The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

In the current year, many things have changed in the political world with some of them being welcomed by all and others not as much. While this paper is not specifically about the people holding political offices, I feel as though it is important to view their influence in these issues. The policy that I am going to discuss in this paper is gun control as I feel it is a hotly debated issue in the country today, especially after the incidents we have had throughout the recent years.

While mass shootings cause a huge unnecessary loss of life, most killings in the United States come from murders and crimes. Guns should be banned to lower crime rates. Because “more than 70% of homicides are committed with a firearm” (Cannon n.p.) and 2.

If gun control is regulated, then we will have less crime. Access to firearms makes killing easy, efficient, and impersonal, which increases the lethality of crime. Josh Sugarmann, the Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center has once said, "We recoil in horror and search for explanations, but we never face up to the obvious preventive measure: a ban on the handy killing machines that make crimes so easy.”Allowing untrained people to carry guns puts others at risk and it can result in self-inflicting injuries both by suicide and unintentional incidents. Gun violence in America kills more than 30,000 and injures almost 70,000 each year. Guns can be misused and abused, which is why gun

On the opposing side, some others may say that the equation of more guns equals less crime is absolutely absurd. Sabina Thaler the author against guns states “crime victims uniformly use guns in self-defense is false. Women, for example, are less likely to use guns to protect themselves and are in fact in greater danger when doing so.” This statistic will help show that even if you have a gun to protect yourself, you might put

A 1985 survey of convicted criminals by the U.S. Department of Justice showed that 34% reported that they had been scared off, shot at, or captured by an armed victim; 40% said they had decided to not commit a crime because they thought the victim was armed (Bender 153). This survey shows that handguns used for self-defense can actually reduce crime. If there were restrictions on handgun ownership, victims of crimes would be helpless. When a criminal carrying a gun breaks into a person’s house, the only chance the victim would have of defending himself is if he owned some sort of

[47] Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used,[47][48][49] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[50] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were

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.

However, in the twentieth century the number of guns owned doubled, yet, the murder rate decreased (Gun-Control, n.d.). Thus, proving that the decrease in weapons would not decrease the amount of violence in the United States. Instead, decreasing the amount of guns would only cause more problems in our society. When there is a demand, someone will find a way to supply that demand. Therefore, whether we have gun control or not people will find a way to gain possession of firearms. Most of these people that would achieve these guns would be criminals. Do we really want criminals being the only ones with

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 is one of the most controversial topics in modern society. After the recent increase of shootings, threats, and events involving guns, as well as the upcoming elections, the public has been in uproar over the laws involved with guns. President Obama has recently made many speeches regarding this current issue. Many controversial questions still remain unanswered. Should the purchase of guns be more controlled? Should guns be allowed in certain areas? Should gun laws and amendments to the Constitution be tampered with? These events and questions have sparked many individuals to create photos, articles, speeches, and other forms of rhetoric to try and let their voice be heard.

One of the most fascinating policy issues that have peaked my interest in the last few years is gun control. Not because of liking or disliking guns. Not because of liking or disliking control. But because of the struggle governmental control is having through our means of regulation. When we think of gun control, we often think about the black and white debate of where one may sit on the topic. It's very difficult to take an objective approach regarding the topic; lobbyists tend to look at facts in which will support a specific argument and bias. Looking at it from that perspective, a valid argument can be made for both sides. For an example, we can compare two different countries where both have "proof" for both sides of the argument. Then it's easy to say, "in country X, gun violence is low because of strict gun laws" or "in country X, gun violence is low because of the protective benefit."

American Politician Sam Brownback expressed his views on gun control by saying, “I don't think there should be more gun control. I think there should be more education.” One of the most prominent issues in the United States right now is whether or not more strenuous and limiting gun restrictions should be put into place to prevent mass shootings and other catastrophic events in the future. Members of both gun lobby and gun control groups fight vigorously for what they believe in. My interlocutor is a statistician from the New York times named Leah Libresco. Her article titled, “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise” is a great example to use as the article documents her shift from being an avid gun control supporter, to coming to the realization that more strict gun laws might not be the answer. Similarly to Libresco, I feel that severe gun control is not the answer to stopping gun violence in America, as focusing on protecting potential victims, and reforming potential killers, and enforcing a ban on large firearms would be more effective.

In fact, the most effective public policy preventing violent crime is combination of putting more police in force, gun control and parents’ involvement.

In today’s world, guns are exhibited as violent weapons that in the hands of a normal citizen will cause them to commit serious atrocities. This view is partially due to the numerous tragic events displayed by terrorists and even common people. However we believe for guns and their users to regain the trust of the community, regulations are needed to control who can have a gun and what type of gun can be permitted. “According to the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to bear arms to prevent crime and deaths. While there are other ways to hunt and protect oneself, guns are the most efficient. Not as many people are scared of a bow and arrow.”

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.