Gun Control Will Not Reduce Crime In the past few years, the debates of gun control in the United States are never stop. People consider gun control as a way to protect ordinary citizens. Unfortunately, gun control seems perfect, but it cannot stop criminals to obtain guns illegally. Gun control represents no guns and shootings, but in another way, it also means no resistance. Gun control laws create safe environment for criminals rather than other people, because only criminals would get guns if the government prohibit owning guns.
Citizens need to stand up and not take the blame for other individuals who choose to inflict harm. Law-abiding citizens should not be penalized for the actions of a few deranged people. It is true some weapons do not belong in the hands of untrained people, and the National Rifle Association has been instrumental in pushing for responsibility and safety on the part of gun owners without imposing too much on the Second Amendment right (Kopel). Critics such as David DeGrazia of George Washington University argue that private ownership of handguns leads to more social harms than it prevents (Hsiao and Bernstein). David DeGrazia proposes a moderate control of guns meaning that only individuals with a need for self-protection be allowed to own a gun and only after a complete course in safety (Hsiao and Berstein).
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.
There just might be an opportunity to solve the problem of mass murders caused by disturbed individuals with guns. If we can get the politicians to stop talking long enough to listen. They may realize they are both wrong on the issue of gun control. Note how carefully I chose my words there. Guns do not kill people.
He supports his argument by saying that making strict gun laws will lead to a time where only the terrorists and bad guys will have guns, leaving the other citizens unarmed and unprotected. He believes that the people are responsible for killings with firearms and not the guns. The first and second debaters in text 2 share the same attitude towards gun laws as Donald Trump. The text compares guns with cars. It talks about that even though cars kill many people every year they are not banned, so why should guns be banned.
13,286 people were killed by guns in America in 2015. These numbers haven’t gotten better- and when we look past the thoughts and prayers, nothing is being done by the government to lower the rates of gun brutality in the United States. Current legislation prioritizes the individual’s access to guns over a society’s need to reduce gun violence, often using the second amendment as justification. There is no good reason not to fix American gun laws and make them more restrictive- the second amendment cannot be applied, many other countries have found than gun deaths are lowered and gun violence almost eliminated by stricter gun laws, and guns are easily accessible to those who are mentally ill or otherwise unfit to own a firearm in America.
In this case, the AR 15 seems to go against the ultimate goal of protecting people. Therefore, Aristotle would ask who should have sole responsibility of the purchased AR 15 gun? Should the person who purchased the gun also be punished for not keeping a close eye on their gun? In weighing these three aspects, I believe that Aristotle would not have been able to make a decision of whether AR 15’s should be banned. Instead, I think he would have tried to figure out what the “mean between extremes.” The AR 15 should be able to shoot far enough where the civilians can protect themselves from a distance, but not so far that the gun can be used to hurt someone on purpose.
In theory if the numbers of gun violence drop, taxpayers will be paying less in taxes. Women are the main victims when it comes to domestic violence and by enforcing the gun laws the numbers of death from a domestic relationship will drop. The significance of enforcing the gun laws is to make the rate of gun related violence to go down by making sure anyone who is trying to buy a weapon is not going to do anything illegal with it. It is just to ensure that those who have a gun are not inquired hurt their loved
We are unable to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho's act of the mass killings could have been stopped but what we do know is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that lawmakers want to see. Having guns in the right hands can be influential in stopping crime and having fewer guns in the wrong hands can make for more crime. Therefore, this makes gun control not equivalent to crime
According to “Gun Control,” these “High-Risk” folk are purchasing firearms because of the flawed system (“Gun Control”). People opposed to gun control argue that taking guns from the citizens does not prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, as they will just get them illegally anyways. People who oppose gun licensing, mandatory waiting periods and background checks argue that the “normal” gun owners must and do these things, not the criminals. They also argue that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they think their victims may be armed. Notably, another viable source of information is Bitto, Dana, and Elisa Juliano’s report on the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting in 2012.