gun control

Why the U.S. needs Gun ControlWhen people talk about gun control it becomes such a broad topic of discussion that nothing is ever done. Gun control is commonly thought of as getting the guns out of the hands of the criminals but in all actuality the guns need to be taken out of the hands of the American public. This is because guns, especially handguns, present a great danger to the American public because of misuse and negligence. This negligence and misuse can lead to accidental shootings and suicide.

What gun control should do is limit the number of guns produced especially handguns.In The NRA is Right Josh Sugarmann argues Handguns are the number one weapon for both murder and suicide and are second only to auto accidents as the leading cause of death due to injury(186). Sugarmann believes that all handguns should be banned from the American public.

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

order now

He believes this because handguns do more harm than good in any situation but especially when attacked by an assailant. Plus, uneducated people commonly misuse guns and that is why handguns are clearly dangerous and even deadly. Handguns undoubtedly present a hazardous risk to the American public.Handguns are a detriment to the American public because of their availability, their compactness, and their lethality.Banning or limiting handguns in the United States would help lower not only crime rates but suicide rates as well. Handguns play a significant part in suicide because of their availability. In Domestic Disarmament Ruth Rosen states Four out of five U.

S. Citizens surveyed believe that the easy availability of guns has contributed to an atmosphere of violence(177). Banning handguns would cut down on this atmosphere of violence. As stated in the NRA is Right According to the American Association of Suicidology, the suicide rate for 15-to 24-year-olds increased 150 percent. The report linked the rise in murders and suicides among the young to the increased use of firearms primarily handguns(187). If a handgun is not available for someone who is going to try and kill himself or herself then the chance of that person being successful are greatly reduced. So it is our job, as Americans to get the guns out of circulation so more people cant hurt themselves.Handguns are an epidemic in this country because of their lethality.

Handguns kill nearly 69,000 Americans(187) according to Sugarmann. If a person is going to attempt suicide then the logical weapon of choice is a handgun because it packs a big punch. It is a far more effective choice then taking pills or using razor blades. Dr. Robert Markush of the University of Alabama writes High suicide rates seem to occur where highly lethal suicidal methods are not only available but also where they are culturally acceptable(qtd. in Sugarman 187).

In the U.S. handguns are culturally acceptable because the America public doesnt want to give up their second amendment rights.

Gun Control

Gun Control One of the most controversial issues of today is the topic of gun control. It is not only a popular debate, but has now become one of the key reasons people vote for a particular candidate.

But is gun control the only answer to help stop crime, or is there another solution? I believe that if we as a society cannot even control ourselves to become responsible for our own actions then we are lost. Gun control isnt the answer, instead we should concentrate on training and controlling the people who are using these firearms. A quote from Charlton Heston, president of the NRA, We teach our children not to play with a hot stove, to look both ways before crossing the street and to avoid the dangers of drugs and other harmful substances.

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

order now

And we should certainly teach our young children how to avoid tragic accidents with firearms. With such groups as the NRA, ACLU, and the MRC many agree that their has to be another solution. The NRA alone has over four million people supporting them. The NRA also supports many programs to better increase the knowledge about firearms and the safety of the people using them. For example they agree with the proposition to have mandatory background checks for anyone purchasing a firearm at a gun show. They also agree with and help to fund school education programs for gun safety including their award winning Eddie Eagle GunSafe Programs, which since 1988 has been viewed by over 12 million school children in every state in the country.But the controversy doesnt arise in these programs because almost everyone would agree that a more informed and educated society isnt a bad thing.

The problem lays within the issue of banning guns, and registering guns. Should all guns be registered in a national database? The NRA says no. Another quote from Charlton Heston. In every jurisdiction where registration has been imposed, government confiscation and destruction has occurred. Yet, that is exactly the goal of anti-gun lobbyists.This was taken from a debate between NRA president Charlton Heston and Handgun Control Inc. chair Sarah Brady.

Heston continues on to say Sarah Brady, chair of Handgun Control Inc., told the New York Times on August 15, 1993 that her ultimate goal is a need based licensing system, with all guns and gun transfers registered with the federal government. In her ideal world, an honest citizen would have to prove to government bureaucrats his or her need to own a firearm. Think about that for a moment.Can you satisfy Mrs.

Bradys requirement that you need your shotgun? Or the handgun you keep for protection in your home? This raises an interesting point. If this system were to pass, how would you judge a persons need for a firearm, especially for protection purposes? Another possible precaution that is being proposed by presidential candidate Al Gore, is the fingerprinting and photographing of every gun owner for an identification card. What criminal is going to stand in line and give his fingerprints and photograph away to the federal government? So how would this help reduce gun-related crimes? Simply put, it wouldnt, but Al Gore is still pushing for it, much like the systems that were already introduced to such countries as Australia, England, and Canada. Shortly after these countries began confiscating and destroying privately owned guns. Now Im not saying that I believe the federal government is trying to overturn our country by taking away our firearms, but it is a little suspicious when compared to the previous history of other countries. So what does Sarah Brady and the Handgun Control Inc.think about national registration of firearms? Handgun registration is: a way of ensuring that the police can track any gun that is used in a crime, do a better job of proving that a crime gun was indeed purchased by the criminal and convict those criminals and send them to jail. Though they believe in handgun registration, they dont believe in registering rifles or shotguns since they are rarely used in crimes.

