Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 1184

  • Pages: 5

Gun Control

Gun control is not one issue, but many. To some people gun control is a crime issue; to others it is a rights issue. Gun control is a safety issue, an education issue, a racial issue, and a political issue, among others. Within each of these issues there are those who want more gun control legislation and those who want less, on both sides of this issue, opinions range from moderate to extreme. Like most topics relating to government and its ruling ability, the topic of gun control is based heavily on political affiliation. Since the 1950’s the majority of the Republican Party have strongly opposed gun control efforts, and have been aiming to shoot down legislation enacted at the local, state, and national levels. The republican viewpoint of anti-gun control has strong backing by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and many other gun control-lobbying organizations. The party insists on increased enforcement of laws already in place and stronger penalties for those who disobey, rather than creating entirely new gun control measures. On the other hand the popular view among the Democratic Party is for the enactment of new legislation for gun control. This party bases their argument on a loose interpretation of the constitution believing that the individual has the right to bear arms but under reasonable regulation.

The Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) are organizations that back the Democratic Party’s views of pro gun control. Guns are not for everyone. Certain individuals cannot handle a firearm safely, and some individuals choose to use firearms inappropriately. Our society has passed laws regulating the ownership and use of firearms, and more legislation is being considered. Most of this legislation restricts, to some degree, the rights of individuals to possess or use firearms. Some restrictions may be necessary, but some recent legislation may have gone too far. Society benefits from firearms in the hands of responsible citizens and attempts to keep firearms away from these citizens whom do more harm than good. The Brady Bill is one example of an attempted solution to the problem of gun control. The Brady Bill is named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley during an assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981. Supporters of the Brady Bill used that incident to gain support for their gun control legislation, claiming it would reduce crime and save lives. In November 1993 president Bill Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, otherwise known as the Brady Bill, into law. This bill required a 5 business-day waiting period for licensed dealers so that law enforcement may conduct background checks on the potential handgun buyers. The idea behind this bill is to screen out felons and other dangerous people from acquiring handguns. This required waiting period also subsequently stops enraged people from buying guns in the heat of the moment, and gives the individual time to cool down and think about their actions.

The Brady Bill was essentially an improvement of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which laid out the types of people that should not be armed like felons, youth, and the dangerously mentally ill, but it did not implement a system of verifying that people were telling the truth when they purchased guns at gun dealers. During the 1990’s Richmond Virginia’s homicide rate was among the highest in the nation for cities with 100,000 plus people. Unsurprisingly 85% of the homicides in 1997 were committed with guns, with 40% being drug related, and 60% of the crimes were committed by prior offenders. To counteract this rising homicide rate republican governor James Gilmore teamed up with the NRA in order to create a program that increased the penalty entailed with the illegal use of firearms. The federal program, Project Exile, formally initiated in February 1997, shifted the prosecution of all gun crimes immediately to the federal level, rather than the state. Illegal gun possession offenders are subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison without the possibility of parole.

Project Exile also mandates a 15-year prison sentence without the possibility of parole for felons caught in possession of a firearm during the transaction of the crime. Offenders are “exiled” to federal prison and with such a bold prison sentencing this law became well known on the streets. The program was an instant success. In the first 10 months of 1998 homicides in Richmond Virginia were down 36% and the number of firearm related homicides were down 41%. 196 people were sentenced to an average of 55 months in federal jail and 440 guns were seized. Since this program began, it has now been set to place in cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Miami, and Philadelphia. Because of the Republican Party’s involvement they use Project Exile as a model suggesting that the party doesn’t ignore gun control issues. In the District of Columbia there was a law that made it illegal to carry unregistered firearms and prohibited the registration of new handguns. This law also required any previously owned firearms to be kept at a disabled state which means the guns had to be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock.

The only exception was that the individual could be granted one-year licenses by the police chief. Special D.C. policeman Heller applied to keep a handgun in his home and was denied the right. So he took his case to the court basing his argument on the second amendment. In 2008, in the Supreme Court case 554 of The District of Columbia Vs. Heller, there was a 5-4 decision stating that the second amendment protects the right of the individual to posses a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The court found that the total ban on handguns, and the requirement to keep them disabled, violated their right. The second amendment 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.” With militia meaning all males physically capable in acting for common defense, the founding fathers included this in our Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation and as individuals. Aside from approving legislation that allows firearms in national parks and Amtrak trains, President Barrack Obama has virtually stayed silent when it comes to the topic of gun control. This may be result of the anti-gun control policies of previous president George W. Bush or because of the lack of votes from pro gun areas like the rural South and the Midwest. In his presidential campaign leading up to 2008 the president stated that he was in favor of gun control policies, including reinstating the assault weapons ban and creating new legislation against concealed weapons.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Chicago

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 540

  • Pages: 2

Gun Control

All guns have the potential to be dangerous and should be dealt with precaution. Guns have been a part of American history for as long as people can remember. For most individuals guns are supposed to be very dangerous and unsafe. Though, that is not true. Guns can be hazardous, but only if they are in the wrong hands. Owning a gun is a right that every American should take pride in having. Guns are used for self-protection, hunting, law enforcement and other practices. The right to own a gun is secured by the 2nd constitutional amendment. So, prohibition of guns from being owned or bought is immoral and unconstitutional. Gun control in the United States should be eliminated. To get a gun, one would have to go through an exam to get a license to own and use a gun, and you wouldn’t be able to get one if you have any criminal record and you would also need to be a responsible adult. And, if the government bans guns, only criminals will have access to them since they already get them from drug dealers. Therefore, when confronted by a criminal, civilians would have no way to defend themselves.Argumentative Essay against Gun Control Since 1980, forty-four states have passed laws allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons outside their homes for personal protection. (Five additional states had these laws before 1980. Illinois is the sole holdout.) A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004.

In 2005, Florida passed the Stand Your Ground law, an extension of the so-called castle doctrine, exonerating from prosecution citizens who use deadly force when confronted by an assailant, even if they could have retreated safely; Stand Your Ground laws expand that protection outside the home to any place that an individual “has a right to be.” Twenty-four states have passed similar laws. Guns, therefore, are necessary in today’s society for our protection

There is no point to implement gun control considering the reality that criminals will still find a way to procure guns if they want to do so. Criminals will always make sure to have access to the guns that they need to execute their crimes successfully. They usually have connections to other influential people that can provide them with the guns and weapons that they need in order to execute their crimes. The bottom line is that if the criminals want to have access to guns, they will be able to get them even if there is a gun control policy in place. This law will not stop them from having guns if they are desperate to have them.

Implementing a gun control policy will not really be effective in making all guns vanish in society. This policy will also not do anything to make guns safer in society. The reality is that guns have become necessary at present so that people can safeguard themselves, their families and their properties from any harm or danger that could be done to them by criminals.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of California

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 3055

  • Pages: 12

Gun control

Nearly every US citizen has an emotional opinion about gun control with politicians, the media, community leaders and school administrators leading the charge. The debate over gun control is actually misguided. How can a law be controlled? It can only be enforced. The Constitution legally established the right for any law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, yet proponents of gun control wish to steadily erode this law through regulation and legislation. The term gun control is just that, a steady relentless effort to seize control by chipping away at the edges of the law until is gone entirely. Gun control advocates commonly resort to emotional arguments presented out of context rather than rational examination. An honest debate depends on citing the facts and exposing manipulative attempts to deceive or convert the populace.

The rational starting point is the Constitutional law established by the founding fathers. Freedom was the purpose for granting all law abiding citizens the right to bear arms. In order to protect our independence which was won by great sacrifice, the new government promised liberty for its citizens by empowering them with the right to defend themselves. George Washington declared firearm ownership second only to the Constitution itself, stating firearms as key in protecting individual liberty.

One of the key authors of the Constitution, James Madison, was adamant that the powers given by the Constitution to the federal government should be few and clearly defined. Like Washington, he was concerned with history repeating itself with a small group possessing power over many. It wasn’t about the actual size of the government but about the authority they wielded. Madison felt that citizens should be trusted with the right to bear arms and that a government that didn’t trust its citizens to do so was itself unworthy of trust. These principles of gun ownership are stunning considering that the founders were the government. They had the extraordinary insight to understand human behavior and how to protect the many from the few.

In agreement with the founding fathers and many others, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Louis Brandeis, summed it up well by stating that experience should teach us that when a government has the means to benefit, that is the time we should be most on our guard to protect liberty. Gun ownership, simply put, is about independence and freedom. Over the history of our country, we have witnessed our government continue to increase its power, constrict and regulate many of our rights, and to engage in unlawful policy and lawmaking. Now, more than ever before, is the time to protect our fundamental right to bear arms. Consider how emotions fit into this equation. Lawmakers and their supporters attempt to justify gun control with emotional rhetoric, but laws aren’t based on emotion. Justice was intended to be blind and therefore closed to subjective interpretation.

It’s worth asking why so many politicians wish to change or destroy one of the most basic laws of our land. As Judge Brandeis so aptly put it, when there’s an opportunity for government to gain, that is precisely when we should guard our liberty closely. Government grows its power through control. The government has steadily seized control over more and more areas of our lives. In a steady focused manner, the government has been grabbing small pieces of our lives while we aren’t paying attention. It’s the classic Fabian strategy of avoiding large direct battles, in favor of small, harassing actions. It’s a war of attrition. The government runs the education system and our retirement and unemployment options. Among many other areas, government is also actively engaged in the automobile and mortgage business and the health industry. Now the government is working on your diet, your weight, and how many ounces of soda you may consume. The government has been so successful in commandeering these areas of our lives, that it isn’t absurd to assume they can take away our guns. We’re treated like simpletons who are incapable of making decisions or taking care of ourselves. We need to protect and support our Constitution, especially the second amendment.

Gun control supporters have perfected the art of harassment, using emotional manipulation as politicians and leaders pull on our heart strings or attempt to instill guilt. It’s outrageous to suggest that those who use reason over emotion are uncaring or callus. Remember, we are talking about law and liberty, not how we feel. Most politicians redirect the issue of violence into gun control as a means to reframe the argument. Focus on the victims or perpetrators allows policy makers to distract from the issue by drawing people in emotionally. If the real goal was to restore safety in our streets, homes and schools, we’d be talking about violence control instead of gun control. The emphasis should be on enforcing laws, creating stricter criminal laws where necessary, discussing options for the treatment of the criminally insane and extraditing criminals who are in this country unlawfully. We need to understand that violence is a separate issue from guns. We’ve witnessed plenty of violent murders and attacks committed without guns – getting rid of guns does not get rid of crime. We should question the real issue at hand which is why the government wants to limit or take away our gun rights.

An unarmed populace is a vulnerable populace and therefore easy to control. All three branches of government have had a hand in limiting our rights at one time or another. Gun control is such a polarized issue to navigate that it requires a great deal of finesse on the part of a politician. They all want to keep their jobs so advocates of gun control must use clever tactics to erode your rights. If politicians keep the focus on what’s best for you, you don’t have to think about what’s best for you. And once you realize they don’t have your best interests in mind, it’s too late.

This assessment of government may seem suspicious or unfounded, but history has proven that tyrannical governments are often born out of gun control. As we all know, hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not always so obvious while events are unfolding. I’m sure no law abiding German citizen would have supported Hitler had he laid out his program upfront for exterminating millions of people, creating a personal police force, or leading the country into a war that would bankrupt them. Instead, he seized the reins of emotion, pumped up national pride and justified retaliation for retributions inflicted on Germany after World War I. Many other countries, such as Soviet Russia, China, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia have turned on their people, murdering millions upon millions of their citizens.

