Gun Control

Gun Control Everyone in the United States of America has an opinion on gun control regardless of their age, race, or religion. From within those opinions arguments are formed. People are arguing about gun control at their jobs, at their schools, and sometimes at their places of worship. On one side of things there are the people that support gun control like certain politicians or political organizations, teachers, police officers, and so on. On the other side of things there are the people that are against gun control, people such as hunters and various types of criminals.

When it comes down to sensitive topics like gun control, there are very few people that do not choose a side. The Second Amendment, like all Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. There are vague legal boundaries that have been set down thus far which answers some questions, but leave many more open (Sanders). Over the past few years there have been many incidents when children bring guns to school and shoot their fellow classmate(s) and/or teacher(s). The most recent and probably most tragic happened in 1998 at Colombine High School in Colorado when a group of students entered the school and murdered several students and a teacher. The first thing that everyone wondered once they finally heard the news is how the children got the guns? Supporters of gun control believe that if there were harsher gun laws, a lot of the school shootings would have never taken place and a lot of lives could have been saved. In a Brooklyn, New York federal court case brought against gun makers by individual people, a jury found that 15 of the gun making companies had negligently flooded southern states with guns, where control laws that are lax, and fed a black market of guns to states with more stringent controls, like New York (Nesbitt).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

This proves that if gun control advocates can win in a place like New York with tougher gun control laws, they can win in almost any major city, which could also lead to the federal government passing more gun control laws. In Georgia, pro-gun forces scored a victory when Governor Roy Barnes, a Democrat endorsed by the National Rifle Association while campaigning, signed legislation that keeps all the cities in that state from suing gun manufacturers (Nesbitt). Though it is not right, it is obvious that street gangs and drug dealers have a say in this argument. Starting from the bottom of the cycle to the top: if street thugs didn’t have guns, how would they be able to protect themselves and the drugs they sell in order to make a living, who would they intimidate, what authority would the police and drug enforcement officers have over criminals, and how would they protect themselves? Without guns the crime rate would decrease rapidly, crime fighters would be out of business, and many people would be unemployed. In rural areas and in farming communities there are also some people that like to hunt. Without a gun they would not be able to hunt, which could have a positive or negative affect on their community. The positive affect would be that some endangered species would be given the change to multiply and survive. The negative affect would be that the hunters would not be able to provide food for his family and a lot of over-populated and dangerous species would continue to grow.

According to one Web site, every hour in the United States someone under the age of 25 dies from a gunshot wound. There are also nearly 200 million firearms in this country and a new one is produced every eight seconds (Gun Violence). Social Issues.

Gun Control

Gun Control The debate over gun control has developed into a very complicated issue. Several different groups have suggested limiting the use of guns and others have proposed to supporting free gun use. On one side, people who use some form of gun control imply that guns are responsible for too many deaths and injuries in the United States. They propose that laws be passed to make guns more difficult or impossible for ordinary citizens to own. On the other side are those people who oppose all or nearly all forms of gun control.

This paper will propose three different issues to argue against the element of gun control. First, we need to control the people who use the guns, not the guns themselves. Second, that gun ownership is a constitutional right granted by the United States Constitution. Finally, the fact in the decrease in crime. One of the major arguments against the theory that gun control would save lives is that although two-thirds of all homicides are committed with firearms, firearm controls would have no effect on homicide, because “human nature is what it is” (Nisbet 170).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Even if guns disappeared from the crime scene, criminals would replace them with knives, clubs, axes, or even fists. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. One statement favoring this position, made by James D. Wright, says: Even if we were somehow able to remove all firearms from civilian possession, it is not at all clear that a substantial reduction in interpersonal violence would follow. Certainly the violence that results from hard-core and predatory criminality would not abate by very much.

Even the most ardent proponents of stricter gun laws no longer expect such laws to solve the hard-core crime problem, or even to make much of a dent in it. There is also reason to doubt whether the”soft-core” violence, the so-called crimes of passion, would decline by very much. Stated simply, these crimes occur because some people have come to hate others, and they will continue to occur in one form or another as long as hatred persists..If we could solve the problem of interpersonal hatred, it may not matter very much what we did about guns, and unless we solve the problem of interpersonal hatred, it may not matter very much what we do about guns. There are simply too many other objects in the world that can serve the purpose of inflicting harm on another human being. (Nesbit 171) It is said that if murderers were deprived of guns, they would find a way to kill with other weapons.

The basic argument for gun control is that crime would decrease, but the root causes of crime, in most cases, is that of “interpersonal hatred,” the disliking of someone for ones own personal reasons, which must be considered when choosing a side for or against gun control. Even the most effective gun control policy would not totally eliminate homicide; this argument could be criticized for not dealing with the concept of “interpersonal hatred” (Nesbit 175). Many gun-owners agree that those who are promoting gun control are misinformed. These people have probably heard myths, exploited through repetition and mistaken for the truth. One of those myths is “the only purpose of a handgun is to kill people” (NRA 5).

