Why Gun Control Is Not Enough

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.

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

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

“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.

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

What cause crime? Is is an individual’s access to firearms or is it their willingness to act illegally given the opportunity? In this argumentative essay I will be discussing one of the most debated topics in the United States today, gun control. There are two extremely opposite views on this topic: the belief that guns enable crime, and the belief that guns deter crime. These polar opposites leave room for a very good discussion of what facts and truths may lie behind this topic. Throughout this essay I will be analyzing both sides of this issue.The significance of a topic such as gun control is very prevalent in today’s society. Some see it sad that we must argue over one of our supposedly deemed unalienable rights such as bearing a firearm.

Gun violence is one of the most serious problems in the United States. Each year in the U.S., more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nations. In 1997, approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States were committed with guns. However, ironically, the United States also is the country that has the most gun control laws. Gun control laws generally focus on passing legislation—by local state, or national government—to restrict legal ownership of certain firearms. Seemingly, gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, but in fact the same laws also have their negative effects. Thus, the controversy over gun control is always heated. But my paper is not

While Americans were contemplating gun control proposals in the wake of mass shootings at a Colorado School, another gunman massacred 50 people in a club in Orlando. This incident brought heated political exchanges between President Obama and Trump, the Republican presidential candidate. It is estimated that in 2015 alone, there were more than 351 mass shootings in the United States. This is a worrying trend that should be reversed as soon as possible. Surprisingly, the trend has divided Americans into two groups. On one extreme end, there are those Americans who believe that the government should enforce gun control. On the other end, some Americans insist that stricter gun controls will not help in the fight against killings. In this light, this paper will try to provide a detailed analysis of the gun control debate while highlighting the various points made by the proponents and opponents of the gun control. The essay posits that gun control is counterproductive.

The second premise of McMahan’s argument is that if private gun ownership in the United States brings more harm to citizens than it prevents, and the banning of privately owning guns does not violate anyone’s rights, then the government should ban private gun ownership. The banning of private gun ownership doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, as it allows the citizens to not gain too much power and leave the government powerless. In actuality, the more people possess guns, the less secure the country is not only to outsiders, but also to insiders. The power of the government is limited and won't be able to control the citizens. Thus, domestic and international defense becomes more of a private matter than a public one.

Every day in America 32 people are killed by guns whether it’s murder, suicide, or an accidental shooting. And American people have been scared for so long after hearing every month of another mass shooting somewhere. Their first thought, “ban the guns, they kill people.” Guns have never taken the life of an individual and it will not solve our problems of mass shootings by banning guns, it will only make law-abiding citizens unprotected in a dangerous society.

With his analogy, McMahan is providing a relationship between gun possession and nuclear weapons. Which he states are alike in several ways, specifically in that they are both highly dangerous, pose a larger threat in larger numbers, leave space for disaster, and by creating a hostile environment, the more individuals have it, the more other individuals want or feel the need to have it, creating a vicious cycle of necessity based fear.

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.

Gun control is an obviously controversial issue in American society. Gun advocates want no restrictions on what they can buy or whom guns can be sold to, gun control advocates are the opposite. In this paper, I will be arguing in favor of gun control, using the moral theory of Utilitarianism to explain who should be able to own guns, and under what conditions; I will be using John Stuart Mill’s stance on utilitarianism to reference my argument. I will also be using LaFollette’s “Gun Control” to back up my argument. Because of such events as mass shootings becoming a more frequent problem, I argue that people should be monitored and screened thoroughly when applying to own a gun; also, that the number of guns sold to the public should be restricted, as well as the types of guns. Using LaFollette’s scales, I am arguing for moderate abolition (MA) and moderate restrictions (MR) on guns.

For many years, the controversial topic of gun control has been viewed as a violation of American’s rights. Owning a gun seemed suitable and tolerable, but over the past years, gun control has been thought of a debatable resolution. Currently, the possession of guns is a right for all citizens; if guns are used for protection or for hobbies, it should be seen as a privilege. However, the issue lies in the contradistinction in opinion of whether or not the enforcement of gun control will help protect citizens. With much speculation, this topic has become a compelling argument, because of the popular belief that guns are unnecessary and can cause damage, but that is not the case. According to the United States Constitution, all citizens have a right to own handguns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.