In many of these cases, a series of steps occurred that resulted in disastrous consequences. Gun regulation was the first step, which progressed to gun control and eventually led to the confiscation of all guns. Once citizens were unarmed, tyrannical leaders were able to control the people with a loyal military. With no means of armed protection, political dissidents were usually executed. And finally, tyranny was firmly in place which often led to genocide. Germany is such a striking example because it’s a Western European country, similar in many ways to the United States. If it could happen there, then why not here?

With these historical examples in mind, consider a possible scenario for the United Sates. Currently, Congress is eroding the second amendment by passing unconstitutional regulations on gun ownership. If the second amendment is ultimately destroyed or crippled so badly that it’s rendered useless, then it’s reasonable to expect that another amendment is vulnerable to attack. A domino effect could easily follow, destroying the entire Constitution at large. Let’s assume the first amendment is next on the list, subject to tighter and more restrictive regulation until its legislated into nonexistence. With the loss of freedom of speech as well as the right to bear arms, the government would then have complete power over the people. At this point, the domino effect would progress rapidly without impediment.

With the second amendment currently under attack, many people are alarmed by every new regulation, including background checks and higher taxes on ammunition. In defense of the tenth amendment which draws a line between national and state power, and in response to a proposed law by President Obama in 2012, 27 states introduced legislation that would nullify federal authority over local firearms. This action demonstrates an act on the part of the states to protect their gun laws. No such action would be necessary unless a threat was perceived.

Another area which should be of concern to all citizens, is the government’s apparent rush to join England, Australia and Canada to either ban or heavily regulate gun ownership. An effort is afloat to level the playing field, get all countries on an equal footing and promote global government. Despite the fact that the idea of a global government is absurd – the mass of its size alone would crush it – the idea is still disturbing. The EU is still unsuccessful in creating a unified region, but one thing most of them they agree on is gun control. A global government with an unarmed populace would create a dependent people with no voice, and by extension, no power, which essentially cedes political, economic and military control to the government.

A lone wolf in the center of Europe is Switzerland. Often referred to as a gun culture that works, the Swiss love their guns and have no intention of giving them up. Despite the large number of guns owned by the Swiss, the country’s violent crime rate is low. As a tiny country surrounded by other countries, historically the Swiss understood the need for self-defense and their patriotic duty to defend their country. Israel has a similar need to protect itself. Careful examination of these two countries could lead to greater understanding of successful gun ownership.

Considering historical precedence, facts and honest reporting is irrelevant to the mainstream media. Their unabashed bias either stems from flagrant disregard of the truth or they’re so emotionally caught up in their cause that they can’t distinguish fact from fiction. For example, in an article by Winston Dorian of the Examiner, the author cites reasons for the liberal media ignoring the Ft. Hood shooting. He argues that it hasn’t received the same coverage as other mass shootings because the event took place on a military base while a pro-gun control Commander in Chief is in office. The shooting, if fairly reported would have cast a cloud of “Terror Attack” over the administration, not to mention that the perpetrator was Muslim. None of these details fit the gun control narrative. On an emotional level, soldiers shooting soldiers just doesn’t have the same impact as shootings involving civilians and schoolchildren.

According to the Media Research Center, anti-gun stories outnumber pro-gun stories by 8 to 1. The media no longer just reports the news. They certainly don’t distinguish an editorial from hard news. This was never more evident than the attack of leading media figures on the lawmakers who failed to pass tighter regulations on background checks in April 2013. Senators and Representatives were publicly called cowards, a scathing editorial was published by Gabrielle Giffords and the Huffington Post plastered their homepage with images of shooting victims. It’s a perfect example of drowning out anyone (even if their one of your own) in rabid support of a cause. An overly emotional and by extension, opinionated press, reacted to the major defeat in Congress with near hysteria.

The media always has its eye on communities, but leaders should pay close attention to crime rate facts instead of media backlash. The media frenzy over the Treyvon Martin case almost obliterated the facts. Instead, more energy was focused on the link between guns and racially- motivated crimes. Gun control won’t decrease racially-motivated crimes. We’ve recently seen a rash of killings in several countries, including the United States, in which the victim, because of his race, was beaten to death, not shot.

Communities need to emphasize safety, not gun control. Steve Curtis, Princeton graduate and owner of a safety and environmental consulting company, presents a compelling argument for law abiding, armed, and empowered citizens to take back their communities. He argues that the long and involved process of gun registration for people who follow the law, makes it easier for criminals to commit crimes because they ignore the laws. With unarmed citizens, the criminal has a huge advantage. Curtis turns to the book, More Guns, Less Crime, which provides statistics about the correlation between low crime and legally armed citizens. Detroit and Chicago, as well as other cities with high crime rates would benefit from such a policy.

An honest discussion is imperative to improve the safety of the nation’s communities. Kevin Williamson, a reporter for National Review argues that the discussion about gun control is not only dishonest in a general sense, but in details as well. Williamson points out that the US suffers from a high rate of homicides, not to be confused with a high rate of gun-perpetrated homicides. The liberal support for gun control fails to distinguish homicide deaths by suicide (two-thirds of all deaths) from violent crimes in the streets, schools and other public places. In addition, more children die from drowning and bike accidents than gun-related deaths. Violent crimes are also more pronounced in liberal cities. Williamson believes that gun control is a way to change the subject and to put conservatives on the defensive for liberal failures. Failing schools, a broken criminal justice system and ineffective police departments are the result of liberal policies. Blaming guns, and those who support gun ownership, is a way to transfer the blame.

Our schools, such an integral part of community, have seen a staggering onslaught of violence. Ever since Columbine, would-be criminals understand that schools are an easy target for launching an attack. Whatever the motive of the criminal is, he can easily achieve it in a “gun free zone” full of vulnerable children and unprepared administrators. Gene Hoffman, the chairman of the Calguns Foundation, argues that gun control is not the answer to providing safety in schools and preventing school massacres. Citing a school massacre in 1927, involving explosives instead of firearms, Hoffman suggests that teachers should be allowed to arm themselves, to receive training or opt for less lethal weapons in order to protect themselves and students. Dr. Michael Brown, a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws would also like to see teachers better prepared. Like Hoffman, Dr. Brown is sensitive to the fact that many school administrators are pacifists. He proposes a concealed carry law for teachers, allowing them a choice whether to be armed or not. The advantage to conceal carry is that a criminal or unbalanced teen who may be planning an attack would be deterred if they knew some of the people on campus may be carrying a concealed weapon. They just wouldn’t know which one. This scenario has worked very well in Israel, a country that arms its teachers and older students to fend off terrorist attacks. It’s illogical to think that an unarmed school is a safe school – it’s an open invitation for anyone who would do harm.

Violence has always been with us and nobody, except a deranged mind, is in favor of it. While reviewing any issue, one must acknowledge that there are two sides, one which is personal truth or a matter of perception. Universal truth is the other side and can only be based on knowledge derived from facts. The challenge lies in separating the two. Debating any issue is always a healthy exercise to provoke thought and examine possible solutions, but meaningful data and the right questions are necessary to resolve any disagreement. We should ask the tough questions such as why does government want so much power and what would they do with the populace if they had absolute authority over us? What’s good about global government and for whom? Why does the media feel entitled to moral authority over its audience or the need to form and shape our opinions, advising us on how to conduct our lives? Our community leaders seem to know what’s best for us and our schools have mixed politics with education. When did we lose our self-reliance and common sense? These are the key questions that should be answered before debating any further legislation on guns. A reality check is in order to separate fact from emotions.

Works Cited

Fetzer, Jim. Veterans Today. Jim Fetzer and Press TV. “Why Gun Control is Bad for America.” 6 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Aug. 2013.

Williamson, Kevin D. National Review. “The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate.” 3 May 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.

Gucciardi, Anthony. Info Wars. “It’s Not About Guns: Gun Control is People Control.” 29 Apr. 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.

Curtis, Steve. Policymic. “Gun Control Facts: Detroit Crime Rate is the Result of Gun Control.” 20 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.

Dr. Brown, Michael S. Keep and Bear Arms. Should Teachers be Armed? 12 Mar. 2001. Web. 18 Aug. 2013

Hoffman, Gene. US News. Debate Club, “Should There Be More Armed Guards in Schools? 24 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Aug. 20

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 1593

  • Pages: 6

Gun Control

Guns kill many innocent people every year. Some states require permits for guns and some states do not. There are many laws put in to effect to control guns. The main two laws that will be covered in this essay are just and unjust laws when it comes to gun control. (A just law is a man-made code squares with the moral law.) (An unjust law is that is out of harmony with the moral law) meaning that the” unjust law is not a law at all.” People have always been interested in using weapons for various reasons. The Constitution legally established the right for any law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, yet proponents of gun control wish to steadily erode this law through regulation and legislation. Some people collect gun as collectors while some use them for protection and others use them for hunting. The term gun control is just that, a steady relentless effort to seize control by chipping away at the edges of the law until is gone entirely. While some people oppose the idea, others claim that the government should introduce tighter gun controls.

The first argument of the opponents of strict gun control laws is that most people own guns to protect themselves. They claim that guns are necessary for self-defense because the police are unable to stop violent crime. Opponents further maintain that citizens keep guns to feel safe and defend themselves and their families whenever the need arises. Therefore, gun control laws disarm only the innocent people who obey the laws. Gun laws can protect people while the same law can get someone injured, due to self-defense. No law should ever be broken because they are here to protect the people, so they say. If everyone abided by this gun law there will be no one in jail for shooting someone. There has to be something out there to help everyone understand the significance of the gun law, but there are always the opposers that make everything hard to understand. How can someone protect their family if they cannot have guns, but the enemy “law breaker” will get their hands on one and cause harm to someone or even to their self. By not being able to protect their family makes it hard for someone to abide by these gun control laws. Every man should be able to protect their home with a gun as long the guns is kept in a safe place with child proof locks on them.

Another argument put forward by people who are against gun-control is that many people keep the guns for sport and recreation. According to the opponents, these gun-owners are responsible citizens who do not intend to harm anyone. They further say that shooting and hunting are sports which many people enjoy, and gun control take firearms from hobbyist and hunters. Hunters are just trying to provide food for their families as a result of the gun law their family might starve. No one ever think about things like that they only think about how someone can be injured or killed when it comes to guns. Shooting sports can be relaxing but the gun law makes them stressful. Guns can really be dangerous when it is put in the hand of the wrong person in wrong in the wrong mind frame; therefor gun laws affect everyone that deals with some sort of guns.

Most people think that gun control is absurd due to the fact that everyone doesn’t think the same way. Most sportsmen is against gun control because before the law came about they was able to live free and not worry about the violence these guns was causing. Hunters can’t hang their guns in the back window of their pick-up truck no more due to the control laws. There should be a background check done for everyone before buying a gun so everyone don’t have to suffer for someone else mistakes. Some hunters think that gun control laws are too stiff. Guns have been around for a long time and really had no restrictions on them now hunters and sportsmen have to pay close attention to these laws so they won’t go to jail. Hunters think the gun law is unjust, while everyone else thinks it is just. (An unjust law is no law at all) makes it hard to distinguish between a just law. Recreational use for gun can be harmful to if someone is using that gun for the first time. Going to the gun range can be a stress reliever for some people and target practice for others. Needless to say but everyone no matter of age or experience should know the gun law if they going to be using a gun.