To contradict this statement, an estimated 75-80 million privately owned handguns are used mainly for hunting, target shooting, protection of families, and other legitimate and lawful purposes (Newton 24). Most gun owners can be found skeet shooting, deer hunting, or polishing a gun collection. However, these owners are also concerned about their family’s protection. All of those who own guns for these reasons have the support of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA is composed largely of hunters, gun owners, and sports enthusiasts who stand firmly in their belief that Americans have a constitutional right to own firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The NRAs 3.5 million members, including women and non-gun owners, believe the NRA to be a bastion for “freedom fighters” (“Gun” 37). NRA leaders plan to continue their fight to stop any and all gun control legislation in its tracks. Anti-individual rights crowds accuse the NRA of claiming the Second Amendment guarantees guns for all personsincluding criminalsand all weaponsincluding weapons of war. However, the NRA has supported laws to prohibit gun ownership by those convicted of violent crimes, and for decades, they have promoted and helped pass tough penalties to keep those who misuse guns in prison where they belong (LaPierre 17). With the exception of guns processed by criminals, Ex. NRA President, Joe Foss, describes his groups convictions this way: “I say all guns are good guns.

There are no bad guns. I say the whole nation should be armed. Period” (Landau 39). When asked about the Second Amendment, the battle is “to retake the most precious, most sacred ground on earth,” says NRA Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, “This is a battle for freedom” (“Fight” 29). Another myth is that of “The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls” (NRA 2). Scientific polls indicate that most people oppose the costly restrictions of firearms, the distribution of power to police to decide who should or should not own guns, and the decision that they, as citizens, must rely on self-defense from criminals. More than ever, politicians are clamoring to restrict Americas constitutional right to own guns and the right to self-defense. Yet, Americans, individually, as armed citizens are the best deterrent to violent criminal attacks.

Collectively, Americans, as an armed law-abiding populace are the best protection against the taking-over of America by criminals (LaPierre 28). John Adams, a member of the NRA himself, was quoted as saying, “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual private self-defense” (NRA 27). Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi researched a study of criminal acquisition, and found that 81 percent of 1800 criminals agreed that the “smart criminal” will attempt to find out if a potential victim is armed. The reaction to fight back or defend oneself is instinctive of human nature (Baimbridge, par. 7); therefore, we shouldnt need studies to show us the truth about guns and the basic concept of self-defense. Obviously, it is not in the best interest of criminals to attack victims who are armed and ready to defend themselves.

Wright and Rossi found that 39 percent of felons admitted to aborting a crime because the victim was armed, 34 percent were scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim, and 74 percent of felons felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot (Baimbridge, par. 9). Criminals are clearly afraid of private gun owners who choose to defend themselves, and as criminals, they feel more free to commit crimes when a citizens right to own a gun has been infringed. The right to self-defense and the right to use firearms for defense of self and family are the cornerstone of individual rights in the U.S. Constitution (LaPierre 27).

Yet another myth, “Gun control reduces crime,” (NRA 25) is either believed or not believed by almost every citizen in the United States. Each side claims to have objective evidence to support their side. Gun control politics have grown to an intense stage in the past few years due to the ever-growing fear of crime.

Gun Control

By: Kiet
E-mail: emailprotected
Gun Control Since the days of the pioneers of the United States, firearms have been part of the American tradition as protection and a means of hunting or sport. As we near the end of the 20th century the use of guns has changed significantly. Because of fast and steady increase in crime and the fight for the right to own a hand gun, the introduction of legislation for gun control, to try to reduce the crime in the United States, has been a hotly debated issue in recent years. Although many people feel that gun control violates the right of the people, given in the second amendment “the right to bear arms”, controlling distribution and sales and the registration of guns and gun owners is necessary because of the homicide rate involving guns and the violence by criminals using guns. Many people feel that gun control violates the right of the people given in the second amendment the right “to bear arms”. Opponents of gun control, including the National Rifle Association, better known as the NRA, argue that the “right To bear arms” is guaranteed in the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and licensing restrictions penalize law-abiding citizens while in no way preventing criminal use of handguns. It is also argued that by making it difficult for guns to be bought and registered for the American public there is a threat to the personal safety of American families everywhere. However controlling the sale and distribution of firearms is necessary because of the homicide rate involving guns. In 1988 there were 9000 handgun related murders in America. Metropolitan centers and some suburban communities of America are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Larger Metropolitan centers have ten times the murder rate of all Western Europe. For example in Washington,D.C. there was an estimated 400 homicides including guns. In addition gun control has been seen as necessary because of the violence by criminals using guns. Gun control is wrapped in a series of social issues such as crime and drugs. Guns have become closely linked to drugs and murder in the public mind. Drug dealing and high tech weaponry have escalated the warfare in cities between long established loosely knit gangs. Predominantly guns of crime are used by gang members. Many police officers are killed every year due to drug and gang related incidents involving guns. For example in 1988 on February 26 rookie New York City police officer Edward Byre was sitting alone in his police car guarding the house of a drug trial witness in South Jamaica, Queens where he was shot four times in the head and killed. In conclusion there are valid reasons for why certain people feel that gun control is unfair. People against gun control feel that it is a violation of the Constitution to control the sale and distribution and the registration of guns and gun owners. But it is necessary for there to be certain limits on the way that firearms are handled in this country because of the homicide rate involving guns and because of the violence created by criminals using guns. If gun control legislation were to go through there would be a significant decline in gun related crimes and fatalities.
Word Count: 547