I agree that justice must be served and that any possible way of finding these criminals and upholding the law should be taken, but choosing between confiscation and registration is a tough choice. Id rather have the right to own a gun. Also if the possibility of confiscation arose think how much easier it would be for the federal government to track you down and steal your firearm.Although it seems far fetched that this could ever happen Id rather not take any chances. Another huge controversy of today is between the two possible presidential candidates Al Gore, and George W. Bush. Both have very strong views on the topic of gun control and it is a key element in their campaigns.

Gore believes in the federal licensing of handguns, a limit of buying one gun per month, a ban on Saturday Night Specials, and mandatory background checks at gun shows. Bush believes in many of the same proposals including mandatory background checks, and trigger locks, but not the registration of handguns, the limit of one gun per month, or the banning of Saturday Night Specials.Though both candidates have strong beliefs on the subject the media has found many double-standards in Bushs possible propositions. For example an incident occurred between Kayne Robinson, the vice president of the NRA, and a particular comment he made at a California NRA meeting, If we win, well have a president..where well work out of their office. Once the media obtained this, it was plastered all over the evening news and Bushs reputation was damaged.

With this arose several other incidents where Bushs reputation was on the line. The question is, why is the media so abrupt to point out Bushs bad points? This makes you question the medias motives, not only Bushs. Granted he is running for president and his actions speak more than his words, but everyone makes mistakes, and I would like to know that the president does too. Gore on the other hand has done a complete reversal compared to his actions before he was running for president.He used to favor many pro-gun bills and had a mostly pro-gun voting record. But unlike Bush, the media didnt exploit this information it merely skimmed over it.

Which brings up another key player to the argument, the media. The media is probably the most influential force of today, taking up over half of what we see on TV, and in newspapers. So how does the media play a role in the gun debate? Well one way is by giving one-sided perspectives when choosing what to air and what not to air.For instance in one case in Mississippi a boy was going from classroom to classroom shooting students. When the assistant principal remembered that he had a gun in his car he ran out and put a chamber in it, only to see the shooter run to his own car. When the boy started to spin out in his car trying to leave the scene the assistant principal ran over to him pointing his gun and told him to get out of the car. He then restrained him until police arrived on the scene.

Out of the ABC, CBS, and CNN news programs none of them even mentioned the assistant principals heroics.Only the local paper, and the next day on one of the evening news programs. So the medias power to cover whatever part of the story they want can potentially alter the facts. Since no one mentioned the assistant principal, everyone was led to believe that a gun was used in a school shooting, but failed to mention that a gun was also used to stop the boy from fleeing. A quote from MRC chairmen Brent Bozell, TV news is no objective referee.

It is a partisan player that has chosen sides, the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment side. This is not the first time the media has failed to mention the use of guns to help stop a crime.Another indiscreet way the media alters the facts is by using figurative language in their reports. When reporters and opinion writers do quote NRA officials they tend to use terms like claims, whines, or would have us believe. This was taken from a University of Michigan researcher comparing reporting on five groups. The NRA, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of Retired Persons, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Handgun Control Inc. In comparison to those unfriendly terms quoted from reports about NRA officials, terms such as found, showed, and demonstrated, were used when quoting officials from Handgun Control Inc.

The effect Patrick (the Michigan University researcher) says is to make NRA positions appear tentative, while those of other groups come off as undisputed facts.The other way the media has an effect is by downgrading the NRA when a tragedy happens. If there is an outbreak in gun-related violence, the media has a way of linking it to the NRA. They do this by exploiting pictures of crime scenes, weeping mothers, and memorial sessions and then telling the NRAs opinion on the situation.

Or they might contact the NRA and have them comment on a shooting trying to get them to say the wrong thing. The reasoning behind this is to show that the access of weapons can take some of the blame for gun violence.What they dont do is contact other restrictive gun-control groups and ask them to comment what might have happened if the victims would have had access to a gun. The media should try to look at the storys from both sides, instead of using trickery and antics to try and fool the public.

gun control

Argument PaperOver the last twenty years, a large amount of effort and money has been spent overlegislation regarding gun control.

Gun control advocates maintained that increased gun controlcould reduce the soaring crime rates of the early 70s. However, most of the arguments used forgun control are the result of careful manipulation of data and emotional appeal. These mythsare twisted by our liberal media until they are seen as the truth. However, despite the claims ofgun control activists, gun control does not reduce crime, it leaves law abiding citizensincreasingly vulnerable to violent crime.

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

order now

One common claim of gun control advocates is that gun control in foreign countries,notably Great Britain, is responsible for their lower crime rates. They present statistics showingthat Britain has lower murder rates than America, but skip some other interesting information. First, the gun control methods used in Britain include searches and other checks foundunconstitutional in America. Also, the British are far more successful than Americans inprosecuting criminals. For instance, 20% of robberies reported in London end in conviction,compared to only 5% in New York City (Ten Myths 5).In a broader sense, consider that despite the fact that in a typical year about 8.

1 millionviolent crimes will be committed in America, only 724 thousand will be arrested. Of those, only150 thousand will receive prison sentences, and over 36 thousand will serve less than one yearterms. The biggest problem in America is our revolving door justice system (Ten Myths 3).Despite the efficiency of British investigative procedures, the British armed robbery ratehas never been less than twice the highest recorded before the gun control laws took effect in1920. In fact, over the last twelve years, the British armed robbery rate has increased anastonishing 300% while the American rate has dropped (Ten Myths 5). Also, from 1930 to 1975,the British murder rate has increased 50% while the American murder rate rose 30%. Anotherforeign nation, Jamaica, totally prohibited gun ownership in 1974. By 1980, Jamaicas gunmurder rate was six times that of Washington D.

C., which has the highest rate of any Americancity. However, Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gunownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime ratesare among the lowest in the Western World (Bender 148).

Granting gun owners more freedom to carry their weapons responsibly has not causedAmericas crime rate to increase! Rather, American crime has been shown to decrease whenmore freedom is allowed. In 1996, the University of Chicago Law School conducted a study ofthe crime rates of every county in America over the last fifteen years and determined that violentcrime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed weapons, with murder rates dropping8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Overall, it is estimated that1.

5 to 2.5 million people use guns for defense in America every year, saving society up to 38.9billion dollars annually (Pratt 16A).Another fabrication of gun control advocates is that gun control would reduce crimes ofpassion, in which a person kills a family member in a fit of rage. However, 90% of allhomicides involving family members killed by other family members are preceded by violencethat caused such a disturbance that police were summoned. Professor James Wright of theUniversity of Massachusetts conducted a study of crimes of passion and determined that themurders were, the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal violence between theparties.

He elaborated, noting that, The common pattern, the more common pattern, is forwives to shoot their husbands. Proportionately, men kill their women by other means, morebrutal means, more degrading means. To deny that woman the right to own the firearm is, in asense, to guarantee in perpetuity to her husband the right to beat her at will (Ten Myths 6).Professor Wright, with Professor Peter Rossi, conducted another landmark study of 1800criminals that disproves another myth, namely that handguns are not an effective means ofdeterrence and protection. In the study, 85% of criminals felt a smart criminal would try todetermine if his potential victim was armed. 75% of burglars avoided homes that were occupiedfor fear of being shot.

80% of handgun predators encountered armed citizens, and 57% ofthem were scared off by shots from armed citizens. In fact 60% of criminals fear armed citizensmore than police (Ten Myths 4).It is with good reason that criminals fear armed citizens. In a typical year, armed citizenskill between 1,500 to 2,800 felons in excusable self-defense and justifiably wound 8,000 to16,000. Police kill 300 to 600 criminals per year justifiably.(Ten Myths 4) Despite the large gapbetween police and citizen killings of criminals, citizens have better judgment, mistakenly killingonly 30 innocent people per year, compared to 330 people police kill in the United States peryear.

Also, criminals succeed in disarming citizens in less than 1% of encounters (NCPACRIME 1).For these reasons, handguns are effective deterrents to crime. In addition, defense doesnot require anyone to be hurt. In fact, 98% of protection cases involves the citizen eitherbrandishing his gun or firing warning shots into the air. Even among criminals, protection fromother criminals is the number one reason for possessing a gun (NCPA CRIME 1).A further myth is that legally owned guns contribute to crime. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. Studies show violence and crime to be highest among young, poor, single, urbanblack men.

However, the average legal gun owner is a middle age, middle class, rural white man(NCPA CRIME 1). In fact, of the 60-65 million handguns legally owned in America, 10,000were used for homicides in 1989, meaning that only .02% of handguns are used in homicides. The remaining 99.98% of handguns are never used for unlawful purposes (Ten Myths 3).Another reason gun control does not work is due to the nature of our Constitution. TheFifth Amendment guarantees Americans protection from being forced to incriminate themselves.

Since felons are not permitted to own handguns, the Supreme Court, in Haynes vs. U.S.

, 309 U.S.85 (1968), concluded that the government can not prosecute felons for not registering their illegalguns (Ten Myths 4).From 1978 to 1979, nine states adopted amendments to their state constitutionsguaranteeing individuals the right to own firearms by large margins. 28 states followed suit inthe 1980s, barring cities and counties from passing local gun restrictions.

In November 1976,Massachusetts voters rejected a gun control initiative that the polls predicted to pass by a marginof two-to-one. In 1982, California voters rejected 67 to 37 a statewide freeze on the number ofhandguns in the state, again despite polls favoring the freeze to pass. Finally, House Bill S.49,the Firearms Owners Protection Act, was favored by citizens contacting their representatives bythe astounding margin of 95 to 1, once again despite polls showing most people did not supportthe bill (Ten Myths 2). These figures show a trend that applies across the country at the state andnational level: the American voters do not favor more gun control.

Along with the American people, those who see more crime than any other occupation,our police forces oppose gun control. During the 1982 freeze referendum in California, 51 of58 working sheriffs opposed the freeze, along with 101 Chiefs of Police(Ten Myths 2) In a 1976survey, the Boston police force found that 80% of police felt a handgun was an effective form ofself defense(Matza). A 1990 survey of the National Association of Chiefs of Police found that90% of chiefs felt that banning handguns would reduce neither crime nor a criminals ability toobtain a handgun and 87% felt the same with regards to banning semi-automatic guns of allclasses. 88% felt that banning all guns would not reduce crime, while 90% felt that gun controlwould reduce police departments effectiveness by diverting money, manpower, and resourcesfrom cops on the streets to paper pushers behind desks(Ten Myths 2).

Also, the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association and the National PoliceOfficers Association all support private handgun ownership (Matza).Another problem of gun control is that many gun control laws also call for registry of gunownership. Many gun owners have been labeled extreme for maintaining that gun registry willlead to the confiscation of their guns. However, such an action is not without precedent. In1989, the Soviet Union confiscated 60,000 legally owned and registered rifles from citizens inthe Soviet Republic of Georgia.

Even avowed gun prohibitionist Charles Morgan of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union noted, I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with theNational Rifle Association, that that kind of record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventualconfiscation under one administration or another, during testimony to a Senate subcommittee in1975 (Ten Myths 4). The greatest myth of gun control is that it reduces crime. The statistics from the foreigncountries mentioned earlier in this report show that gun control has not worked there. Threecities make prime examples of the effect of gun control in America: Boston, New York, andWashington, D.C.In 1976, the state of Massachusetts passed the extremely restrictive Bartley-Fox law. Itwas seen as one of the most restrictive gun control laws ever passed. During 1976,Massachusetts was ranked as the nineteenth most violent state in the nation, and Boston was thenations fifth most violent city.

By 1981, Massachusetts had moved up to number eleven in thenation, while Boston was ranked the nations most violent city (Matza 148).New York is yet another example of how gun control fails. Due to soaring crime ratesand almost indefinite waiting periods to obtain licensees to carry handguns, many otherwiselaw-abiding citizens obtained guns illegally or carried their legal weapons illegally. One,Bernhard Goetz, was imprisoned for unlawful possession of a handgun after he used his gun todetain four muggers who assaulted him until police could arrive. His assailants were released,and later were back in court for crimes ranging from armed robbery to rape.

In fact, New Yorkscrime rate is due more to revolving door criminal justice than anything else. In 1984, only20,641 criminals out of 106,171 arrests received jail time. New York, which is 3% of Americaspopulation, accounted for 12.5% of the nations handgun homicides (Ten Myths 9).

In 1976, Washington D.C. passed extremely strict gun control laws. From 1976 to 1982,Washingtons violent crime rate rose 43% and the handgun homicide rate rose 14%.

Thenational rates rose 20% and 3%, respectively. In fact, in 1990, the D.C. homicide rate reached 80per 100 thousand, the highest rate ever recorded in an American city and an increase of 200%from 1976.

The national rate rose 10% in the same time. These statistics show that the people ofthese cities were vulnerable to crime and had no legal way of defending themselves. However,the courts have ruled several times that the police have no responsibility to protect individualcitizens.

When questioned about the law, former D.C. police chief Maurice Turner said, Whathas the gun control law done to keep criminals from getting guns? Absolutely nothing..

. Cityresidents ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun (Ten Myths 10).The reason gun control fails should be obvious to an intelligent person. Since a criminaldoes not, by definition, obey laws, gun control cannot hope to be applied to them as they willaccess their guns by criminal means. These same laws will leave a law abiding citizen almosttotally defenseless as the law provides them no means of protection. Meanwhile, criminals, whoare often not oblivious to the news, will be emboldened by the knowledge that their potentialvictims have no means of defense.

Plainly, gun violence is a problem in America, but if gun control does not work, whatwill? The answer is laws adding extra punishments for criminal use of guns. This targets thecriminal element of society while protecting those citizens who own guns for lawful purposes. Furthermore, these laws work. Virginias murder and robbery rates dropped 31 and 23% respectively in fourteen yearsafter the passage of mandatory penalties for firearms offenders. Arkansass homicide ratedropped 25% in fifteen years and Delawares homicide rate dropped 42% in thirteen years aftermandatory penalties were legislated Delaware also recorded a 52% drop in robberies over thesame period (Ten Myths 11).These figures show that mandatory sentences help to reduce armed violence by sending aclear message to criminals: criminal misuse of a firearm will not be tolerated and will be swiftlyand severely punished.

Coupled with the deterrence value of armed citizens, these laws reducecrime by introducing to the criminal the possibility of longer jail terms, wounds, or even death.Another solution to the problem of handgun violence is to make gun locks, vaults, andother safety devices a tax-deductible purchase. This would give gun owners an incentive to storetheir guns in safer conditions while reducing the rate of people who are killed either by accidentsor stolen guns.

Any funds lost by the government through such a program would almostcertainly be recouped in savings from the prevention of accidental deaths. Gun owners wouldalmost certainly respond positively to such action, given that when Florida offered free gun locksto citizens, they ran out within days and were left scrambling for more (Rogers).Especially after the tragedy of Littleton, it is important to remember that gun control mustbe viewed in a rational and thoughtful manner in which logic and the facts are not overwhelmedby emotion. As the research and presentation of the author demonstrate, the facts speak forthemselves.

Gun control is a misdirected attempt to curtail criminals by stripping the law abidingof the ability to arm themselves for protection. Gun control often has no measurable effect oncrime, and when the effect can be measured, it often reveals an increase in the crime rate. Furthermore, gun control would reduce funds for the apprehension of criminals, reduce theeffectiveness of police forces, waste millions, perhaps billions of dollars, and serve as a possiblemeans for tyranny to stamp out any possible resistance.Therefore, gun control should be viewed not as a solution, but as a catalyst for furtherincreases in violence and lawlessness in America. Any law that aims to punish the criminal atthe expense of the law abiding is doomed to failure. Current efforts to punish gun makers for themisuse of guns is comparable to suing auto makers for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.Careful review of the facts reveals that what is needed in America is not gun control, butcommon sense coupled with a better concept: criminal control.

OutlineThesis: Despite the claims of gun control activists, gun control does not reduce crime.I. IntroductionII. Myths of Gun ControlA. Foreign gun control worksB.

Gun control reduces crimes of passionC. Criminals do not fear armed citizensD. Guns contribute to crimeE. Criminals are constitutionally exempt from gun controlF. American favor gun controlG. Police support gun controlH. Registry is a harmless aspect of gun controlI.

Gun control reduces crimeIII. ConclusionA. SolutionsB.

Final analysis and personal observations LIST OF WORKS CITEDBender, David ed. Would Gun Control Reduce Crime? St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1984.

Matza, Michael. Do more guns mean less crime? No point blank answers Philadelphia Enquirer 31 May, 1998.NCPA Crime Summary.

Available (Online) 4 April 1999.Pratt, Larry.

Concealed guns save lives. USA Today. 26 April, 1999. natl. ed.

Rogers, Bill. Gun Locks Go Faster Than Police Can Hand Them Out. Naples Daily News. 27March, 1998, natl.

ed.Ten Myths About Gun Control. Available (Online) 4 April 1999.

Gun Control

The right to bear arms has been a part of this country’s constitution since its conception in 1776.

Guns we originally a commodity that almost every household had. Firearms were used for hunting and protection. As the modern era came upon us, there became a lesser need to own a firearm because of a controlled police force and a surplus in food.

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

order now

The surplus in food and modern law enforcement, along with rising firearm crimes prompted the government to start reviewing gun laws. Furthermore, over the past century the right to bear a firearm has been restricted by many laws. These laws are instated to help prevent accidental and planned deaths attributed by firearms. The question still stands: can gun-safety laws help prevent accidental and non-accidental deaths caused by firearms? Is the second amendment out dated in today’s world, and is there a need for some a revised version of this amendment?Gun control continues to inflame public opinion nearly a century after the first firearm law was proposed. Gun control supporters blame the high rate of violent crime and the large number of gun accidents and suicides on the easy availability of firearms and lax licensing and safety rules.

Opponents have argued that access to firearms deters crime. Gun homicides are decreasing and fatal gun accidents are at a record low rate.Many people view the gun control issue very differently. On one hand we have at home parents who are concerned with the safety of their children, from gun violence at school. They are also concerned with how easy it is for a minor to obtain a firearm. On the other hand, there is the NRA. The NRA believes that the problem is not with firearms.

The problem lies with the people that misuse them.The controversy with gun control that has developed over the past century has had many causes. Over the past century, since the first act of gun control policy was past in 1911 there has been an auterauge of gun control acts that have followed in its place. These acts have helped to insure the safety of the public from gun violence. Prior to the 20th century, no gun laws were instated for public protection and people were able to obtain a firearm without a license or permit.

Today there are over 20,000 laws (Crimes and Criminal procedure, index) that are instated which limit the use of firearms to certain individuals that do not meet the proper criteria. Law makers are continuing to navigate to a fare ground where peoples civil rights are not striped from them and to a point were peoples are safe form acts of gun violence.Even with these gun laws instated there is a continuing stream of gun related violence accruing everyday.

Events like Columbine have triggered a chain of copycat school shootings around the country. School, which at one point were looked at as a place of sanguinary, have now been thorn full force into gun violence. Many politicians and people alike believe that we are not being hard enough criminals to deter people from committing these acts of gun violence. “These young guys today they’ll shoot a whole crowd in broad daylight just to get one dead” (Guns and violence, 30).

In the world today there is so much media violence shown on TV, movies, video games, and in the newspaper, it is hard to ex cape from the reality, which we have sounded ourselves by everyday. More and more kids are using violence to solve problems. It has become such an epidemic in our schools, that the government has sent out a booklet on what to look for in kids who commit these crimes. About 350,000 booklets have been sent out to all schools in this nation to tell parents, educators, other students who might be doing the kinds of things that have happened in Jonesboro and in Littleton.

There have been many advances in gun control over the years. Recently there has been the uses of gun safety locks that prevent anyone form using the gun by covering the trigger. Also the so-called smart gun, which does not fire unless the owner is in possession of the firearm by analyzing the gun owner’s handprint. This prevents the misfiring of the gun. These new perimeters help prevent accidents but neither gunlocks nor the specially made hand print guns are required when you own a gun. These new advances have helped public safety. The gun control topic really began to surface in the begging of the 20th when outbreaks of crime and violence had spurred lawmakers periodically to try to control the use of firearms. Gun owners have appealed to an American tradition of using firearms for sport and for self-defense to block those laws, or at least weaken them.

The effect of laws on crime is hotly debated, but there is no argument that has shown continuing growth of a vast private arsenal of weapons in the United States. The modern era of gun control begins with the 1911 New York State law requiring a license to possess a pistol. The Sullivan law won approval from lawmakers as a way to stem urban crime. This law prevents people from carrying a firearm. This is the beginning of gun control.“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man may.”-Thomas JeffersonThe National Riffle Association or NRA the founding father’s words such as these to help back their anti-gun control speeches.Much of the debate on gun control centers around interpretation of the Second Amendment and weather it protects collective rights of gun ownership or individual rights.

Both sides argue that historical information regarding the founding fathers’ feelings and beliefs on the subject, and the compromise language they reached supports interpretation of the Amendment. However, review of the language itself seems to indicate that the arms specified were intended to kept as part of a “well regulated militia” (bill of rights, sec aned). Since the Amendment has the sort of qualifying language that is not present in the wording of the other individual Amendments. The founding fathers words used words specifying that arms be kept for self-defense and other purposes, but opted not to use such language. At the time when the second Amendment was drafted guns were much more of an integral and necessary part of everyday life than they are today. The Amendment does not prohibit the government from restricting or regulating that right for our collective safety. “ I feel that anything that can be instated to prevent people from being hurt by gun violence should be done” (Levin).

Some opponents to gun control laws such as the NRA, which believes that the restriction of gun access to an individual is a direct violation to people’s civil liberties. They believe that more gun education is needed not more gun control. The NRA has acted against almost every gun control measure proposed or passed in U.S. history. Many people see the NRA as a law less underling which would rather protect the peoples right to bear arms then the safety of the people the right was written for.

There are then others, which believe that there is a need for tougher gun control laws. These people believe that that the government is not tough enough on gun owners and gun manufactures. The era bringing with it, a new age of violence with guns being the chose weapon. We need to do whatever we can to keep our school safe from the ravages of school violence (Levin). In politics this struggle in gun control can be summed up in one sentence, Liberals blame guns; conservatives blamed the cultural disintegration of society (Sirs).

One the other hand why blame the guns. Why don’t we blame the wretched little monsters that murder their classmate out side at recess because of the dispute they had yesterday at lunch.Don’t blame a culture where many parents spend more time watching TV than with their kids, blame the guns. Let us not blame an entertainment industry, which rarely makes a movie without massive violent scenes it is so much easier to blame guns. Blaming guns is easy.

Unlike young children, it is difficult to feel much sympathy for a metallic object. For those who do not believe in individual responsibility and are loath to acknowledge the existence of evil, guns are an easy target. America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply are not true.

The news media’s focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the 1998 shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million (Guns and gun Violence) times a year there are people that use guns defensively that are never discussed. These include shooting which are stopped before they happen and mothers saving their kids from being kidnapped. Maybe not only is there a need for new gun control acts to be admitted but also there is a need to look deep down to the route of the violence.

Society needs to look deep down to what causes the problem. Gun control is becoming more of a social issue reflecting on society today. Instead of restricting guns to people, we should work in accordance to help prevent tragic events from happening instead of waiting for them to happen. Without looking into this deep well of anger so recluse inside of people, we may never stop a vast problem there is with guns today. English Essays

Gun Control

Failure of Gun Control LawsAmericans are faced with an ever-growing problem of violence.

Our streets have become a battleground where the elderly arebeaten for their social security checks, where terrified women areviciously attacked and raped, where teen-age gangstersshoot it out for a patch of turf to sell their illegal drugs, andwhere innocent children are caught daily in the crossfire of drive-byshootings. We cannot ignore the damage that these criminals are doingto our society, and we must take actions to stop thesehorrors. However, the effort by some misguided individuals toeliminate the legal ownership of firearms does not address thereal problem at hand, and simply disarms the innocent law-abidingcitizens who are most in need of a form of self-defense.To fully understand the reasons behind the gun controlefforts, we must look at the history of our country, and the rolefirearms have played in it.

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

order now

The second amendment to the Constitutionof the United States makes firearm ownership legal in this country.There were good reasons for this freedom, reasons which persist today.Firearms in the new world were used initially for hunting, andoccasionally for self-defense. However, when the colonists felt thatthe burden of British oppression was too much for them to bear, theypicked up their personal firearms and went to war. Standing againstthe British armies, these rebels found themselves opposed by thegreatest military force in the world at that time. The 18th centurywitnessed the height of the British Empire, but the rough band ofcolonial freedom fighters discovered the power of the Minuteman, theaverage American gun owner. These Minutemen, so named because theywould pick up their personal guns and jump to the defense of theircountry on a minute’s notice, served a major part in winning theAmerican Revolution.

The founding fathers of this country understoodthat an armed populace was instrumental in fighting off oppression,and they made the right to keep and bear arms a constitutionallyguaranteed right.Over the years, some of the reasons for owning firearms havechanged. As our country grew into a strong nation, we expandedwestward, exploring the wilderness, and building new towns on thefrontier. Typically, these new towns were far away from the centers ofcivilization, and the only law they had was dispensed by townsfolkthrough the barrel of a gun. Crime existed, but could be minimizedwhen the townspeople fought back against the criminals. Eventually,these organized townspeople developed police forces as their townsgrew in size.

Fewer people carried their firearms on the street, butthe firearms were always there, ready to be used in self-defense.It was after the Civil War that the first gun-controladvocates came into existence. These were southern leaders who wereafraid that the newly freed black slaves would assert their newfoundpolitical rights, and these leaders wanted to make it easier tooppress the free blacks. This oppression was accomplished by passinglaws making it illegal in many places for black people to ownfirearms.

With that effort, they assured themselves that the blackpopulation would be subject to their control, and would not have theability to fight back. At the same time, the people who were mostintent on denying black people their basic rights walked around withtheir firearms, making it impossible to resist their efforts. Anunarmed man stands little chance against an armed one, and these armedmen saw their plans work completely. It was a full century before thecivil rights activists of the 1960s were able to restore theconstitutional freedoms that blacks in this country were granted inthe 1860s.Today’s gun control activists are a slightly different breed.They claim that gun violence in this country has gotten to a pointwhere something must be done to stop it.

They would like to seecriminals disarmed, and they want the random violence to stop. I agreewith their sentiments. However, they are going about it in the wrongway. While claiming that they want to take guns out of the hands ofcriminals, they work to pass legislation that would take the guns outof the hands of law-abiding citizens instead. For this reason theefforts at gun control do not address the real problem of crime.The simple definition of a criminal is someone who does notobey the law. The simple definition of a law-abiding citizen issomeone who does obey the law.

Therefore, if we pass laws restrictingownership of firearms, which category of people does it affect? Thesimple answer is that gun control laws affect law-abiding citizensonly. By their very nature, the criminals will continue to violatethese new laws, they will continue to carry their firearms, and theywill find their efforts at crime much easier when they know that theirvictims will be unarmed. The situation is similar to that of thedisarmed blacks a century ago. Innocent people are turned into victimswhen new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmedman stands little chance against an armed one.An interesting recent development has been the backlashagainst the gun-control advocates. In many states, including Floridaand Texas, citizens have stated that they want to preserve their rightto carry firearms for self-defense.

Since the late 1980s, Florida hasbeen issuing concealed weapons permits to law-abiding citizens, andthese citizens have been carrying their firearms to defend themselvesfrom rampant crime. The result is that the incidence of violent crimehas actually dropped in contrast to the national average. Previously,Florida had been leading the nation in this category, and the citizensof that state have welcomed the change. Gun control advocates tried toclaim that there would be bloodshed in the streets when these citizenswere given the right to carry. They tried to claim that the cities ofFlorida would become like Dodge City with shootouts on every streetcorner. These gun control advocates were wrong. Over 200,000 concealedcarry permits have been issued so far, with only 36 of these permitsrevoked for improper use of a firearm. This statistic is easy tounderstand.

It is the law-abiding citizens who are going through theprocess of getting concealed carry permits so that they may legallycarry a firearm. The people who go through this legal process do notwant to break the law, and they do not intend to break the law. Thepeople who do intend to break the law will carry their guns whether ornot the law allows them to do so.Criminals will always find ways to get guns. In this countrywe have criminalized the use, possession, sale, and transportation ofmany kinds of narcotics, but it’s still easy for someone to take aride and purchase the drugs of their choice at street corner vendors.Firearms and ammunition would be just as easy for these black-marketentrepreneurs to deliver to their customers. Today, criminals oftencarry illegal weapons, including sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, andhomemade zip-guns, clearly showing their disregard for the currentlaws which make these items illegal.

And when they are caught, thecourts regularly dismiss these lesser weapons charges when prosecutingfor the more serious charges that are being committed with theweapons.The gun control advocates have argued their case by demonizingthe gun itself, rather than addressing the people who commit violentcrimes. This is the main fallacy in their argument. They slyly attemptto claim that possession of a gun turns average citizens intobloodthirsty lunatics.

This theory falls apart under close scrutiny.If legal possession of a firearm caused this sort of attitude, thenwhy are crime rates highest in areas such as Washington, D.C. and NewYork City which have strict gun control laws? And why are crime ratesdropping in states such as Florida where private ownership of firearmsis encouraged? Simply stated, legal ownership of a gun does not causecrime.The most recent efforts of the gun control lobby has been toclaim that certain types of guns and ammunition are inherently evil.

They assign emotional catch phrases such as assault weapons and copkiller bullets to broad categories of firearms and ammunition in thehopes that people will believe that some guns have an evil nature.Most people who are unfamiliar with firearms do not fully understandwhat these phrases mean, and they accept the terms being used withoutquestion. What people do not often understand is that the termassault weapon has been defined to include all semi- automaticrifles, and cop killer has been defined to include any bullet thatcan penetrate type two body armor. It comes as a surprise to mostpeople that a large number of simple hunting rifles can do both. Doesownership of one of these weapons cause people to become massmurderers? It does not, and we must not fall into the trap of blamingthe sword for the hand that wields it.So I’ve shown that the act of making it illegal to ownfirearms does little to prevent criminals from getting guns. Theselaws only restrict people who respect the law itself, the people whowould only use firearms for legal purposes anyway. And when we givepeople the right to defend themselves, we find that criminals startlooking for other victims out of fear that they will become thevictims themselves.