Although some people oppose gun control law, others support the idea because it may reduce the crime and accidental shootings. The reason of gun control law claims that not owning a gun can decrease the homicide that is happing. They assert that most murder victims are killed by firearms. It is also maintained that in robberies and assaults, victims are more likely to die when the criminal is armed with a gun than when he has another weapon. Most rappers rap about killing so if the kids start listening to this music they will start trying to be like the rappers, because young listeners indulge into rap music. A gun can be purchased in my different places and that’s how kids end up with them. Another reason why people oppose the gun law is because if everyone was able to carry a gun most of these killing by guns would not be happing. People must protect their self at all time because these gun laws can be for or against anyone.

Most homicides with guns involved lead to people going to jail because they think they are bigger than the law, people must learn that laws are here to protect citizens. Martin Luther King Jr was killed by a gun and he was a non-violent person. People should be more like Dr. King and use the (non-violent) approach to solve any problem. An unarmed person is prone to a homicide due to the fact they can’t protect them self against an armed individual with a gun. The gun law should help people instead of hurting them. Many crimes can be stopped if the people stop be selfish. Murders happen every day and everywhere but it’s up to the people to stop them or at least decrease the rate of them happening. Guns should only be used by the military at war time but not to kill just to scare. Many people know the law some just think that it is put into effect or pertain to the ones that committing these homicides.

The effects of gun control also assert the stricter laws can prevent accidental shooting especially among children. Children have a tendency to play with their parent’s gun because they think it is a toy. Parents should always keep their firearms in a safe with a child proof lock in the trigger well of their gun. If all parents that own guns lock the guns up and keep it away from their kids there would be less school shootings. A lot of youngster can be easily influenced by violent video games and TV shows that promote violence, therefore the gun laws should be tighter. Most youths today rather are out in the streets with the wrong crowd than at home learning how to prevent homicides or accidental death due to gun control. Kids don’t know right from wrong unless their parents teach them. A lot of kids lost their lives because the parents didn’t know how to secure their guns correctly. The gun law is people should know if they want to own a firearm. In order to reach out and get the attention of the youth there has to be more parents getting involved in their kids’ lives and teach them about these gun laws if they got gun in their homes.

To sum up, the opponents of gun control believe that tighter laws restrict only people who use firearms for self-protection or recreation whereas those who are in favor of gun control claim that guns cause more harms than benefits. However, it is obvious that gun ownership is very risky, so it is necessary for the governments to introduce stricter gun laws and educate people about the firearms. With stronger gun control laws, the crime and murder rates will most likely decrease all over the world. Gun don’t kill people it the people who is not gun law educated that kills people. The gun control law was put into effect to help the citizens not to kill off the population, but many people is still getting hurt or kill by someone pulling the trigger on a gun.

Works Cited
Cohen, Samuel, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology. 3rd Edition Blackmore, Howard L. “Guns and Rifles of the World” Firearm Pictorial Works: 1965 Marsh, Pamela C. “Madison Firearm Dealer Sentenced” Tallahassee, Florida 30 April 2014. (newspaper) “Guns Guns” April 2013. (magazine)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Chicago

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 5123

  • Pages: 20

Gun Control

“Should Private Gun Ownership Be Banned?”
Widespread gun ownership in a community could provide a general deterrent to criminal predation, lowering the risk to owners and non-owners alike. But widespread gun ownership could also lead to increased risks of various sorts, including the possibility that guns will be misused by the owners or transferred to dangerous people through theft or unregulated sale. Whether the social costs of gun ownership are positive or negative is arguably the most fundamental question for the regulation of firearms in the United States. Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have very strict limits on gun possession while others, such as the United States, have relatively modest limits. In some countries, the topic remains a source of intense debate with proponents generally arguing the dangers of widespread gun ownership, and opponents generally arguing individual rights of self-protection as well as individual liberties in general. Some in the United States view gun ownership as a civil right (Snyder i-ii), where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

One of the earliest U.S. gun-control legislation at the state level were the black codes (laws that replaced the pre Civil War era slave codes which, among other things, prohibited black ownership of firearms) in an attempt to prevent blacks’ having access to the full rights of citizens, including rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment (Halbrook 108). Laws of this type later used racially neutral language to survive legal challenge, but were expected to be enforced against blacks rather than whites. Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012, where 20 young children were killed, Wayne LaPierre, vice-president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) proposed, at an NRA press conference, that the solution to such tragedies is to place armed officers in schools, saying: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”
(Washington post). LaPierre blamed the media, politicians in favor of gun-free zones, U.S. mental health services, and violent movies and video games for the shooting. He introduced an NRA-backed proposal to put armed guards in all schools in the U.S., which he called the National Model School Shield Program. In January 2013, the Newtown school board voted unanimously to ask for police officer presence in all of its elementary schools. A 2004 review by the National Research Council concluded that, “higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence” (Welford). Another review conducted in 2011 by the Firearm Injury Center at Penn determined that, “the correlation between firearm availability and rates of homicide is consistent across high income industrialized nations: in general, where there are more firearms, there are higher rates of homicide overall”.

A 2004 review of the literature conducted by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center similarly found that, “a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries” (Homicide – Firearms Research). Reviews by the HICRC also assessed variation in gun ownership and violence in the United States and found that the same pattern held: states with higher gun ownership had higher rates of homicide, both gun-related and overall. A review published in 2011 found that the health risks of a gun in the home are greater than the benefits, based on evidence that the presence of guns increases the risk of completed suicides and evidence that guns increase the intimidation and murder rate of women (Hemenway 502). The researchers found no credible evidence that guns in the home reduce the severity of injury in a break-in or confrontation or act as a deterrent of assault. A previous study (2003) had similarly found that the presence of a gun in the home significantly increased the risk of suicide and adult homicide (Wiebe 12). A number of studies have examined the correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates internationally. Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. Gun control has a serious public health, political and economic concerns that need to be addressed respectively. HEALTH/SAFETY

Every year, more than two thousand people die in the United States from gun-related injuries. The population groups most affected by these avoidable deaths are children and young adolescents. The misuse of firearms is a problem worldwide, of course. However, the incidence of firearm use does vary from country to country. According to the United Nations Report on Firearm Regulation, Crime Prevention, and Criminal Justice (1997), the United States has “weaker firearm regulations and higher numbers of deaths involving firearms than all other industrialized and even most developing nations.” The study also noted that the total firearm death rate in the United States in 1995 was 13.7 per 100,000 people, “three times the average rate among other responding countries and the third highest, after Brazil and Jamaica”. More than half the homes in the United States possess firearms, so it is hardly surprising that they rank among the “ten leading causes of death accounting for more than 30,000 deaths annually” (Wintermute 3107). While most people have guns primarily for sporting activities, many owners also have them for personal protection and security purposes.

The public health approach to violence prevention attempts not only to reduce the occurrence of violence, but also to limit the numbers of fatal and nonfatal injuries when such events occur. To prevent gun-related violence, indeed any type of violence, it is important to understand the dynamics of violence as well as the role of different kinds of weapons in both fatal and nonfatal injuries. Research from around the world indicates that socio-structural factor such as high unemployment rates, ethnic and religious hostilities, political instability, financial inequalities, lack of resources, and economic deprivation increase the likelihood of violence. When guns are readily available in such settings, or where legislation to curb their illegitimate use is lax or inappropriate, injuries are more likely to occur, intentional or otherwise. Individual factors can also precipitate violence, including the use of firearms. Substance and alcohol abuse, mental disorders, feelings of personal inadequacy and social isolation, and an individual’s experience with violence in the home are among some of the factors that have been associated with violence.

The more guns there are in circulation, the greater the likelihood that they will be misused. Hence, from a public health perspective, it is important to devise strategies which aim to ensure that those in possession of arms use them for legitimate purposes and not for violent or criminal acts. There are a variety of ways of dealing with the problems caused by guns in society, and legislation is one of the methods most commonly used. Franklin Zimring has noted that laws that regulate gun use fall into three categories: those that limit the place and the manner of firearm use, those that keep guns out of the hands of high-risk users, and those that ban high risk firearms. Place and manner legislation sets out to do as it suggests, to limit certain uses of firearms in certain locations. Examples include banning the use of firearms in public places and prohibiting the carrying of a firearm (except for those carried by security personnel and police). This legislation is difficult to implement, however, without the active support of the police force, and that support requires additional funding to make sure that police monitor potentially violent events. Successful place and manner legislation has been implemented in the country of Columbia, where firearms are involved in 80 percent of homicides. Here, an innovative gun control intervention was implemented by the Program for Development, Security, and Peace (DESEPAZ), in collaboration with the Mayor of Cali, Colombia’s third largest city.

A police-enforced ban was introduced in Cali that prohibited carrying firearms on weekends, public paydays, public holidays, and election days because “such periods were historically associated with higher rates of homicide” (Villaveces 1206). Media-led information campaigns informed the public of the new gun control measure. On the days when the ban was in operation, police set up strategically located checkpoints in areas of the city where criminal activities were commonplace, and they conducted random searches of individuals. “During the ban, police policy directed that if a legally acquired firearm was found on an individual, the weapon was to be temporarily taken from the individual and the individual fined. Individuals without proof of legally acquiring the firearm were to be arrested and the firearm permanently confiscated” (Villaveces1206). Denying high-risk users access to firearms is the second type of legislative tool to control gun misuse. In order for this approach to work, the law has to define clearly
who falls into the category of “high-risk user.” The term is usually applied to convicted criminals, those deemed “mentally unfit,” and to drug addicts. It also applies to minors. Such legislation attempts to make it difficult for members of these groups to possess a firearm.

Every year, in developed and developing countries across the globe, thousands of children and young adolescents die while playing with loaded guns. Additionally, studies have shown that adolescents are vulnerable in terms of firearm misuse and successful suicide attempts. In the United States between 1965 and 1985 “the rate of suicide involving firearms increased 36 percent, whereas the rate of suicide involving other methods remained constant. “Among adolescents and young adults, rates of suicide by firearms doubled during the same period” (Kellermann 467). Restricting minors the access to have weapons can help to reduce these events. Many states now attempt to prevent high-risk groups from obtaining firearms by identifying “ineligible” individuals before they can acquire a gun. Minors would obviously fall into this category. “The screening system included in U.S. legislation known as the Brady Bill which permits police to determine whether a prospective gun purchaser has a criminal record. If the check turns up nothing the purchaser can obtain the gun” (Zimring 53).

The third legislative strategy used to combat the misuse of firearms is to introduce legislation regulating the use of very dangerous weapons. Such “laws limit the supply of high risk weapons” and “can complement the strategy of decreasing high risk uses and users” (Zimring 53). Such supply reduction laws “strive to make the most dangerous guns so scarce that potential criminals cannot obtain them easily” (Zimring 52). They also set out rigid requirements that must be met to prove that possession of such a weapon is necessary. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and certain military devices are the kinds of weapons covered by this type of legislation. Research into this area in the United States has shown that states in which such strict laws operate have lower levels of violent crime than states that do not. Another means of legislating for firearm misuse is to introduce stiff penalties for criminals caught using firearms. “More than half of the states in the USA have passed such laws. This approach is popular with gun owners because the penalties concern only gun related crime and place no restrictions on firearm ownership” (Zimring 52). ECONOMICS

After the school massacre in Newtown, everyone has been putting out proposals for how to reduce gun violence. President Obama created an inter-agency task force. The NRA asked for armed guards in every school and now economists are weighing in with their own, number-heavy approaches (Washington post). In the United States, there are an average of 32,300 deaths (the majority of which are suicide) and approximately 69,000 injuries annually most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males, with an estimated annual cost of $100 billion(Bjerregaard and Alan 37). American society remains deeply divided over whether more restrictive gun control policies would save lives and prevent injuries. Scholars agree the rate of gun violence in the United States is higher than many developed OECD countries that practice strict gun control. The United States’ low life expectancy (relative to other wealthy countries) may be attributable to guns, with a reduction in average American lifespan of 104 days (Lemaire, 359).

