Boseley’s audience would tend to be people who agree that heightened gun control in the US would lead to less deaths in major cities like Detroit or New York. Hawkins’ readers would agree that gun control only leads to more deaths in the US because people start to handle guns and gun trade
The result has been an 18% reduction of out nation’s aggravated assault plus robbery rate.” (Menkus) this shows people that the more good citizens you have with guns the safer it is for the rest of the people. The problem is not the gun itself but the people who use it and commit these terrible crimes. If more people could be responsible with guns the world could be a safer
Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. The use of red light cameras has definitely allowed motorists to become more conscience of their surroundings when approaching an intersection. They are less likely to proceed through an intersection and risk a chance of receiving a violation. Consequently, the fewer tickets issued the less revenue for cities. Statistics show that the number of tickets has dropped during recent years having a major impact on the number of red light
Gun accidents have been declining as Wilson writes, “the rate of fatal gun accidents has been declining while the level of gun ownership has been rising” (Barnet and Bedau 126). Fewer than 2 percent of gun fatalities are caused by someone mistaking the victim for an intruder. The facts do not support the self-injury argument. Gun control advocates need to understand that they should use correct facts in their arguments if the hope to maintain credibility. People against gun control that want tougher laws on gun related violence will most likely see those added laws overlooked because the tougher laws will most likely be an add-on to current laws.
That is a part of our freedom. But at what point does a citizen deserve to lose that freedom? Criminals have such easy access to firearms just based on the fact that it is so easy to buy one. Gary Kleck, author of “Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America” states “Probably fewer than two percent of handguns and well under one percent of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.” The vast majority of citizens buying firearms are only doing it merely for their own protection.
With a gun you probably have more of a chance of hurting and killing someone then what you do if you were to use a taser. I found this fact. “16,880 law enforcement agencies in 107 countries deploy tasers resulting in 89,000 people lives saved from potential death or serious injury.” That really is a big number of lives saved. Just think of the lives that would not have been saved from using a gun. I would think at least half or more would have resulted in death.
After those laws were passed the number of armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies rose by 37%, assaults rose by 24%, kidnapping rose by 43%, murders may have fallen by 3%, but manslaughter rose by 16% (“Section 7: Three Common Gun Control Myths”). Supporters say crime rates will be lower. Lower crime rates doesn't mean more robberies, more assaults, more kidnappings, and more manslaughter. In many countries like Australia strict gun laws haven't done anything to lower the crimes rates or keep them down, so why should gun control do any different in the U.S. (Section 7: Three Common
The world as man-kind knows it will be a better place due to the fact that not having possession of a gun can leave people vulnerable to this world of violence. In 2011 close to 33,000 Americans were victims to gun-related deaths. This is a prime example on why people should purchase a gun to protect their households, and make a safe living for their family. Control what can be controlled, which someone is holding a person at gun point. What are they going to do wish that there was gun control?
Much of the argument over stop and frisk lies in numbers.” For instance, the NYPD says its policy has led to a falling murder rate and more gun seizures, with homicides down 21 percent this year and the number of illicit guns seized up 31 percent from last year”(Huffington post). If this tactic results in this much of a drop in homicides and an increase of thirty one percent in illicit guns seized, why not use it. This tactic obviously helps keep the streets a little safer. Most if not all cities that imply stop and frisk experience a dramatic drop in crime rate. “The reality is that crime has gone way down in New York City and that stop and frisk has certainly contributed to it.
For instance, the criminal will think twice before killing for fear of receive the strongest punishment. Death penalty actually is not an effective crime deterrent. This is because majority of people do not anticipate they will be caught. Some states in the United State such as New York, Hawaii, Alaska and Michigan do not use the death penalty had proved they had lower murder rate than the states that do. For example in 2004, crimes rate for states do not use the death penalty had 4.08 murders per 100000 inhabitants compare to states use death penalty had 6.32 murders per 100000 inhabitants.