Gun Control

Gun Control Concealed Handguns The guy smiled at meand he began to move toward me with the knife. I thought, this guy is willing to kill me for thirty-five dollars. I aimed the automatic at the outer edge of his left thigh and shot himI remember thinking, shouldnt I call a doctor? And then I thought, would he have called a doctor for me? And I kept right on walking(Would 162). Events such as the one depicted in this story occur all to often on our city streets. The fact that some people will kill for thirty-five dollars has many people in this country searching for a legal source of protection.

Through a concealed handgun license innocent people can often walk away from potentially violent crimes unharmed. Carrying a concealed handgun makes perfect sense to everyone but criminals (Jones 259). Whose fault is it when innocent people are murdered because they obey the law and do not carry handguns illegally? If those who abide by the law cannot protect themselves, criminals are assured unarmed targets who are strictly at their, the criminals, mercy. In these cases a concealed handgun acts as an equalizer for those overpowered or outnumbered. The department of Justice states that eighty-seven percent of all violent crimes occur outside the home and concealed handguns are the only defense.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Maybe Denver talk-show host Alan Berg would still be alive had he not been denied his concealed handgun permit while fearing his death by white supremacists (Snyder 31). Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the legalization of concealed handgun permits. Since the first concealed weapons legislation in Florida in 1987, 31 states have legislated concealed weapon laws, and in each state applicants must meet certain criteria before actually being licensed. Rather reliable background checks are done on each applicant revealing any criminal history or mental illness (Ludwig 1). Most states also require that applicants pass a firearms training course and subject a record of fingerprints to local authorities (Snyder 31).

As gun control advocates foretold, wild west shootouts and road-rage killings have not resulted from these concealed carry laws. To say the least, gun control advocates have been profoundly embarrassed by the results of these permits. Between 1987 and 1995, 300,000 concealed handgun permits were issued in Florida. Of these, only five permitted handguns were used in violent crimes and no deaths were recorded (Norquist 75). Yes, five out of 300,000 concealed weapons permits were misused.

No law is perfect and no matter what laws are passed, people will still have guns and misuse them. These numbers do show, however, that concealed weapons are not the cause of the countrys crime problem. As a whole, concealed weapon carriers do not engage in violent crimes. Criminals do have weapons and do misuse them (Jones). In the United States, the greatest country in the world, citizens enjoy rights people elsewhere can only dream of. Is it not proper that a person also have the right to protect him or herself? Without concealed handgun laws, an average law-abiding citizen does not have the choice of concealed protection (Jones).

In most states, the unlicensed carrying of a handgun is punishable by six to twelve months in jail, regardless of circumstances (Ten 23). With laws like this, what is a person to do? Gun control advocates have the answer. In the case of an emergency, call the police. Despite popular belief, courts have ruled that the police cannot be held accountable for the lack of preventing a crime (Jones). Their function is simply to deter crime.

According to the Department of Justice, even if police were accountable and every victim readily had access to a phone, only twenty-eight percent of the time can they arrive within five minutes (Norquist 75). Concealed-carry laws allow law abiding citizens to be responsible for themselves, to protect themselves and their loved ones, and not have their hands tied by laws that arent followed by criminals (Jones). Surprisingly, concealed handgun laws have proven to significantly deter crime. States with concealed-carry laws have collectively reported thirty-seven percent lower robbery rates and thirty-three percent lower homicide rates that those states without concealed handgun laws (Ten 22). Also the Department of Justice reports that forty percent of felons have at one time chosen not to commit crimes for fear of armed victims. Criminals realize the rising use of concealed weapons, but when picking victims they cannot tell the armed from the unarmed. According to the decrease in crime, 1,414 lives could have been saved since 1977 had concealed handgun laws been in place.