Disagreement exists among academics on the question of whether a causal relationship between gun availability and violence exists, and which, if any, gun controls would effectively lower gun related violence. Cook and Ludwig created a data set that used the number of suicides by firearm in a county as a proxy for gun ownership and checked it against a variety of existing survey data. They figured out the “social cost” of owning a gun. The two economists determined that a greater prevalence of guns in an area was associated with an increase in the murder rate, but not other types of violent crimes (guns, the authors argue, lead to “an intensification of criminal violence”). Why does this happen? One possibility: The two economists found evidence that if there are more legal guns in an area, it’s more likely that those guns will be transferred to “illegal” owners. When the two economists added up the costs of gun ownership, more injuries and more homicides and weighed them against various benefits, they concluded that the average household acquiring a gun imposed a net cost on the rest of society of somewhere between $100 to $1,800 per year (379-382). Now, normally when economists come across a product that has a negative externality like cigarettes or coal-fired plants, they recommend taxing or regulating it, so that the user of the product internalizes the costs that he or she is imposing on everyone else. In this case, an economist might suggest slapping a steeper tax on guns or bullets.

Others might object that this isn’t fair. There are responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. Not everyone with a gun imposes the same costs on society. Why should the tax be uniform? And that brings us to John Wasik’s recent essay at Forbes. Instead of a tax on guns, he recommends that gun owners be required to purchase liability insurance (Washington post). Different gun owners would pay different rates, depending on the risks involved. Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it. Economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, provides data showing that laws allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a gun legally in public may cause reductions in crime because potential criminals do not know who may be carrying a firearm. The data for Lott’s analysis came from the FBI’s crime statistics for all 3,054 US counties (Lott 50). University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues in his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. A comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information. Fully automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 prohibited further registry of machine guns manufactured after it took effect. The result has been a massive rise in the price of machine-guns available for private ownership, as an increased demand chases the fixed, pre-1986 supply. For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-gun, which may be sold to law enforcement for about $1,000, costs a private citizen about $5,000 (Stewart). POLITICS

Gun politics addresses safety issues and ideologies related to firearms through criminal and noncriminal use. Gun politics deals with rules, regulations, and restrictions on the use, ownership, as well as distribution of firearms. Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom or Germany, have very strict limits on gun possession while others, such as the United States, have relatively lenient limits. Most nations hold the power to protect them, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be lost under certain circumstances: some countries have been forced to disarm by other countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may find themselves with a range of penalties or sanctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations. National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States’ International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) program “to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to organized crime and narcotics-related activities.

The issue of firearms has, at times, taken a high-profile position in United States culture and politics. Mass shootings (like the Columbine High School massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Virginia Tech massacre) have continually ignited political debates about gun control in the United States. According to a 2012 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 10% of Americans support banning all guns except for police and authorized personnel, 76% support gun ownership with some restrictions, and 10% support gun ownership with no restrictions. Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, estimates, there are 5,000 gun shows annually in the United States. In 1959, the Gallup poll showed that 59% of Americans supported banning handgun possession. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 26% supported banning handgun possession. In 1990, the Gallup poll showed that 78% of Americans supported stricter laws on gun sales than existed at the time, 17% felt the laws were fine as they were, and 2% supported less strict laws. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 43% supported stricter laws on gun sales, 44% felt the laws were fine as they were, and 11% supported less strict laws. In 2001, the Gallup poll showed that 51% of Americans preferred that current gun laws be enforced more strictly. In 2011, it was 60% (Gallup politics).

A 2009 CNN/ORC poll found 39% favored stricter gun laws, 15% favored less strict gun laws, and 46% preferred no change. CNN reported that the drop in support (since the 2001 Gallup poll) came from self-identified independents and Republicans, with support among Democrats remaining consistent. There is a sharp divide between gun-rights proponents and gun-control proponents. This leads to intense political debate over the effectiveness of firearm regulation. Democrats are more likely to support stricter gun control than are Republicans. In an online 2010 Harris Poll, of Democrats, 70% favored stricter gun control, 7% favored less strict gun control, and 14% preferred neither. Of Republicans, 22% favored stricter control, 42% favored less strict control, and 27% preferred neither (Krane 1-2). In the same 2011 Gallup poll, 55% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had a gun in their household compared to 40% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Of Republicans and Republican-leaners, 41% personally owned a gun. Of Democrats and Democratic-leaners, 28% personally owned a gun (Gallup politics). Incidents of gun violence and self-defense have routinely ignited bitter debate. 12,632 murders were committed using firearms and 613 persons were killed unintentionally in 2007 (CDC 89). Surveys have suggested that guns are used in crime deterrence or prevention around 2.5 million times a year in the United States (LaPierre 23).

In 2004, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a “public nuisance” through the “negligent marketing” of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday night specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The NAACP lawsuit and several similar suits, some brought by municipalities seeking reimbursement for medical cost associated with criminal shootings were dismissed in 2003. Gun-rights groups, most notably the National Rifle Association, portrayed it as “nuisance suits,” aimed at driving gun manufacturers (especially smaller firms) out of business through court costs alone, as damage awards were not expected. These suits prompted the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in October 2005. On January 22, 2013, Congressman Adam Schiff introduced a bill in U.S. House of Representatives to counter the PLCAA, the The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act.

CONCLUSION
Since the days of the pioneers, guns have been around as part of the tradition in countries such as the United States of America (USA), Switzerland and Canada. In recent years, issues concerning the ownership and possession of private guns have become a hotly debated topic in these societies because of the rapid growth of gun crimes. However, guns are still valuable for self-defence. Allowance of private gun ownership can decrease crime rates and a gun abolition policy will produce unwanted outcomes to society. One of the arguments against banning private gun ownership is that allowing private use of guns is effective for self-protection. If a person carries a weapon, it can be used as self-defence against criminals. It is believed that citizens who are unarmed have higher chances to be targeted and assaulted by criminals as most lawbreakers would want to reduce their risks when committing crimes. The supporters of total gun confiscation argue that police who are allowed to carry firearms will be able to stop the crimes. Americans are finally beginning to have a serious discussion about guns. One argument we’re hearing is the central pillar of the case for private gun ownership: that we are all safer when more individuals have guns because armed citizens deter crime and can defend themselves and others against it when deterrence fails. Those who don’t have guns, it’s said, are free riders on those who do, as the criminally disposed are less likely to engage in crime the more likely it is that their victim will be armed. When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease.

The criminals get better. There’s some sense to this argument, for even criminals don’t like being shot. But the logic is faulty, and a close look at it leads to the conclusion that the United States should ban private gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely. One would think that if widespread gun ownership had the robust deterrent effects that gun advocates claim it has, our country would be free of crime than other developed societies. But it’s not. When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease. Instead, criminals work to be better armed, more efficient in their use of guns (“quicker on the draw”), and readier to use them. When this happens, those who get guns may be safer than they would be without them, but those without them become progressively more vulnerable. Gun advocates have a solution to this: the unarmed must arm themselves. But when more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would once have got in a fistfight instead shoot the person who provoked them; people are shot by mistake or by accident. And with guns so plentiful, any lunatic or criminally disposed person who has a sudden and perhaps only temporary urge to kill people can simply help himself to the contents of Mom’s gun cabinet. Perhaps most important, the more people there are who have guns, the less effective the police become. As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines and personal security becomes a matter of self-help.

For the police to remain effective in a society in which most of those they must confront or arrest are armed, they must, like criminals, become better armed, more numerous, and readier to fire. But if they do that, guns won’t have produced a net reduction in the power of the government but will only have generated enormous private and public expenditures, leaving the balance of power between armed citizens and the state as it was before, the unarmed conspicuously worse off, and everyone poorer except the gun industry. The logic is as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. The logic of private gun possession is thus similar to that of the nuclear arms race. When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable. The other states then have an incentive to get nuclear weapons to try to restore their security. As more states get them, the incentives for others increase. If eventually all get them, the potential for catastrophe whether through irrationality, misperception, or accident is great. Each state’s security is then much lower than it would be if none had nuclear weapons. But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers.

Gun advocates sometimes argue that a prohibition would violate individuals’ rights of self-defense. Imposing a ban on guns, they argue, would be tantamount to taking a person’s gun from her just as someone is about to kill her. But this is a defective analogy. Although a prohibition would deprive people of one effective means of self-defense, it would also ensure that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even useful for self-defense. Guns are only one means of self-defense and self-defense is only one means of achieving security against attack. It is the right to security against attack that is fundamental. In other Western countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States (New York Times). Gun advocates claim it has nothing to do with our permissive gun laws or our customs and practices involving guns. If they are right, should we conclude that Americans are simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other Western countries? If you resist that conclusion, you have little choice but to accept that our easy access to all manner of firearms is a large part of the explanation of why we kill each at a much higher rate than our counterparts elsewhere.

REFERENCES

Mcmahan J. The Stone: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough. The New York Times December 19, 2012, 1:03 pm. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/. 5th April 2013.

Kellermann A. L., Rivara F. P., Somes G., Reay D. T. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” New England Journal of Medicine 327.7 (1992): 467-72. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1308093. 10th April, 2013. Villaveces A., Cummings P., Espitia V. E., Koepsell T. D. “Effect of a Ban on Carrying Firearms on Homicide Rates in 2 Colombian Cities.” Journal of the American Medical Association 283.9 (2000):1205-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10703790. 10th April, 2013. Wintermute, G. J., Teret S. P., Kraus J. F., Wright M. A., and Bradfield, G. (1987). “When Children Shoot Children.” Journal of American Medical Association 257.22 (1987): 208-209. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1025799/. 7th April, 2013. Zimring, F. E. “Firearms, Violence and Public Policy.” Scientific American (November 1991). Brad Plumer. “The economics of gun control”. The Washington Post December 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/. 7th April, 2013. Snyder J. “Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control”. Saint Louis: Accurate Press, 2001. i-ii. Print. Halbrook S.P. That Every Man be Armed: The evolution of a Constitutional Right. 2nd ed., The Independent Institute, Oakland, 1994. 108. Print. Welford, C.F. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004. Print. Hemenway, David (2011). “Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home”. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 5.6(2011): 502–511. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2. 10th April, 2013. Wiebe, Douglas (2003). “Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: A national case-control study”. Ann Emerg Med 41.6(2003): 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330. 10th April, 2013. Martin Killias. “Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide: An International Perspective” 1993. http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf . 10th April, 2013. Bjerregaard, B. and Alan J. L. (1995). “Gun Ownership and Gang Membership”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86.1(1995): 37–58. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BjerregaardAndLizotte.htm. 10th April, 2013. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Nonfatal Injury Reports “. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, December 7th 2012(WISQARS). CDC. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. 10th April, 2013. Cook J. P. and Ludwig J. The social costs of gun ownership. Journal of Public Economics 90 (2006): 379–391. www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase.

Lott, John R.Jr., “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws”. Chicago Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. 50-122.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of California

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 4698

  • Pages: 19

Gun Control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers.

This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free.

You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free.

You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free.

You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers.

This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers.

This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore.

In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic.

Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. gun control

Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers.

This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions.

It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier. Imagine if you had a tool that allowed you to snap a picture, record a video or share what you’re seeing with others… hands-free. You’d basically have superpowers. This idea does not seem so far-fetched anymore. In fact it is very realistic. Today our society is extremely dependent on technology and people are always innovating the latest and greatest inventions. It is undeniable that technology makes everybody’s life a lot easier.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Chicago

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 753

  • Pages: 3

Gun Control

In early December of 1999, William Manies, 52, of Fountain City, TN returned to his former office to get even with the 45-year-old woman who fired him a month before. Manies, a carry concealed weapon permit holder, walked into the office and pointed a .38-caliber pistol at the victim and executed her while she sat in her chair, talking on the phone. This violent act and other very serious crimes like it are committed on a regular basis.

There are many small things that the government could do to limit the number of handgun related deaths, but the most obvious thing is to enact stricter handgun control laws and to make it more difficult to get a carry concealed weapon permit. These types of steps are necessary to save lives.

Gun control laws like the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, better known as the Brady Law, have already lowered gun related deaths. The Brady Law puts restrictions on the buying and selling of guns. Its biggest contribution to saving American lives is that it requires background checks and that keeps handguns out of the hands of violent criminals. November 30 was the eighth anniversary of the signing of the Brady Law. Since the law went into effect, gun related deaths in the United States have dropped a remarkable 27 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 28,874 in 1999. “The decline in gun deaths is proof that gun control laws work,” said Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

“Look where we are today: crime is down to record levels and gun crimes have fallen even faster than crime overall.” The Brady Law has and will continue to save lives because it takes guns out of the hands of criminals and crime. This is seen in that the percentage of robberies and assaults committed with firearms has fallen each year after reaching a peak of 42.4 percent of robberies and 25.1 percent of aggravated assaults in 1993. Although the Brady Law has done so much to help people in the buying aspect of gun control, we need stronger restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons.

Some people might say that we should give every one the right to carry a concealed weapon and that it would make everyone think before they committed a crime. Although the people that thought of this theory have an interesting idea, it has no physical evidence to back it up. On the other hand, the idea that stricter laws for the right to carry concealed weapons has convincing evidence. In the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict laws on carrying concealed weapons or laws that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4 percent from 1996 to 1997. During the same period, in the 29 states that have relaxed laws on carrying concealed weapons, the crime rate fell 2.1 percent.

The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and states that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons was 2.1 times that of states with relaxed laws on carrying concealed weapons. Furthermore, in the states that relaxed the laws to carry concealed weapons, the violent crime rate dropped only 11.4 percent, while in states with strict laws on carrying concealed weapons dropped 24.8 percent. This proves that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage people to carry guns.

Having citizens carry concealed weapons is also a danger to the public because most people that own a gun for protection haven’t been properly trained to operate their handgun. Police officers particularly have strong opinions toward citizens carrying concealed weapons. They have to approach every vehicle stop and any contact with a citizen as a potential contact with an armed individual. The officers also know that the mere sight of a gun can escalate a situation, so that instead of simply losing your wallet, you can lose your life.

The government has passed laws that control the distribution of guns and the right to carry concealed weapons. They have taken some steps in the right direction, but they need to take it a bit farther. They need to make stronger restrictions on the right for citizens to carry concealed weapons and continue to keep guns out of the hands of felons.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of California

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 920

  • Pages: 4

Gun Control

Ultius is the trusted provider of academic content solutions for college students around the world. Our online platform connects qualified freelance writers with customers who are looking for rich, custom-written content. We provide essays, research papers, term papers, dissertations and other writing assignments. HomeSearch Research Paper on Gun Control Posted byUltius onSaturday, 16 March 2013 in Sample WorkBuying a Research Paper on Gun Control from UltiusRecently, President Obama and other Democratic members of Congress have strongly pushed for a critical discussion on gun control.

Around the country, many teachers and professors are pushing their students to think about this subject and write at length about ways to limit gun violence. By no means are these papers easy to write; due to the emotional ramifications of this issue, writing a paper on gun control must be done in a very professional manner. So buy a research paper on gun control with Ultius and feel at ease knowing your work will be completed by a professional. Before doing that, though, feel free to check out this sample research paper on gun control.

It was written in support of President Obama’s policy suggestions, and may be helpful to those of you interested in learning more about this increasingly important subject. Ultius writers are familiar with a wide variety of writing styles and have written argumentative papers for years, so keep in mind that we offer custom written research papers on both sides of every ideological spectrum. Don’t hesitate to contact our sales department to buy a research paper on gun control today! The Second Amendment: A Threat to Civilized People?

Gun control has recently created a massive uproar throughout the United States because of the recent, and sincerely unfortunate, Sandy Hook school shooting that occurred last December. In response to this tragedy, Democratic leaders have been attempting to capitalize on the incident and push forward their respective agenda of limiting gun rights. As one can imagine, there are a surfeit of opinions on the subject, but despite this fact, I have come to affirm that I am strong believer in strengthening gun control.

Although the right to bear arms should continue to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment, our nation’s need for heightened security in school classrooms and other public places is something that should no longer be ignored. The Gun Problem: Why an Unlimited Right to Bear Arms is Bad Since becoming a staple of American society, guns have been instrumental in altering contemporary warfare. The dangers of these weapons are not a secret; it is simply their mere nature.

Some argue that guns were created to protect, while others suggest that they were built to destroy and cause the death of one’s intended target. Frank Zimring, a University of Chicago Law scholar, stated in his piece The University of Chicago Law Review, “The rate of knife deaths per 100 reported knife attacks was less than 1/5 the rate of gun deaths per 100 reported gun attacks” (Zimring 722). This statistic expresses the sincere lethality of guns compared to other forms of weaponry.

One of the main reasons for this data stems from the misuse of guns, which unlike other weapons, can cause death to the user and those around him or her even on accident. If this unfortunate probability can be decreased, how can we stand around as the leader of the free world and let nothing be done? In the American political system, gun control has been a debate for many years; however, recent shootings have forced it into a large spotlight.

The problem that splits gun control proponents from their opposition is the language of the second amendment of the constitution. The founding fathers of this nation believed that, “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” (U. S. Constitution). This multifaceted sentence from the Bill of Rights brings many quarrels to life with its simple diction. It is very open to interpretation, which is what causes both sides of the debate to have “legal stances” on the matter.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), which is the nation’s largest gun advocacy organization, is led by the philosophy that it, “[hosts] a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. ” What gun advocates in the NRA often fail to understand, however, is the conscionable limits to the Second Amendment. As 27-year serving Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia stated in the majority opinion of the District of Columbia V. Heller decision, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (Scalia). This lead Scalia to also state that, “it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ” These sanctions are legal proof that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate the distribution, ownership, and use of weapons. On top of that, Scalia, regarded as the most conservative justice, clearly highlights that gun control is useful and at times necessary.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of California

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 3266

  • Pages: 13

Gun Control

The debate on gun control has raised certain issues that need to be addressed in order to lower the deaths of American citizens from gun shots. This term paper discusses the issue of the gun control policy. The topic has raised many questions, because there are people who oppose any action taken by the government to abolish possession of the fire arms, while others support the gun control policy. However, thinking of the issue carefully, you will agree with me, that there is need for the government to control the possession of guns.

Last year in June, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans had a right to keep guns at their homes, but only for self defense. It also ruled in favor of the possession of hand guns, saying that they are easier to handle, and that the party defending himself could point it towards the burglar, while he uses the other hand to dial up the police. Am not saying that the possession of the guns is a bad idea, but looking at the negative side of it, the crime rates will probably increase as the years move on. Why?

Because if the government does not do anything to control the guns situation, dangerous criminals will have easy access to guns, which will obviously translate to an increase in the crimes committed. It is also surprising to note that even the gun control activists no longer put much effort in the campaign as they are expected to by the Americans. A good example s the school shooting incidences that occurred in 2001, on the month of March, where there were shooting incidences at two schools in Pennsylvania and California.

People expected the then New York senator Charles E Schumer, who was a supporter of the gun control policy, to take serious actions on this incidence. But to the shock of many supporters of the policy, he simply suggested that the gun owners should set a ‘code of ethics’ on a voluntary basis on the use of guns. This was a very cold response from a supporter of the gun control movement, which in 2000 almost had the government change the law on guns. Sarah Brandy, a member of the Hand Gun control had once addressed millions of people at a march.

She told the Americans that if they had to make the future better, then they had to force the government to change the law on gun use. She also suggested to the people that if the government didn’t consider changing the laws, then in the coming, election, (the 2001 November election), Americans would elect in a government that would see the gun control policy changed into a law. However, this dream never came true. The former president Bush was elected in, and he was a supporter of the anti gun control policy. The election of Mr. Bush, who had been an ally with the N. R.

A, brought down all the hope and the possibilities of ever changing the gun policies that were in use then. The former president, as the Texas senator went ahead to sign laws that made it hard for the Americans to sue the manufacturers of weapons like guns, and those that made it legal for people to walk around with guns. (Dao James, 2001) It is not until the election of a new president, President Obama, that Americans have had the hope of seeing a change in the gun policies. The new president supports the gun control policy. Te issue on the gun control was a big debate, as his running mate Mc Cain supported Mr.

Bush’s gun policies. He said that he did not see ant problem with the Americans keeping guns. President Obama said that he saw a number of American homes with guns, but he did not see the need for the Americans to keep the guns in their homes. There is some hope that he won’t destroy the hopes of his many fans and supporters. The gun control history has been dated from as early as the 1700s. The 1700 amendment on gun policies did not ever change the practice that was there in the past of keeping guns away from the wrong people. Moreover, it did not keep the militia from owning the guns.

Americans who could buy the custom made guns for their personal uses continued to do so with much ease as the gun control regulations had been lessened and favored them. Te need to keep the fire arms for militia use was not the priority of the American men. The second amendment on the gun control saw the total number of the people that owned the guns increase rapidly. Even then, the constitutional analysts disagreed with the laws that allowed the citizens to own fire arms, especially if they were not in the military. Coming to the 1900s, guns control was still an issue, not only in America, but also in other countries like England and France.

There is a need to make strict or to take serious, the two Acts; the 1934 National Forearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act, which were big steps towards establishing policies on gun Act. These two would provide good guidelines to making policies that can be effective. The 1934 Act made a strict law that anyone with a gun had to register with the authorities. There was also a tax charge on the ownership of short barreled guns and machine guns. On the other hand, the 1968 Act put an end to the sale of guns through the mail order services. There were also changes that the interstate selling of guns and fire arms be illegal.

It was also illegal for minors to own or handle any sort of fire arms in any way. There was a limited access to the then newly manufactured weapons. The manufacturers, weapon dealers and those who carried out any activities on the sale of the weapons had to obtain a license from the responsible authorities. Other efforts that have been made on the gun control policy implementation were by the 106th congress. The congress suggested that there be a background check at the gun shows to ensure that no selling activities are done during the shows. It also enforced the use of fire arm locks, in order to prevent any gun shot accidents.

There was also a proposal to increase the controls on the use and ownership of guns and other assault weapons. These were good proposals that would have changed the guns situation in America. Despite the mention of these proposals by the congress, none of them were enacted. Using the media to gain American’s support on the gun control policy The use of the media to promote the gun control campaign would be effective. All the Americans have access to the media, be it trough the news paper, the televisions, the radio, the websites or by use of the bill boards.

