Another study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center reported that the most self defense gun uses are illegal, even if the defendant had a license and described the event honestly. This is basically stating that the majority of self defense uses with guns are for escalated arguments. People often say having guns in the house is best to protect themselves from harm, but more than likely, the person trying to harm them is their spouse or significant other (“Gun Threats”). However, when self defense is used, it is more often than than not ineffective. The National Crime Victimization Surveys display little evidence that defending oneself with guns is helpful in reducing the likelihood of injury or death.
Every country have a different of gun control law. We can’t expect that gun control can effective in reducing crime rates in every country. V. CONCLUSION Summarize/ Rephrase Thesis Statement: In a nutshell, gun control is not effective in reducing the crimes rates. Although Australia had success in gun control but there were still have the other reasons why gun control is not effective in reducing crime. Such as, the non-firearm crime, and the cause is from the owners not the guns.
Less gun, more beautiful life Now, gun ownership is being legalized in many countries, but crimes committed by the people who have guns are likely to imminently endanger the life or property safety of innocent citizens. There has been a mass shootings in the United States recently (Newman & Hartman 2017). As a result, it made the controversial topic “whether the government should control guns more strictly” have more debate value. Gun control is defined as a way that aim for “protecting the safety of citizens through limits on and regulation of firearms” (“GUN CONTROL:A.” 1984). There is an argument that the government may control the number of people can legally posses a gun and the time the people could posses a gun more strictly.
The answer is obvious: crime. But why does the United States have such a higher rate of incarceration compared to other countries? According to an article done in TheEconomist.com, one of the biggest causes of incarceration is the harsh drug penalties. State legislatures began passing laws that meted out the mandatory-minimum sentences for drug-related crimes, but this still did not make that big of a difference. In fact, according to a chart done by Prospect.org, the majority (52%) of inmates in federal prison are there because of drug related victims.
Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened. Kristof somewhat effectively argues that if guns and their owners were controlled in the same way that cars and their drivers are, thousands of lives could be protected each year by using persuasive techniques. Kristof’s essay adequately compares car regulations to gun control. He is extremely comprehensive on reasons why we should have gun regulations similar to automobiles controls. Kristof contrasts the statistics of firearm and automobile deaths to move the readers to harmonize with his opinion of the subject.
While on the other hand, there are many more articles that go along with Adam Winkler 's side for the negative views of having a gun in a school area. Gun violence in college and universities does not happen as often as killings in a home or on the street happen on a daily. Guns in a learning environment wouldn 't help out as much as if there were none. In countless articles and many places on the media scene, it is out there that having a gun is not as safe as having no guns. The are many negative views for those who believe in no guns.
Yes, education about guns would be good but for example, all most everyone knows what drugs, smoking, alcohol does to one but that does not stop them. Some readers could argue that strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. However, these are two different countries and citizens, what might not work there might work wonderfully here. Some many think gun control laws such as background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Some might think it is but it will let one know if giving the firearm to a safe person or not, in fact, many said that about the Patriot Act, an act that was passed to try to stop the terrorist from hurting anyone by eavesdropping, but that act stop many terrorist before creating a
‘In the late 1980s, gun control groups realized that they had failed in their original goal—getting handguns banned—and began campaigning against semi-automatic firearms they called "assault weapons," most of which are rifles’(“A ban on assault weapons would not reduce crime”). From 1994 to 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons (F.D.A) banned semi automatic weapons from having more than 10 rounds. The easiest way to define gun control is by saying it a government regulation sale of any type of handgun, or assault rifle. It’s just a certain style the government sales firearms, if you have a criminal background or criminal history you are not allowed to purchase a firearm due to gun control. I personally think gun control doesn’t cause any harm to today’s society, considering the fact that i’m constantly around guns and I have no violent urge to put anyone in danger.
On one side people say the federal government's involvement in gun laws would infringe upon people’s second amendment rights. On the other side, people say the government should act. In the case, in increasing gun laws the federal government should act. Since the beginning of the United States the choice of gun law has been left to the states and because of this many states have lackadaisical about implementing gun laws. Currently, Idaho and Montana don’t have any of the seven regulations stated above.
But this actually disproves juvenile advocates reliance on the “underdeveloped brain” argument. If brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world(Jenkins 91). This is something that doesn’t happens, you won’t be seeing teens around the world murdering people. Brain development is just something people don’t understand how it really works and use this argument to try to lower criminals culpability. In conclusion as to how to treat teens who commit crimes I would say that it really depends on how serious is the crime they commit, but I believe that juveniles that are 15 and older should be convicted as adults because they have taken some responsibilities at that age and are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong in certain situations.
For the most part, individuals with a severe mental illness are not violent and thus, placing gun restraints on everyone with a severe mental illness would not target the correct subgroup that would most likely conduct violence (McGinty et al., 2013). Another concern about banning weapons from people with severe mental illness is that the policies cause the population to develop harmful ideas about individuals with severe mental illness (McGinty et al., 2013. Consequently, people with severe mental illness do not go into treatment (McGinty et al., 2013). Misconceptions about severe mental illness are not the only contributors to stigma; labels can also have a large effect on how the general population feels about those with severe mental
There are laws to protect and make it legal by obtaining a license in the state in which an individuals is purchasing a gun but that do not stop the black market. Gun control laws and violence with in different states is a clear view that the gun control laws/bans are not really helpful in today’s society. I feel that the law did not abolish the black market of gun purchases therefore people are still purchasing guns illegally for what the state ban in the first place. Now for those individuals who have no criminal background and obtain a gun for recreational purposes (hunting or protection/depends on state laws) within that state then it is
One limitation of this map is that there are no names on the states. It is not necessary to have states labeled, but on this particular map, you would need them. How would you know Bost 2 which state is which if you weren 't too familiar with the map? How would the reader be able to tell that the most crimes were committed in the state of California, if you aren’t very familiar with it? Or that West Virginia had less crimes than all the states around it?