These people point to guns as the direct cause of such criminal acts as homicide and domestic violence. The truth is, however, that a gun is just a tool; without the operator the gun or the tool can’t do anything. The gun can’t put bullets in itself and the gun can’t pull its own trigger. It is the people that use the guns that are the real problem. While it is true that guns are involved in thousands of deaths per year in the United States, there are things that lead to far more deaths than guns.
Take three of our most friendly “neighbors” for example, in 1995, handguns were used in twenty-two homicides in England, sixty-eight in Canada, eighty-seven in Japan and 11,719 in America (Rosslyn, 5). In Moorhouse and Wanner’s article “Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control?” in The Cato Journal, study showed in New York City, the number of murders that occur in one year is seventeen times greater than in Northern Ireland who’s plagued by terrorism (Moorhouse and Wanner, 4). This degree of violence is unheard of in any other parts of the world, one may ask, why is there such an inconsistency between these nations? The fact that Germany, France, Canada, England, and Japan essentially ban handguns to the general public demonstrates the effectiveness of rigorous gun control. In addition, field studies were conducted in Portland and Vancouver to prove the effectiveness of gun control.
Even with the current gun restrictions according to a study at John Hopkins research center “More than a quarter of all guns connected with the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, and Firearms investigations (crimes) of illegal gun trafficking.” There is no way that a ban of assault rifles is going stop the purchasing of such rifles. If there was such a ban in America that rivaled the U.K. than it could be assumed or projected that it would American prohibition all over again, and the law of prohibition was the most ignored law in American
Do Stricter Gun-Control Laws Help Prevent Gun-Related Injuries/Deaths? Gun control arguments are a hot topic in America and around the world; it is a topic not likely to go away anytime soon. Arguments for and against carry their own merit and can be lengthy and broad by nature, but our intent is to debate the effect of gun-control laws and the effect they have on gun-related injuries/deaths. The argument presented here will get to the crux of why laws should or should not be enacted to prevent social ills. Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution.
This is assuming that the criminal who is breaking countless laws as it is has decided to abide by the gun control law. If he/she has not, the offender now has even more of an upper hand. This being said, it is easy to argue that a law banning civilians from owning guns would actually increase crimes. A great example of this is England. The two years following the 1997 draconian gun ban, crime rose by 40% according to BBC
The Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws Nine thousand, four hundred, and eighty four (9,484) people died in handgun incidents in the United States during 2008. This number is drastically higher than gun related deaths in foreign countries such as Germany with two hundred and sixty nine (269), the United Kingdom had just fourteen (14), and Australia had only fifty nine (59). The reason for such a drastic difference in these numbers is because Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia have stricter gun control laws as well as requiring gun safety courses. These laws directly affect the number of deaths related to the misuse of handguns each year. If the United States chooses to adopt some of those foreign laws and regulations the
Gun Control I do not believe in gun control. In this paper, I am going to tell you why I believe that gun control is not necessary. I hope that I am able to persuade you in this paper to believe that guns should not be controlled. In my opinion, hunting would be much more difficult because you could not use certain guns, and this is not fair to the hunter. In my research of this topic, I have found a lot of political debates in which many political figures are found saying they are on one side or the other.
She is of the perception that high rates of injury and gun mortality are on the increase due to lenient gun control policies. She argues that the increased possession of firearms, especially illegal guns, has increased gun violence and organized criminal activities. According to (Peterson & Stebner, 2013) Kelly also argues that on average up to 32,000 people lose their lives while 69,000 people are injured in the whole of America due to guns. Gun mortality and injury not only reduce the country’s productivity and performance but also cost the U.S over $100 billion to especially law enforcement agencies in fighting
For example: more people are killed in Chicago than in Kentucky in any given month due to the improper use of a firearm, accidental or otherwise. It would seem, given the crime rate, that the people of Chicago would be more in need of a handgun for self-defense than those of other cities nationwide. Chicago city lawyers think that states and cities should be able to work out their own solutions to gun crime. There is irony in the fact that when the ban on handguns was lifted in Chicago, the burglary rate dropped from 881 in 2007 to 170 in 2008. The burglary rate from 2008 has also remained steady to present day (Joan, 2010, p.
civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year, for that year there were an estimated 11.6 million offenses. That means that 8.5% of the offenses in the year 2000 were thwarted due to civilian intervention with a firearm. In John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime Lott states that there are 60% fewer multiple-victim shootings and 78% less victims per attack in states that do not have a concealed weapon ban. There are many different statistics that have been compiled to show that gun ownership reduces crime, and just as many that support the opposing view, it is not a matter of whether or not citizens own a gun, it’s a matter of the intent in which they have when it comes to using the gun. While most people would by a gun for conventional purposes such as self-defense, hunting, or target shooting, it is inevitable that there will be people who buy a gun in order to use it for robbery, murder, rape, or a number of other heinous crimes, but depriving those who would use their firearm without malicious intent of their second amendment right does not rectify this horrible fact.