Even though people believe gun control restrictions will not prevent criminals from obtaining a firearm I believe that the united states should make restriction on who can own guns. If there was gun control restrictions there would be less shootings, less accident with kids obtaining firearm, and prevent fewer suicides.
Gun control will decrease crimes. If people that do not need guns do not have them it will lower violent crimes.In cliffnotes.com it states that “More handguns in circulation equals more violent crimes.
This explains that if too many firearms are circulating in increases the chance of violent crimes, therefore if there are less guns there will be less violent crimes. If there were gun restrictions it would make it harder for …show more content…
Put them in jail or a secure mental institution. This view seems convincing at first, but people can't just recognize a killer by just looking at them. And in the past most mass shootings, family and friends usually say the person was calm and that they would never expect something like that.
According to Erich Pratt from USA TODAY the Lafayette, La., theater; the Charleston, S.C., church; the military recruiting center in Tennessee.Guns were outlawed at all these locations, and yet the killers ignored the bans. 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, …show more content…
If someone is breaking into your house, calling 911 will probably not save you. Self-defense techniques do not provide protection against an armed attacker or more than one man. Only a gun provides the ability to defend oneself from a safe distance. Guns are also an equalizer for women and the elderly or handicapped”. What this argument does not take into account is that Americans are far more likely to injure themselves or someone else with a firearm then use it for self defence in 2012 there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's database, but only 258 fatal shootings that were deemed "justifiable" that's less than 3 percent. According to the article The Week “the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002 percent”, nearly zero.compare the self defence statistics to the accidental fatalities at home due to guns,265 children under 18 picked up a gun and shot themselves or someone else in 2015 of those 83 ended in death, which is about 31percent. This information show overall it is safer not to have a gun at
Gun control will decrease crimes. If people that do not need guns do not have them it will lower violent crimes.In cliffnotes.com it states that “More handguns in circulation equals more violent crimes.
This explains that if too many firearms are circulating in increases the chance of violent crimes, therefore if there are less guns there will be less violent crimes. If there were gun restrictions it would make it harder for …show more content…
Put them in jail or a secure mental institution. This view seems convincing at first, but people can't just recognize a killer by just looking at them. And in the past most mass shootings, family and friends usually say the person was calm and that they would never expect something like that.
According to Erich Pratt from USA TODAY the Lafayette, La., theater; the Charleston, S.C., church; the military recruiting center in Tennessee.Guns were outlawed at all these locations, and yet the killers ignored the bans. 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, …show more content…
If someone is breaking into your house, calling 911 will probably not save you. Self-defense techniques do not provide protection against an armed attacker or more than one man. Only a gun provides the ability to defend oneself from a safe distance. Guns are also an equalizer for women and the elderly or handicapped”. What this argument does not take into account is that Americans are far more likely to injure themselves or someone else with a firearm then use it for self defence in 2012 there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's database, but only 258 fatal shootings that were deemed "justifiable" that's less than 3 percent. According to the article The Week “the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002 percent”, nearly zero.compare the self defence statistics to the accidental fatalities at home due to guns,265 children under 18 picked up a gun and shot themselves or someone else in 2015 of those 83 ended in death, which is about 31percent. This information show overall it is safer not to have a gun at