In my efforts to support the gun control campaign, I would set advertisements in the television media, all to be aired at the same time and regularly, especially at prime time when most people are watching. It is also important to post the advertisement at the most watched television channels like CNN or BBC. This would be expensive, so funds are needed to support the campaign. Inviting donors to support the media advertisements is a good way to fund the petition. Featuring the crimes and the deaths that have occurred as a result of the gun exposure to people is also an important step towards the gun control petition.

Another way to influence the media is to talk to the media owners and any other persons who might have an influence on what the media airs. Further more, advertising such a petition on the news papers would attract people’s attention on the issue. Creating websites and making cites where people can sign to show their support for the gun control petition is another way that might not only show the number of people that support the petition, but also to know the intensity at which the Americans support the petition.

The main aim of using the media would be to make those who are not aware of the campaign more informed, and to convince, persuade or to change the minds of anti gun control Americans. The media will also give people the reason as to why they should support the gun control policies. Influencing the law makers. These are the government officials and politicians who have an influence on the laws that govern the country. It is true that you can’t force the politicians to do what you want them

to do, but you can either gain or buy their influence on the issues that are of your interest and that will make you achieve your goals. To do this, you have to earn the trust of the politicians, and this can be possible through the things that you say or do to them. Building good relationships with those that have influence in the government decisions and policies, including those that are not in support of the petition. You may also want to look for a way to favor the decision makers, so that in a way, you are also favoring them while as well reaching your goals.

For example, helping them achieve their political goals may be a motivation to them to support the gun control petition. Respecting them and their decisions is also a way of acknowledging their superiority, which might lead them to listening to what you have to tell them, hence gaining their attention. Changes that I would like to see on the gun act The government should amend the current law on guns. It has made it very easy to gain accessibility to guns, just as it is easy to buy bread at the local store. That is why there should be implementations that will make it hard for criminals to get guns.

The police should prioritize the cracking down of illegal gun owners so that the number of youths with guns reduces, and this will also lead to a drop in the number of crimes carried out using guns. This exercise should also make it hard for the criminals to obtain guns and other fire arms. A recent study that was conducted through administration of interviews with gang members and illegal gun dealers said that if guns were harder to obtain, then definitely the number of crimes committed using the guns would decrease. The death rates of victims from violent and brutal attacks would also decrease.

Statistics have shown that out of the approximated 18000 annual homicides, only a third lacks a gun involvement. Research has also shown that gun violence costs the American society about 100 billion dollars per year. (Cook P. etal, 2000) If the government made amendments on the gun laws, then they would save America a lot of lives and money. Some States like Chicago have strict rules about gun controls. The law makers should ensure that such strict regulations are imposed and made in to law. The gun control policy should also consider allowing the hunters to keep their guns.

Most hunters do not keep their guns for purposes of committing crimes, but as sport equipment. One of the reasons why hunters should be allowed to have guns is because they help keep the deer population in control. If they are denied the right to own and keep guns, then the deer population is gong to increase. Banning the hunters from keeping the guns would be dangerous for the deer as the population increase would mean that the food would decrease. The second amendment law therefore needs to be kept. Also, if hunters are not allowed to keep guns, there will be a shortage of the funds used to maintain and conserve the wildlife habitats.

The licensing fee and taxes paid by the hunters for their guns is used to maintain the national parks. Statistics show that most of the funds come from the payments made on the guns. Should the hunters be restricted from hunting with guns, they will use other ways to hunt, like practicing drive hunts. This is hunting done by hitting the animals with the cars. It is a very dangerous way of hunting and could lead to huge accidents or worse, deaths. It should also be noted that hunting is also a good sport that is supported by most Americans.

The law makers should regulate the gun policies, but allow the hunters to keep the guns so as not to take away what some people enjoy doing. I would also like to see the new laws on guns allow the honest people keep their guns for the sake of protecting themselves. It is said that for every 13 seconds, an American uses a gun to defend himself against a criminal. New policies should see to it that ownership of guns for the purpose of protecting and defending oneself should not be confused with the intentions of the criminals and other bandits.

A good reason why the support for the guns for defense purposes should be is because Americans can not entirely be dependent on the police for their safety. It should be known that the police do not actually prevent the crime from occurring, but they only intervene after the crime has already been committed. It is in very rare occasions that the police have arrived at a crime scene before the crime is done. Another reason for the keeping of the guns for self defense is that a world where homes are not allowed to defend them selves with guns is more prone to death through shootings by criminals.

Restricting the use of guns for self defense in a society that is full of crimes involving guns is not doing the society any good. Instead, regulations should be set on restricting the criminals from accessing the guns. (Kleck G, 1997) Gun registration and court sentences There should be a national wide program to ensure that any person that purchases a gun is registered in the system. For example, a person who lives in New York, which has strict gun laws, is in need of a gun; he can go to a State with less strict laws on the guns, ask a friend who lives there to buy a gun for him and then smuggles the gun back to New York.

Even though that is an illegal practice, people still do it and the bottom line will be that the person will be in possession of a gun. There should be severe punishments for those who buy the guns for others incase they are caught. That would be enough to scare them. Also, if there were strict laws on gun purchases, then no person would purchase a gun for the other. I would also suggest that the waiting period during the purchase of the guns be extended instead of being one day as some people want it to. A thorough background check on the gun purchasers is also important.

Individuals involved in juvenile cases, any misdemeanors and any fishy backgrounds should not be allowed town or carry guns around. The sentences imposed on criminals who use guns should be increased to scare any criminals intending to commit a crime. Emphasis on measures to control crime, (education. ) Studies have shown that there is a direct relationship between crime offenders and lack of education. This occurs when the youth and teenagers are idle because they have no jobs or do not attend school. They tend to involve themselves in illegal activities, among them the possession of illegal fire arms and using them to commit crimes.

Parents have been advised to invest in educating their children because this will prevent them from becoming criminals and would also make the rate of the crimes to drop. A lot of money is spent in catering for the cost of the crimes committed with guns, including the hospital bills and buying the fire arms. Gun education should also be an important part of the gun act, where it can be a requirement for gun purchasers to undergo a special education to ensure that they are able to handle guns. Arguments against my position Although guns are an advantage, they too have serious disadvantages.

The obvious problem is that they make injuring or killing people very easy. There are different types of murders; the premeditated first degree murder, in which the killer could kill, whether there is the presence of the gun or not, or given more time to think of how to kill the person. Then, there’s murder during the process of committing a crime, murder among friends, lovers, or the careless murder committed by criminals just any how. There are also the injuries as a result of gun crimes, but are not sufficient enough to cause death.

Deaths because of gun wounds are decreasing, not because people are not killing anymore, but because the doctors are getting more equipped on treating gun wounds. The presence of a gun when committing the crime makes the crime more lethal. If the murder is that of an acquaintance or between any close people, then the presence of the gun makes it easier to kill, because it is fast. The person does not think of what he is doing, until after he has already killed the other. This is especially common with people who get angry easily and have an easy access to guns.

Although it is reasonable to keep guns for self defense, they may also be a reason to cause us harm. Guns are also an aid for people who want to commit suicide. Research shows that residents of homes that have a gun are likely to commit suicide five times more than of the homes where there is no access to guns. There are controversies on whether suicide is illegal or immoral, but that doesn’t change the fact that guns make the suicide much easier, especially when the victim is depressed, or is under drug influence.

Arguments against my proposal The imposition of more strict rules on the gun control act will not prevent the criminals from committing crimes. Why, because there are other available weapons which can be used to kill or injure other people. These are weapons such as knives, machetes, clubs or any other object that can kill. More recent studies have also shown that when murder is committed using a gun, the probability that it would still have occurred if a knife was used is twice that of the gun.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of California

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 818

  • Pages: 3

Gun Control

Gun violence is a serious issue, which causes a severe headache for most of the nations’ governments. A large number of people who died as a result of gun violence have increased across the world in recent years. In Australia, the government has tried to make a greater effort to protect its citizens and gun control is suggested as a sensible solution since the terrible shooting incident in Port Arthur. This essay will argue that there should be stricter gun control laws in Australia due to the reasons of safety and restriction on gun ownership. To begin with, the first argument is that stricter gun laws will keep Australia safer.

After a mass shooting in last decade, there are currently more demands for uniform, more effective, and tougher gun controls. The evidence of safety is from 1996 to 2010, the total number of gun deaths fell from 516 to 236 with about 55 per cent reduction (Gun policy statistic, 2011). In addition, Australia is considered one of the most beautiful and safer countries in the world. It is a good destination and environment for studying and living, so this is one of the most popular reasons to explain why a large number of overseas people and tourists all over the world come to Australia for travelling every year.

In fact, “the benefits of the tourism industry are significant for the economic growth of all sectors within Australia. Tourism’s direct contribution to Australia’s GDP was worth $34. 6 billion in 2010–11, or around 2. 5% of GDP” (Tourism industry facts and figures, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary and essential to ensure legal system of Australia always work in place, especially tighter gun controls so that people come from other countries have to pay attention and obey the laws seriously. Those who object to this idea may claim that safety does not depend on strict gun control laws.

As a matter of fact, it may be true that the safety does not depend completely on strict gun controls. Moreover, strict gun laws will not stop crime. Nevertheless, it would provide less risk and reduce crime rate as well. Hence, the number of people dying by gun violence can decrease significantly. Webster (2006) states that “removing guns from the domestic environment is an important part of the national strategy for suicide prevention”. Without a doubt, safety outcome in Australia in recent years is a result of good gun laws enforcement.

Another argument why gun laws in Australia should be tighter is in the aspect of restriction on the level of gun ownership. According to Weatherburn (2006), “research since the gun buyback has shown that more than 90 per cent of homicide cases involve an unregistered weapon and the alleged offender was not licensed to own a gun”. Actually, if the gun controls are not strict enough, it is easy to get guns from everywhere in Australia. Consequently, more criminals will have firearms and use guns as a tool to do what they want and cause misdeeds for the society.

In other words, more accidents, assaults, and suicides will increase dramatically and happen frequently. Furthermore, black markets will operate openly and easily. More dangerous, Australia can become the place where criminals can use to manufacture and hoard weapons for vicious assaults. However, it could be argued that Australians, especially farmers, sports people, and homeowners have a right and freedom to own a gun to protect themselves from hazardous situations and the government should not deeply interfere into their private lives.

Admittedly, even though the right and freedom for themselves defense is very essential and necessary, there still should be tougher gun controls about severe restrictions limit gun ownership because it will protect people from the consequences of the easy availability of guns. Take America as an example, polls indicate that “about 70 per cent of Americans favour some form of gun control and nearly 60 per cent say there should be restrictions on the ownership of guns, if not outright bans” (Gawenda, 2006). Thus, on a broad scale, the limited right to use guns is crucial and should be enforced in Australia.

In conclusion, this essay has presented the reasons why gun control laws in Australia need to be stricter and tighter. Obviously, there are some other accessible approaches to ensure the safety and development of Australian society. However, for the reasons mentioned above, it is generally believed that laws against gun criminals must be strictly enforced. Besides, it can be recommended that citizens need to support and join hands with the government so that the gun laws can work efficiently in order to maintain the stability and peace for Australia in particular and the world in general.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of California

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 1957

  • Pages: 8

Gun Control

Abstract

Some reasons why colleges should look at the laws that they put in place and try to change them. Students should have the right to conceal weapons on college campuses. The guns provide the protection that may be necessary in certain situations. Like the Virginia Tech Shooting, many people could have been saved if only one person had a gun. Having a gun gives a sense of safety to many people on the campus, especially for women with a greater risk of intruders and rapists. For these women, knowing that they have a way to defend themselves can set their minds to ease. Though some believe that the allowance of guns would increase violence on campus, no other college that has allowed concealed firearms has had an issue. Another concerning issue would be that having guns on campus would be easier for students to commit suicide; there are just some things in life that authorities cannot control, and that is one of them. The right to have a concealed weapon on campus should be conveyed freely.

