Over the years, one of the more pressing issues that has been discussed in our government branches has been that of gun control; to increase, decrease, or simply leave it as it is. Gun control is the arrangement of policies and laws that regulate the dealing, manufacturing, and ownership of guns by citizens. “The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city”’ (Snyder, np). All over the nation there are gun regulations made to protect citizens, however increasing gun regulations is not the correct path to guarantee the safety of citizens. Having stricter gun control regulations
…show more content…
In 1997 the UK created the Second Firearms Act. This Act made it so all handguns were banned from civilian ownership, purchase and sale. This Act was made in response to the Dublane Massacre in 1996, which was a middle aged man shooting children in an Elementary School. After this Act was put into place, the murder rates happened to change in the wrong direction. “The rate for intentional homicide in the UK in 1996 was 1.12 per 100,000. It was 1.24 in 1997, when the Firearms Act went into effect, and 1.43 in 1998. The rate rose to a peak of 2.1 in 2002” (Flamehorse, np). In later years, the number of murders with guns decreased but the number of murder with other weapons increased. Even though murder with handguns would be decreased significantly, criminals will still find other ways to commit their crimes. Shooters will still gain access to firearms even with strict gun laws in place. For example, “In 2009, a German high school student went on a rampage and killed 15 people. He did not have a gun. He used his father’s 9 mm” (“Crux…”, np). Even with strict gun laws in place, the shooter was still able to find a weapon and commit his crime. Gun laws are all created to make the nation safer and limit the amount of criminals who have control of guns. Many people do not realize that setting strict gun laws will not have an effect on …show more content…
For example, “A sniper in a tower shot at University of Austin students for 90 minutes. The police who reacted had help. Students went to their trucks and grabbed their rifles and shot alongside of the police. It was enough to pin the shooter down and allow the police to take the shooter out” (“Crux…”, np). This rampage on August 1, 1966 made national news due to the fact that it was the first mass shooting that had occurred and most people have never heard of such a tragedy happening. Without the help of the students at the University, the police may never have been able to stop the shooting. It is proven that a high percentage of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. If more gun regulations were to be in place, then it would be near impossible to stop shootings. “Since 2002, there have been 54 mass shootings in which the assailant intended to kill large numbers of people at random, 37 of which at gun free zones” (Tyrrell, np). This shows that increasing the number of gun free zones and reducing the number of guns is not the
In 1997 the UK created the Second Firearms Act. This Act made it so all handguns were banned from civilian ownership, purchase and sale. This Act was made in response to the Dublane Massacre in 1996, which was a middle aged man shooting children in an Elementary School. After this Act was put into place, the murder rates happened to change in the wrong direction. “The rate for intentional homicide in the UK in 1996 was 1.12 per 100,000. It was 1.24 in 1997, when the Firearms Act went into effect, and 1.43 in 1998. The rate rose to a peak of 2.1 in 2002” (Flamehorse, np). In later years, the number of murders with guns decreased but the number of murder with other weapons increased. Even though murder with handguns would be decreased significantly, criminals will still find other ways to commit their crimes. Shooters will still gain access to firearms even with strict gun laws in place. For example, “In 2009, a German high school student went on a rampage and killed 15 people. He did not have a gun. He used his father’s 9 mm” (“Crux…”, np). Even with strict gun laws in place, the shooter was still able to find a weapon and commit his crime. Gun laws are all created to make the nation safer and limit the amount of criminals who have control of guns. Many people do not realize that setting strict gun laws will not have an effect on …show more content…
For example, “A sniper in a tower shot at University of Austin students for 90 minutes. The police who reacted had help. Students went to their trucks and grabbed their rifles and shot alongside of the police. It was enough to pin the shooter down and allow the police to take the shooter out” (“Crux…”, np). This rampage on August 1, 1966 made national news due to the fact that it was the first mass shooting that had occurred and most people have never heard of such a tragedy happening. Without the help of the students at the University, the police may never have been able to stop the shooting. It is proven that a high percentage of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. If more gun regulations were to be in place, then it would be near impossible to stop shootings. “Since 2002, there have been 54 mass shootings in which the assailant intended to kill large numbers of people at random, 37 of which at gun free zones” (Tyrrell, np). This shows that increasing the number of gun free zones and reducing the number of guns is not the