We must work to reduce crime in America, but weshould look at the problem realistically, and develop plans that wouldbe effective. It is obvious that gun control laws are neitherrealistic, nor effective in reducing crime. Therefore, we must directour efforts toward controlling crime, not controlling legal ownershipof firearms.Sociology

Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control People for Gun Control The recent events that has happened, such as the school shootings and all the violence seen on television, has without a doubt made many of us consider gun control as a possible solution to the violence that has spread across the nation. On the other hand there is other ways to reduce the violence besides using gun control to do that, which are teaching proper gun handling and making mandatory licensing to obtain a gun.

With gun control laws the government is putting the average citizen in harms way by taking there gun away from them. More important that gun control is gun safety. People need to learn not only how, but also when to use a gun.Most of the people who go out and buy guns usually don’t have the proper training. This is dangerous for them and the people they interact with. There are to many people that treat guns as toys, and forget their killing power.

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

order now

Gun owners need to learn the responsibility that is needed to own and handle a gun. As Carol Simmons once stated, It strikes me odd that a person has to take a test and get license in order to drive a car, but they don’t have to take a test or get a license to purchase a gun.Maybe if such enforcement’s were implied and enforced there would be no need to limit the purchase of guns.(Simmons 4) A person must also purchase a hunting license, which gives them permission to use the gun for hunting, but that doesn’t mean that they know the proper and safe way to use it. Gun control was designed to protect citizens from criminals who should not have a gun in the first place. But only 27 percent of criminals who are in prison for crimes involving guns have obtained them legally. (Bogus 188) If criminals can get guns illegally now, how is gun control going to stop them from getting them later? There are many groups against gun control, the best-known group is the National Rifle Association (NRA), they are afraid gun control is the first step in outlawing guns.

As a (NRA) member stated Though the government is trying to help, they aren’t solving any of the problems, they are just making it harder for the average citizen to obtain a gun.(Simmons 2) After all, the average citizen is going to be the one who gives up their guns, and the criminals are going to keep theirs.This will leave the innocent people unarmed and unable to defend themselves against intruders. Guns used by private citizens against violet criminals and burglars are as common and as frequent as arrest. (Kruschke 36) Gun control is a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of young children.

As the law that is already in effect a person must be 18 years of age in order to purchase a rifle or a shotgun and they must be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun. This law still doesn’t effect the young people that like to hunt or target shoot, for they are still able to do so if an adult accompanies them.It would be far more effective to deal with the criminals, and criminal use of guns. Mandatory prison sentences for possessing a gun during the commission of a felony and such mandatory sentencing that cannot be waved as part of a plea bargain.(Simmons 2) Television and films has helped to glorify gun and violence through the westerns and police dramas where shoots are fired in almost every scene. On the average, the American child sees over 10,000 people die on television shows, which diminishes the importance of human life and makes violence seem normal.

(Farr 221) If government would put stricter regulations on television programs, banning violence on TV would seem crazy to some, so why make stricter regulations on guns. Violence is not only associated with guns.For example the book, Taking sides by Carl T. Bogus stated that firearms was the least used weapon with aggravate assaults. Knifes and blunt objects were used 300,000 more times than firearms.

(Bogus 187) Even with stricter gun control laws, violence of assaults will not be effected as dramatically as they predict. The old saying that guns don’t kill people, people kill people is absolutely true.A gun can’t choose who it want’s to kill, without a person thinking of committing a criminal act the gun will not kill anyone. This is the reason for stricter laws against people who have already committed a criminal act should be in forced more then the laws for gun control, which punishes the innocent American citizen.

Karl Simmons writes, The topic of gun control, the ideal gun control program is one that does not pose serious barriers to possession of guns for legitimate purpose, but does effectively inhibit the use of hand guns in crime by a method which has low coast to the criminal justice system and to society as large. (Simmons 17) This was said in a governmental meeting on gun control, and it sounds like the government is trying to take the cheapest way out. By taking our constitutional right to bare arms from us may just be the government trying to save money. The Brady law, which was passed in February 1994, is a good step towards keeping guns out of the wrong hands. The law was named after Jim Brady who was shot and crippled during an assassination attempt on Present Ronald Reagan in 1981.

This law requires a background check on any person purchasing a handgun, which allow merchants to deny sales to convicted felons, drug and alcohol addicts, non-U.S. residents, and people who are mentally incompetent. The Brady law requires a five-day waiting period for the customer. The cooling off period gives the gun buyer a chance to think about why they are purchasing the gun, and quit possibly could prevent them from doing something rash. (Bakal 172) This law is a great idea to limit the gun distribution to the convicted criminals who should not be allowed to own a gun in the first place, but stills allows the average citizen to purchase a gun.A law such as this is what the government should be considering, instead of punishing the law-abiding citizens.

Gun control is a necessary idea to continue gun use in our country, but not as important as its advocates believe. True gun control lessons the amounts of guns on the streets, but it takes the guns out of the hands of responsible owners, not from criminals. Illegally purchased firearms can’t be regulated and these are the guns that are doing most of the killing.

By placing a block on legal purchasing the government is denying the common citizens the ability to protect themselves. It seems such a shame that one would have to die because the government wouldn’t allow them to have a gun.The emphasis of gun control should be placed on teaching gun safety to those who haven’t already had any experience and licensing those wishing to use there firearms and putting stricter regulations on criminals and criminal acts with guns. By doing so, the government would be helping the average gun owner learn what his of her mistakes might be, and keep some of the deaths by guns occurring.



I'm Adrienne!

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

Check it out