Position Paper – Legalize Concealed Weapons on College Campuses

Liberty senior, Craig Storrs, says, “It makes me feel secure knowing I would be able to defend myself if something does happen, like Virginia Tech or if I get stopped on the street for a mugging or something like that” (Barry, 2011). The topic of legalizing concealed weapons on college campuses has been argued for many years. Some colleges have legalized concealed weapons on campus and have not had problems, but many will not even think about legalizing concealed weapons. Carrying a concealed weapon at the age of 21 is a right including a college campus, because it offers protection and safety to students (Students for concealed, 2008).

Background of Concealed Weapons on College Campuses

Since the Virginia Tech shooting, many colleges have changed their on-campus laws concerning firearms. In eight states, the legislation is considering if students and staff would be able to carry a concealed weapon into college buildings. Many officials did not want to have another repeat the Virginia Tech shooting. Two years before the Virginia Tech shooting, the lawmakers of Texas rejected a bill to allow concealed weapons onto college campuses. Since then, the bill has come back with better arguments for the right to have a concealed weapon on college campuses. Corey Zipper, a twenty-one year-old psychology major, went to the state capitol to talk to the officials to pass the bill.

Corey Zipper stated, “We get the mature thing a lot – that college students aren’t mature enough. And the alcohol thing – that we’re all just boozed up all the time” (Burnett, 2011). He also states that the law states that “a person much be 21 years old, have a clean record and no psychiatric disorders, and take a 10-hour instruction course that includes time at a firing range” (Burnett, 2011). In 2009 Texas passed the bill to legalize having a concealed weapon on college campus (Burnett, 2011).

It Gives Protection

Allowing students to carry a gun could save their lives. Life can be unpredictable, so when something happens people should be prepared. If by being prepared means they need to carry a gun, then why would the state want to take that right from someone? A person has the right to protect his/herself and others, and a responsible firearm owner would do such. Many lives could be saved by the simple action of allowing concealed weapons on college campuses (Concealed Guns, 2011).

Background of Virginia Tech Shooting

On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, student at Virginia Tech, began his shooting around 7:15 A.M. in a co-ed dormitory. He first killed Emily Hilsher and Ryan Clark. The Virginia Tech Police Chief said, “We secured the building, we secured the crime scene” (Caruso, n.d.). The authorities did not put the college on lock down and had classes as schedualed. Seung-Hui Cho did not leave the campus; around 9:15 A.M. he started to kill again. He went into the engineering and science building and chained the doors so no one could escape.

He then went into classroom after classroom; he killed 25 more students and five faculty members. Twenty-nine people were wounded. In the end Cho also took his life (Caruso, n.d.). It was reported that nineteen of the thirty-two victims that were killed were over the age of 21. The age of 21 is the legal age for the right to conceal a weapon in Virginia. If these students would have been able to carry a firearm onto campus, then perhaps these lives could have been saved. Instead of thirty-three lives taken that day, there should have been one. Innocent people would not have died (Students for concealed, 2008).

Concealed Weapons Should not Depend on Location

It is stated in the Constitution that a person has the right to bear arms at the age of 21. This law does not give specific places that are prohibited. People should not have to put their concealed weapon away because of where they are (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1982).

Public Places People can Carry Weapons

Though colleges are small, some places that allow concealed weapons are smaller. When a person goes to the movies, they are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. No one would ever know because the weapon is concealed. Other places would include a shopping mall. When people are shopping, the last thing they are thinking is that the people next to them might have a gun on them (Students for concealed, 2008).

Make College Students Feel Safer

The right to conceal a weapon could put some students at ease. Knowing that they have a way to save themselves in dangerous situations may make the students more relaxed. If a student comes across a dangerous situation, then they are prepared. These students do not have to worry about what to do (Marin, 2012).

College Intruders and Rapists

It is easy for intruders to get into dorms. In New York, two men got into a building by sneaking in behind another guy after he swiped his card. When the college police were called they came and took the men without calling the cops. If this were to happen again, these men would be taken to the authorities. Knowing that it is easy for strange people to get into housing, it not be a good idea to rob students the right to have a concealed weapon. This would give some students that okay to live life and other the need of protection that they might not be able to find anywhere else (Rearick, 2011). One in four women have the chance of being raped in college. Guns could help defend so many different women. They could have gotten out of the situation if they just had a way of defense. Sometimes women are physically too weak to run from situations like that and the allowance of a gun would provide that opportunity to them (College Crime Today, n.d.).

Counterargument: Guns on Campus Would Promote Violence

. “Some professors might be afraid to issue bad grades if they know that students could be carrying guns” (Students for concealed, 2008). Some people believe that allowing student to carry firearms would push them to be violent. If the students are allowed to carry firearms, then they will not be afraid to use them. If there was an argument with another student, then these students would be tempted to use the gun to scare or even harm the other student (Students for concealed, 2008).

Logical Response: Guns on Campus Would not Promote Violence

There has been over thirty colleges campuses that have allowed concealed weapons on their campuses. These campuses have had no issues with gun violence, and there has not been a gun theft or accident in all these years. This shows that it is a possibility to carry conceal weapons and still get a great education with no distraction with no violence. Studies show, “concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes” (Students for concealed, 2008).

Counterargument: Guns on Campus Would Encourage Suicide

Some believe that allowing students to obtain firearms would increase the likelihood suicide. They would have all the resources they need now that they are able to carry concealed firearms. This would make it easier for these students to commit suicide without anyone knowing until after the fact. This would then increase the suicide numbers dramatically. Allowing a student to carry a firearm that could potentially use to kill themselves is not the way to help (Students for concealed, 2008).

Logical Response: Guns on Campus Would not Encourage Suicide

According to detectives, “Studies show that 90% of suicides are committed in the home” (Students for concealed, 2008). Since the legal age to own a concealed weapon is 21, most students at this age live off campus. This would not affect the numbers as much as the colleges think it would. If people really wanted to commit suicide, then nothing would stand in their way. Allowing them to conceal a gun will just give them an easier way out (Students for concealed, 2008).

Conclusion

During the Virginia Tech Shooting many lives could have been saved. Students could also feel safer knowing that they have something there to protect themselves and others if needed. Though students could turn to violence many are very responsible to be carrying this gun in the first place. They just cannot get a gun; they have to go through the process. Another concern would be suicide, but since most of the students live off campus anyway nothing would stop that. It would be a lost cause to put a ban on concealed weapons when there is nothing to prevent suicide in the first place. Once the right training classes are taken, it should not be a problem for a person to be able to carry his/her gun that he/she worked hard to get and paid for. The right to have a concealed weapon on campus should be expressed freely.

References
Barry, L. (2011). Liberty university oks concealed guns on campus. Retrieved from http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/nov/16/5/liberty-university-oks-concealed-guns-campus-ar-1463719/. Burnett, J. (2011). Texas Lawmakers aim for guns on college campuses. Retreieved from http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133466058/texas-lawmakers-aim-for-guns-on-college-campuses. Caruso, K. (n.d.). What Happened: The Virginia Tech Massacure. Retrieved from http://www.virginiatechmassacre.com/what-happened-virginia-tech-massacre.html. College Crime Today. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.womens-self-defense-instruction-online.com/college-crime.html. Concealed guns. (2011). Retrieved from http://concealedguns.procon.org/. Frantz, A. (2011). Texas considering concealed handguns on campus. Retrieved from http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/22/texas-weighing-concealed-handguns-on-campus/. Marin, J. (2012). Guns on college campuses. Retrieved from http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/guns-on-college-campuses/. Rearick, J. (2011). Intruders spark safety concerns. Retrieved from http://www.miscellanynews.com/2.1576/intruders-spark-safety-concerns-1.2660011#.TxkPxJit-fQ. Students for concealed carry on campus. (2008). Retrieved

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 624

  • Pages: 2

Gun Control

Gun control has been a debatable issue for all times. This essay aims to put forward an argument against gun control. The essay asserts that prevalence of gun control should not be a part of the society. Society should be against gun control because people should be able to protect themselves, the crime rate would decrease, and people have the right to bear arms.

Discussion The controversy regarding the gun control is neither a new one nor particular to United States. Majority of the gun control laws make no demarcation between the citizens who are law breakers and those who are law abiding.

Gun control laws simply entail that anyone who possess a gun is likely to be a law breaker, which is merely not a case (Reynolds & Caruth, pp. 01). The purpose behind the gun control and gun crime laws is to avert the criminals from acquiring guns and using the guns they had acquired. However, the number of armed crimes as well as criminals has amplified during the time when gun control laws have thrived. It appears as if the actual results of gun control have not been the projected ones (Reynolds & Caruth, pp. 02).

Gun control laws restricts the ordinary citizens from possessing a gun, which implies that at the time of a criminal attack or a robbery, the citizen will not be likely to defend him or herself. The self defense survey conducted by Dr. Gary Kleeck shows that around 2. 1 million times, guns are used for self defense purpose in a year (Krouse, pp. 13). A gun control law will restrain the people from protecting themselves in case of a violent crime attack. This will enable the criminals to be more powerful and confident while attacking people as people would not be armed.

For instance pizza delivery boys keep guns to prevent themselves from being robbed. Thus, society should be against gun control because people have a right to protect and defend themselves. Imposing gun control laws do not reduce crimes. However, guns in the hands of those citizens who are law abiding and physically less strong than the criminals, are the best preventions for the crimes (Reynolds & Caruth, pp. 02). Criminals are provoked by self-protection and guns can thus be a disincentive. A majority of convicted American criminals have reported that they fear from attacking the victims who are armed.

Their fear of encountering armed victims surpasses their fear of being caught by police (Lott, pp. 05). Robbers do not attempt to break into houses after midnight because of the probability of being shot. Thus, society should be against gun control because crimes will decrease. Keeping guns and using them for self defense is a right of the citizens as laid by the constitution. The constitution wants its citizens to possess guns in order to protect and defend themselves from the criminals or the despotism of their own government.

Other than the constitutional right, self defense by keeping guns is also an inherent basic human right of the people (Reynolds & Caruth, pp. 27-29). Therefore, society should be against gun control as people have a right to bear arms. Conclusion Most of the criminals acquire guns from illegal sources. Gun control laws; therefore, are not able to restrict criminals. They only restrain law abiding citizens from possessing guns which increases the crime violence; therefore, society should be against gun control because people should be able to protect themselves, the crime rate would decrease, and people have the right to bear arms.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 286

  • Pages: 1

Gun Control

Gun Control seems to be more of an issue today than it has ever been in the history of our world. We’ve all heard tragic news stories about gun violence; we’ve been hearing about these stories since we’ve been old enough to remember. Gun control has always been a controversial issue, but it could possibly be the most controversial of all issues now. The recent shootings at Sandy Hook in Newport, Connecticut have placed gun control at the front of the line.

Gun control isn’t relative to my field of study, but it is an issue that I feel ignorant about. I can understand the views of both sides of the debate, but I work with many gun enthusiasts who are narrow-minded towards this issue, and I want to put an end to this ignorance; not just at my place of work, but anywhere that the issue is being discussed. This is a very serious and sensitive issue that will affect my children’s future, and I need to educate myself because I want to be involved.

Gun violence is out of control and needs to be stopped. Gun control has been, and probably always will be, an issue that will always have opposition; but the issue needs to be addressed now more than ever. It’s not an issue of gun control in general; it’s an issue of gun control today. Everyone wants to comment on the ineffectiveness of gun control laws in the past, such as the assault rifle band; stating that gun violence never decreased from these laws

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 986

  • Pages: 4

Gun Control

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since its birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, to hunt for food and to engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control takes on a proportion of extreme magnitude. 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 growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity.

Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to increase the control of firearms sales and regulations. Owning a gun never mattered to me or even crossed my mind as I was growing up. I always believed that nothing bad could ever happen to me not being gang affiliated at all just an average Joe Schmo, I must have not seen all the bad in the world. I was blind and naive did not see things happening around me but as I grew up I became wiser and began to see the dangers, crime, the issues in our world. When I was thirteen years old, things changed for me to the point of no return making a promise to myself that I would never let such thing happen to me ever again, I was brutally beaten by three older guys at thirteen years old. I was walking home from school as this older guy approached me asking me for my school/lunch money, I told him no and began to walk away from him, as I was walking away he reach out and grab me he said to me “ok now I am not asking you I am telling you to hand over all of your money!!”

He reached into my pockets in search of the money, as he was doing that I felt this huge adrenaline rush taking over my body. I did everything I could at that point to push him off and get way a fist was thrown from him and I responded back with a fist as well. Not knowing that this guy was not rolling alone but with two other guys. The two other individuals rushed to his aid, barraging me with punches and kicks leaving me bloody and severely beaten. From that day forward I told myself that I did not want to be in such a situation again. I asked my parents to put me in mixed martial arts classes as well as boxing classes. Despite such preparation I had and the confidence in myself that I could defend myself for a future assault nothing could have protected me from what was about to happen to me down the road. I clearly remember that day as if it was just yesterday; I was in after school sports in high school, I was in the football team.

The week before we had played against our rival high school that night I played like a beast giving it my all in the field intercepting the ball twice scoring both times. Things were normal at school; we were being looked at as heroes for beating them. One day after football practice I was getting all my belongings getting ready to head home, and I spot some guys from the rival football team. They approached me said “You’re the guys who intercepted the ball?” I replied back “Yes that was me, who wants to know?” Right as I answered I saw the first punch being thrown; with the skills and moves I was able to pick up from my training I was able to dodge it, throw and land some punches of my own.

As the other guy saw that I was beating up his friend he jumped in as well; at that point it was two against one. I was out numbered but I was still able to manage myself. The second guy who had jumped in pulled out a weapon, it was a switch blade. I clearly felt the cold blade penetrating my warm body; immediately my body went into shock going numb not feeling anything. The two punks ran like cowards; I was lucky enough to have had a cell phone with me at the time I called 911 and I was rushed away.

Next time it may not be a blade that is used against me, it might be a gun pointed at me and used against me. In a situation like that, you are at their mercy; I believe that as Americans we have every right to exercise our right to carry a gun. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, so why am I being denied that right, making things complicated for me to obtain a gun permit? I believe that the sale of firearms should be regulated to a certain extend but not to the point that it’s making it impossible for me to obtain a firearm permit. Doing such thing is just so unorthodox of our American constitution the Second Amendment.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 831

  • Pages: 3

Gun control

Gun control has been a controversial issue for years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even for the pleasure of hunting. These people are penalized for protecting their lives, or even for enjoying a common, innocent sport. To enforce gun control throughout the nation means violating a person’s Constitutional rights.

Although some people feel that the issue of gun control will limit crime, the issue should not exist due to the fact that guns are necessary for self defense against crime, and by enforcing gun control is violating a citizens second amendment right to bear arms An estimated Ten-thousand people die a year in a handgun related incidents in the United States. This number, by far, outweighs those gun related deaths in countries in other countries which have significantly lower totals. What is the reason for such drastic differences in numbers? The other countries have stricter gun control laws and they require bare arm safety courses.

These laws have a direct relationship to the number of gun deaths which occur each year from country to country. Perhaps if the U. S. would adopt some of those laws the number of deaths would drop accordingly. I am in the middle about this issue I believe better education on the use of guns is necessary. I look at what happen here in the USA in such cases as Virginia Tech, Columbine, and other instances where gun control needs to be seriously considered. On the other hand there are many people who are not a threat and should be allowed to have guns.

People of the U. S. ren’t as rigidly regulated by gun laws compared to other countries in some instances that could be okay other people should actually have psychological test. In the United States it takes anywhere from a few days to a couple of weeks to get a permit to carry a handgun. However, in most crimes committed with a handgun, the gun isn’t even licensed. More authority is necessary to control the illegal handling of handguns. This is the main issue because it is so easy to by a handgun on the street that has not been properly registered so getting the guns off the street would be the greatest first step to control crime guns.

I also feel the person requesting a permit should first be educated on the proper use, cleaning, and handling of a firearm. This would help to avoid any accidental shootings from occurring. They should be made aware of all the laws regarding the handling of firearms. Also the specific use of gun locks because there are so many incidents in the news about children getting shot or shooting others in the home because the parents have the guns in plain sight. The children think they are toys which causes recklessness.

To some this may seem severe. But as I stated earlier, better education can prevent a lot of the crime and killings that happen in the United States. Some states have tried many different laws to curb the amount of illegal guns that hit the street. Some have been successful like Virginia which had the one gun a month law because people where coming into the state to take guns to other states to use on the streets. This curbed the amount that a person could buy In a month.

The only downside to this was that so many people who may use guns for hunting if they waited until the last minute may only have one to use during the season. In my opinion the United States need to make some changes into how guns are or can be distributed. 1. If a person has been convicted of a violent felony of misdemeanor then that person should never be allowed to own not purchase a gun. There should be background checks with those who are shown to have had psychological issues required to be tested by a doctor to determine if they are fit enough to possess such a weapon.

Those who are allowed to purchase a gun should be required to take courses on proper safety and use of the gun. I also believe that with every gun should come with a special gun lock and requirements to keep them on at all times I would not want to disrupt the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms but stricter handling requirements such as education and training should be enforced so that so many reckless or unintentional discharges will not occur each and ever year.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Gun Control Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Gun Control Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 1376

  • Pages: 6

Gun Control

The issue of gun control evokes strong passions from people at both ends of the debate. There are those who feel that they need to have guns either for protection or for sport and they are those who feel that guns are best placed in the hands of those that are mandated to protect the general population. The recent spate of school shootings goes a long way in showing how a relaxed attitude towards the licensing of guns can cause such untold carnage. The advocates of no gun control are ignoring the signs of the times; that we are breeding a generation that does not think twice before they pull the trigger.

The same gun they are lobbying to have may someday be turned against them by someone they know. In my opinion I believe that guns should be strictly controlled to avoid scenes of 11 year olds striking Rambo poses as they blast away their fellow students and teachers. The Brady Handgun Violation Act of 1993 requiring background checks on retail sales went a long way to control the guns but the fact that it did not place the same restrictions on gun sales from gun shows left open a loophole for the proliferation of guns in the wrong hands.

The lapse of a 10 year ban on assault weapons on 13th September 2004 in Congress shows that the anti ban lobby has strong proponents in high places. The reason for them favoring the use of guns in the face of so many tragedies is baffling. The reason could be financial. The question is should the nation put the welfare of gun manufactures before that of its citizens? I do not agree. Advocates of the anti gun campaign cite the second amendment which states inter alia that, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’.

By harping on this amendment the pro gun brigade say that any attempt to stop them from the right to own arms will be fought in the courts of law. President Bush and congress seem to side with this view because they let the ban on assault weapons lapse. Further Bush got the endorsement of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) that appeared to favor no renewal of the ban to enable them to make huge sales. The pro gun lobby argues that the right to life comes with the right to protect oneself and thus the need to have guns.

They conveniently forget that there are police who are mandated to carry out this task. The second amendment on closer inspection does not grant the individual the right to have a gun but rather favors the arming of militias to protect the state. The NRA is so powerful that it has been able to push for the scrapping of new laws to regulate guns and has been able to water a number of existing laws to make it easier for one to carry a concealed weapon. This situation is saddening in the light of the Maryland School shooting and the gang wars that continue to claim hundreds of youth per year.

An interesting argument that the NRA and its supporters have developed is that the more guns in the hands of people will act as a deterrent to the incidence of gun related incidences. They were probably drawing their thinking from the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the threat of total annihilation acting as a deterrent to other states from using the weapons. (Lott, John R Jnr. 2000) This aspect of international relations during the cold war cannot be simplified and applied to the local situation.

My opposition to the pro gun campaign is that while the second amendment may have given some rights for ownership of weapons it surely did not give the right to take ones life away. The people who buy and use guns more often than not use them in the wrong way; by taking away the life of an innocent person. While you can walk in to a shop and replace a gun there is no known way to replace a dead human being? The shooting of 32 people in the Virginia Tech case on April 16th 2007, goes to show how lack of gun control can led to the guns getting into the hands of the wrong people and causing untold damage to the innocent bystanders.

Seung-Hui’s mental state was not established when the gun dealer sold him the gun. The lack of sufficient background checks and the short waiting period before being given a gun are thus contributing to the wrong people getting guns not to fulfill the assumed raison d’etre behind the second amendment but rather to abuse it. The failure of the congress and the pro gun lobbyists should d take full responsibility for this and other carnage that has taken place. The introduction of gun laws has contributed to the reduction of crime and gun related deaths. Kenneth, Jost 2007) The passing of the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons saw a major decline in the number of deaths by guns. From 40,000 in 19993 to 29,700 in 2002. This has obviously shown that the effect of controlling guns can lead to the reduction of gun related crimes and deaths.

Phillip Cook found out in a study conducted that the suicide rate in the over 55’s dropped significantly in the same period probably because the buyers had time to rethink their decisions in during the five day waiting period. (Spitzer Robert J. 004) The introduction of instant check for the buyer to enable him to buy a gun will most likely see an increase in the number of gun related crimes. The need to control the ownership of guns is further justified by the school shootings that have occurred in the last few years. The question is where are these children getting the guns from? If they are not buying them from gun shows or fences, then they are probably getting them from their homes. This means that the weapons the parents are buying are not being stored safely and are actually causing rise in the number of gun related incidents.

It is a shame for any one to call for the relaxing of gun control when those in possession do not seem able to be able to secure them safely. Rather than put more guns in the hands of the public , more funds should be placed into the law enforcement agencies hands to enable them to effectively protect those who are threatened by those with guns. The failure of the current laws to reign in the gun problem is because the NRA has punched holes in the efforts of those calling for a total ban. Klerk, Gary 1997) The lapsing of the ban on assault weapons had the tacit support of the president while the lobby was able to intimidate those that wanted to push for an extension. The second window of gun sales in the form of the gun shows defeated the noble aims of the Brady bill. The likes of Seung Hui would not have been able to take to the grave so many productive innocent souls if the likes of NRA had been stopped in their tracks by laws that restrained, banned or even fully outlawed the sale of guns to any person other than those in the law enforcement agencies.

As it is now a person with a tainted record could get a gun from a licensed dealer if the instant check comes up with faulty information. The solution to this matter is for gun shows to be banned or put under the strict application of the original Brady law and for the ban on assault weapons reintroduced with a wider application. ( Hemenway, David 2004) This will stop the ‘merchants of death’ from making a killing but will ensure that the killing of our people ends.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts