The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

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.

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 Gun Control issue has sparked major controversy in America today. People who support gun control feel that guns are the reason for the soaring crime rate in our country. I disagree with the supporters of gun control. I feel that because of the black market, violent criminals being released from prison early, and the need to ensure personal safety, stricter gun control will have very little impact on violent crime in America.

Background checks can’t predict when or where the next mass shooting is going to occur. “Mass shooters can’t be stopped because we never know who they are until they make themselves known” (Jundo). (6) It is argued that stricter background checks would be an ineffective solution because nobody has the ability to predict the next mass shooting. (2) Gun advocates believe that giving more people guns would make people feel safer, and more civilians would be able to stop crimes. (5) Although it is true that background checks won’t predict who the next mass shooter will be, that is just part of the reason why background checks are important. People who oppose background checks need to look at the bigger picture. Giving more people guns would promote a more violent society. (5) According to Mother Jones, the number of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years is zero (Gilson). (5) While increasing the number of armed civilians has not shown to decrease gun violence, background checks have been proven to lower overall gun related violence. Background checks ensure that the majority of people buying firearms aren’t

With an increase in the number of mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in the last few years the issue of gun control laws has become a prevalent topic of debate throughout American society. This debate stems from two opposing arguments over gun control. Some feel gun control laws are fair and not the contributing factor to these mass shootings, whereas, others feel that there is an urgent need for strict laws in order to end the problem of mass shootings. There are numerous pros and cons to the enforcement of stricter gun control laws but we must note a few things: stricter gun control laws would interfere with the second amendment, it is not the gun that kills it is the individual, and it is ultimately not laws that are

Gun control does not prevent homicide. A relatively small amount of people are killed by guns more killed by traffic accidents, heart disease, and even the flu. From 1980 to 2009 a ban on assault rifles did not affect the homicide rate at a state level in the United States. In fact Mexico, one of the strictest countries on gun control, has a rate of 9.97 gun related homicides per 100,000 people while the United States has a rate of 2.97(UNODC). Actually guns count for a mere 1.3% of all deaths internationally(Small Arms Survey). That includes all accidental deaths as well as homicides. The United States is ranked number 28 International for total number of homicides per 100,000 people. If you count only gun related homicides the United States was ranked number 59 In 2015(Small Arms Survey). In the United States guns are ranked as the only the 12 cause of death with a total of 533,879 deaths between 1990 and 2015(procon.org). The leading cause of death now is heart disease(cdc).

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Courts have universally agreed, however, that the right provided by the Second Amendment is not absolute and that many kinds of gun legislation designed to protect public safety remain valid ("Gun Safety & Public Health," 2013). The ongoing debate between the gun rights versus gun control has caught more attention as number of cases involving gun violence increased significantly. In one study, it stated that major mental illnesses are associated with increased risk of violent act. In recent years, there were several news headlines on

Throughout the past 20 years, the purchase of guns have increased drastically but at the same time, crimes with firearms are down a shocking 69% (Snyder). Gun control is often used to create laws for the intention of reducing gun injuries or death by gun and might involve background checks or creating difficulty to own a gun altogether. Some believe strict gun laws will help America reduce murder rates. However, others believe gun control will remove the right to bear arms as an individual. America needs to refrain from enforcing gun control because citizens have the constitutional right to own guns and gun control will fail to decrease murder rates which would better be decreased by a basic education of gun safety.

The issue of gun control has come up recently as an important decision opportunity for our country. Many people are asking whether guns really are the helpful tool that many of us have been saying they are, or if they are the killing machines they have recently been publicized as. Gun Control: The Great Cop-out by Jared Machaud and Gun Control and the Constitution by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman effectively display the anti-gun control side of this discussion; whereas The Second Amendment is all for Gun Control by Adam Winkler and Making Gun Control Happen by Patrick Radden Keefe display the pro-gun control side. In my views, guns are a helper in a time of crisis when help is too far away, or unwilling to come. Rather than put more restrictions on guns and gun owners, we should maintain the ability to protect ourselves and our fellow Americans through the use of firearms.

The shootings that has happened throughout the Unites States has created a great divide among Americans on what should our nation do to prevent further shootings from happening. Many people believe that forcing new laws on how people purchase weapons should require background checks. Gun Control in the United States of America is a topic that has had lots of criticism and support by many citizens. The critical people of this topic believe that the guns do not kill people, it is the people that kill people. The supporters of this topic believe that guns lead to violence and a feeling of power over others. They also believe that if guns were eliminated from the public, then violence and death would decrease heavily in this country. These two opposing views leave the federal government open to a decision on whether or not to abolish one of our Constitutional rights, or to keep allowing people the right to own a gun. There are many issues that need to be looked at in order to decide which laws are necessary.

As Boss (2017) mentions, The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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” (p. 164). Gun control has always been a controversial issue. Due to shootings related to culture, schools, robberies, movie theatres, and accidents, guns have become an object of violence, fear, and danger. All people have been affected by gun violence or have heard of an event related to gun violence. The two articles that will be analyzed are Erik Gilbert’s “Stop Worrying About Guns in the Classroom. They’re Already Here” and a testimony by Mark Kelly “Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence on Gun Violence on January 30, 2013”. After comparing arguments through different premises from both articles, one essay will be chosen superior to the other.

Gun Control has been a long debated, and hot topic among the American population for many decades. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Both sides of this debate have very logical arguments for increasing gun control or lessening gun control. These arguments tend to spike shortly after active shooter events, eventually having some type of legislature passed to prevent these atrocious acts from happening. But ultimately active shooter events continue to plague the United States, and much of the world.

The argument of gun control has always been a focal point of many politicians and concerned citizens. The current argument is based on a foundation that is hundreds of years old, and is one that reflects on the contemporary values of our society to this day. During what is now referred to as the constitutional convention of 1787, the United States enacted a series of laws that protected the people of the United States of America. The protections that were granted to us, became known as the constitution. In 1789, Virginia Representative James Madison introduced a series of proposed amendments to the newly ratified U.S. Constitution in a document known as The Bill of Rights. The most controversial of these rights commonly referred to as the 2nd amendment, it states, “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” (billofrightsinstitute.org).This text has been the focus scrutiny by both state and federal government, as well as politicians that are looking to align their ideals with the views of the people. Many would argue that, with the evolution of firearms, the historic amendment to the constitution shall be considered null and void; or, that this amendment was referring to long guns such as rifles or muskets, and that with the development of high capacity magazines and fully automatic rifles, criminals will take to the streets to wreak havoc on anyone in sight. However, the argument that needs to be considered, is whether or not the current legislation that is being proposed by Democratic party is actually going to prevent crime, or allow it the opportunity to flourish.

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.

For many years, people have been pushing the American government to implement new laws that deal with gun control. Supporters of the argument claim that increased gun control will drastically reduce the crime rate in America. Nevertheless, a majority of gun control arguments are formed from strict control of data and emotional appeal. The mainstream media picks up these stories and broadcasts them to viewers without providing any context to them. While gun control activists assert that gun control is necessary, the American government should not ban guns because of the following reasons: potential vulnerability of innocent people being shot at by criminals and the inability for people to defend themselves against their own government.