage of quotes in this article is quite one sided as well in an attempt to slant the opinion of the audience. Chiarmonte constantly neglects to consider the ‘other’ side of the argument and therefore falls flat in giving a ‘fair and balanced’ evaluation of the situation.

As far as overall gun violence is concerned, according to the FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, the overall violent crime rate in the US decreased about 7%. Robbery alone declined by 11%, the lowest since 1969. In addition, murder dropped by 7%, the lowest since 1967. More significantly, despite the fact the number of firearms and handguns owned by individual Americans continued to increase from 1997-1998, the FBI also reported the rate of firearms used to commit murder and robberies decreased in 1998. (1998 Uniform Crime Reports). These facts conclusively prove that firearms owned by peaceable citizens do not lead to increased murder or violent crime rates. In fact, they demonstrate that armed citizens lead to reduced rates of violent crime. When the gun is in the hands of a well-rounded person, it is no more of a weapon than your every day curling iron.

Policing relies on the public trust, police legitimacy and accountability, which can be destroyed by unjustifiable police shootings (Squires and Kennninson, 2010). Within this country, there is a recognition that the police do not always adhere to the rule of law (Newburn and Reiner, 2012: 809), which has led to consistent public outrage at the lack of effectiveness and legitimacy the police has maintained. Therefore the deliberate decision to enforce police to attend to the streets unarmed was employed to reassure the public that the police were not to be feared (Waddington and Wright, 2010). Ultimately, concerns derive from the belief that the police are completely ineffective when dealing with gun crimes (Farrell, 1992: 20). However,

I end my paper with a third section that offers research proofs and the conclusion. Before I can begin the examination of my sources and prove their reliability. Gun control is a necessity, for example a war zone gun like an M16 should not be available to the general public, because it is not use to haunt with, in the James Holmes case, a graduate student in neuroscience opened fire in a Colorado theater with an array of advanced weaponry, killing twelve and wounding fifty-eight.(Charles 2) It is hard to separate the apparent bias from Charles’s logic. His thorough comparison of guns control seems to be adequate, but the overreaching argument outweighs the sufficiency of his research. His argument is that the words, as written, could be construed as justifying violence, but in actuality the words are misinterpreted. This is a convenient finding, but not necessarily a reasonable assumption, and certainly not one that can be definitively verified. With respect to accuracy: when drawing on information from his sources, Charles often utilizes their original languages. for example when he re-transcript word for word an article in from a journal, which plays an important role in understanding the autonomy of the characters as Trayvon martin. Such precision backs up his claims and complements the specificity of his article, which makes him a good source