Also 4,177 rapes, 11,898 robberies, and 60,363 aggravated assaults could have been prevented. This has proven to be the most effective yet cheapest form of crime deterrence (Lott). Qualified law abiding citizens deserve the right to carry concealed handguns. Sure there will be the rare misuse of legally concealed weapons, but are these lives really worth the many more lives that would be saved by their legalization. There will always be crime, and people will always be murdered so we must make a choice. Either let a few die to the concealed handguns, or let many die to closed minds.

It all makes perfect sense. When used properly, a concealed handgun is a great thing. Law-abiding citizens have protection and the national crime rate drops. Concealed-carry laws are a good thing. Bibliography Jones, Summer. Armed Citizenry Makes Sense, Unless Youre a Crook. Editorial.

Star Tribune 13 Nov. 1999, metro ed.: 25A. Lott, John R. and David B. Mustard.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. **. Ludwig, Denis. Do Carry-Concealed-Weapons Laws Deter Crime? No. The Journal of State Government 70 (1997): 29-31. Norquist, Grover G. Have Gun, Will Travel.

The American Spectator Nov. 1998: 74-75. Snyder, Jeffrey R. Easing Handgun Licensing Laws: Helping the Public Fight Back. USA Today Sept.

1998: 30-32. Ten Myths About Gun Control. Pamphlet. Fairfax, Virginia: NRA Institute for Legislative Action, 1994. Would Gun Control Reduce Crime? Pamphlet. St.

Paul: Opposing Viewpoints Pamphlets, 1984.

Gun Control

Common Sense Control, Not Gun Control
It’s late at night, and you’re home all alone. You double checked to make
sure all of the doors were locked and made sure all of the windows were closed.
It’s been a quiet night, but for some odd reason you cannot sleep. During your
restless night, you hear a bump in the kitchen. At first you dismiss it as the
wind. But there it is again, and it’s louder this time. You’re scared, your
pulse is racing and you cannot think of what to do. You don’t know whether to
call 911 or just lay there and hope whatever it was will go away. But then you
realize you have a 9-mm Smith and Wesson hand gun in the nightstand. You
quietly get it out, take off the trigger lock, and retrieve the bullets from on
top of your dresser. You don’t want to create a situation that isn’t necessary
so you huddle next to your bed and hope whomever it is takes what they want and
leaves. You hear them walking down the hallway toward you. Your bladder nearly
lets go. The intruder tries to open your door but luckily you locke d it.
There still is the possibility that it’s you spouse so you don’t shoot the
intruder through the door. Then the intruder kicks the door in, sending
splinters of wood flying about the room. The time has come, you raise from the
side of your bed, instinctively assuming a marksman’s pose and fire just as the
intruder is raising his weapon. He flies back against the wall and slumps into
a lifeless pile. You then proceed to call 911.

Now, that is not an uncommon scenario in the present state of society.
Now what I ask you to picture is that same scenario, but this time only the
intruder has a weapon because all guns have been outlawed and the criminal is
the only person who can get their hands on them. It’s a rather scary thought,
isn’t it. But that is exactly what some people want. They want a ban on all
firearms. But that is not the solution, the solution is the education of every
person that purchases a firearm and required trigger locks, and stricter
compliance by judges to the sentences mandated for crimes involving firearms.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The “most recent attempt at federal gun legislation was the Gun Control
Act of 1968″ (Goldwater 183) and has done little if anything to lower the number
of crimes committed using firearms. In fact, “the number of shooting homicides
per year has climbed steadily since it’s enactment, while armed robberies have
increased 60 percent.” (183). Now, this is a staggering piece of information.
But it’s just one piece of evidence that shows that gun control laws are only
marginally effective, if at all, in curtailing crimes involving firearms.

Now, I am not saying that there should be absolutely no restrictions on
who has a fire arm, because that is not true. “Most everyone will agree that
felons, addicts, morons, juveniles, alcoholics, the mentally incompetent and
others in whose hands even an ice pick or baseball bat becomes a deadly weapon,
should be denied guns.”(Selib 202). But banning all hand guns is not the way to
go about lowering the rate of crimes involving hand guns. As an example:
. . . in the decade from 1960 to 1970, gun crimes in England
increased some 750 percent – this in a country where there aren’t supposed to be
any pistols in private hands. What is demonstrated forcefully in England is
that in a place where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. (202)
As I have pointed out, gun control legislation has only a marginal
effect. I think that more headway in lowering handgun related crimes could be
made through education. This exact point is made by Barry Goldwater:
Gun education, in fact, can actually reduce lawlessness in a
community, as was demonstrated in an experiment conducted in Highland Park
Michigan. City police launched a program to instruct merchants in the use of
handguns. The idea was to help them protect themselves and their businesses
from robbers, and it was given wide publicity. The store-robbery rate dropped
from an average of 1.5 a day to none in four months. (186)
There is one other way of dropping the crime rate involving firearms,
this is through stricter laws in respect to crimes that involve a firearm. “A
study . . . revealed that


I'm Lydia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out