Argument For Gun Control

Improved Essays
The second amendment protects the right of the citizens of the United States of America to keep and bear arms. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 and was viewed as a positive amendment within the Bill of Rights. Although in recent debates, this amendment has been questioned on whether it is suitable for the welling being of American citizens; creating the regulation of guns, which is also known as gun control.
Hugh LaFollette considers multiple arguments in analyzing the subject matter on gun control, one being “The right to bear arms is not a fundamental right and guns cause harm to innocent people. Therefore, the government should endorse stricter gun control measures.” LaFollette comes to the conclusion that people have a prime
…show more content…
There are several cities that have tried this and the results support my argument. September 1976 Washington D.C. allocated a ban on handguns, which was soon overturned due to its lack of effectiveness. During this time in which the ban on handguns was in effect, the murder rate in Washington D.C. averaged 73% higher than before the ban was enforced (Agresti & Smith, 2010.). As it is clearly shown, banning handguns did not reduce the murders committed, in fact the amount of murders dramatically increased. Supporters of gun control would argue that the statistics collected are misleading and that other factors such as changing of times could have impacted the murder rates. However, during that same time period the United States murder rates decreased 11%, which complicates their arguments. Another city’s results that support my claim are Chicago, Illinois. A ban was passed on all guns, except for those that have been registered with the police department prior to the ban. With the ban still being in place, around 70% of murders were committed with a gun (Agresti & Smith, 2010.). Supporters of gun control also state “The more widely available guns are, the more murders there are” (Lecture notes). These studies have obviously shown that this statement is not true and not a good reason to claim that stricter gun control measures should be endorsed. The laws passed by these cities made it illegal to own a firearm and yet the murders committed by a firearm increased, showing how ineffective they are and also how they did not protect the people in any

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Ineffective Gun Control

    • 1747 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The homicide rates have increased in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New Orleans even though the overall homicide rate has decreased. There are forty percent of gun purchases at gun shows without background checks. Also, fifty-five percent of Americans prefer to have tighter regulations on gun sales. On the contrary, The National Rifle Association does not approve of having tighter regulations and will fight this issue (Warner). The National Instant Criminal Background Check system is run by the FBI.…

    • 1747 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    recovered in most cities are purchased out of state, and another third are purchased in the same state but outside the immediate vicinity (Wintemute 3). Background checks are necessary in order to put a stop to gun violence and mass shootings. Americans do not realize that this issue is serious and most of them are biased toward the subject but statistics prove that gun control needs to go into effect. “In one year 31,224 people die from gun violence. 12,632 are murdered” (Grundwald 2).…

    • 1260 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the speech Shelby also points out that Chicago’s murder rates, as of 2013, were incredibly high, but they have some of the most strict gun laws in the country (Shelby). Gun laws aren’t minimizing the number of shootings. In the past few years there have been more school shootings than we have had in the ten years before legislation started passing more gun laws. Shelby also points out that. H. In another document by Franklin Zimring, an American criminologist at Berkeley, he explains that controlling guns is really only affecting law abiding citizens, and not the criminals activists are trying to stop.I.…

    • 1215 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Gun Control Debate

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages

    New laws are needed because there is an increase in gun violence in the United States. The NRA does have a reason to oppose by saying their rights under the Second Amendment will be stripped from them, but there should be an exception when citizens take advantage of freedom. The shooting in Arizona has raised concern and now citizens of the United States are waiting for answers. Montopli (CBS) says there are more people that want stricter laws while gun advocates think there is nothing wrong with the laws. Gun advocates say guns are for protection, but they are not thinking about the mentally challenged people that should not have them.…

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Gun Control Restrictions

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Plus, the shooters passed background checks — as did the Oregon shooter, who passed several background checks in purchasing his firearms. Albert Einstein defined “insanity” as doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. Clearly, the call for more gun control is insane — it doesn’t work. While this position is logical because the criminals could have been stopped by security but they managed to pass them. It's logical that we can put the toughest laws and put the strongest gun control laws, but even with that it will not stop every criminal, but the goal is to decrease as many death as possible, also they do not take into consideration gun control is not only trying to stop criminals,…

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The law to take away guns would not affect criminals, because criminals do not follow the law. Without guns for protection, the law-abiding citizens would be helpless to defend themselves against the criminals who would now be the only citizens with guns. The law that was meant to protect would actually lead to the victimization and possible death of law-abiding citizens. This victimization of the defenseless is even prevalent if the criminal does not have a gun. The government of the United Kingdom banned handguns, and over the following years, not only did murder go up, but more people were being killed by knives and strangulation…

    • 1808 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.”(Would banning firearms reduce...). Therefore, any claim of proof that gun control has been successful is reliant on a mantra, and not real world evidence. The study also illustrates higher gun control seems to result in higher murder rates compared to other countries with more leniant regulations. Gun control, therefore does not accomplish its purpose, but quite the…

    • 1230 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For instance, “of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of the victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm” (“Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?”). This statistic is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Banning firearms would prevent a substantial amount of crimes from being committed than those currently being prevented by innocent civilians using them as a defense. In fact, in nearly all cases the presence of a gun establishes a highly violent environment. An article about the pro and con arguments of gun control stated, “gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns” (“Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?”).…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Is Gun Control Good Or Bad

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Another study done between 1980 and 2009, found that banning guns and restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon in some states had an increased amount of murderers that were gun-related (Procon.org 4). Moreover gun control is not the solution in stopping crimes, according to Wilson in 2000 the comparison of people who were…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Of the 372 reported mass shootings in 2015, only a small handful is prevented due to armed citizens. (Mass shooting involves 4 or more victims either wounded or killed, including the gunman). If stricter gun control laws were already on the books, these mass murderers would not have had access to such guns, and the results would be less mass shootings. While this argument cannot be completely discredited, and it does have some ground to stand on; it is important to understand that the majority of mass shootings are creations stemming from criminals. Stricter gun control laws could only help prevent such occasions where a mentally ill shooter has access to a gun and should not.…

    • 1368 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays