If the death penalty is more common it will also help to save money because less murders means less investigations, less cases, and less lethal injections or prison costs. Many worry about how the death penalty will be paid for but don’t realize how much tax money is already being used to imprison the inmates that would just be killed. In addition, the large amount of support for using the death penalty will make it easy for to be funded by taxpayers. Lastly, while not an economic benefit, the emotional relief by the victims friends and family is also a huge plus to using the death penalty more often in murder trials. There are many economic benefits that come with using the death
Also, high capacity magazines should be reduced because they increase the number of murder and injury rates. According to an investigation, at least 50% of high capacity magazines are used in 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 (procon 2). If there is a gun at home it could be easily be stolen, 1.4 million guns are stolen from US homes between 2005 and 2010 (“Right to Bear Arms” 2). Another way to prevent gun violence is to have background check and ban on assault weapons. 83% of all adults surveyed approve of background checks according to a Pew Research survey.
Semi Automatic Firearms Should Not Be Banned In 1936, John Garand invented a new concept of rifles called the M1 Garand. This rifle featured an eight round en bloc clip with semi automatic capabilities. When it was adopted and produced by the U.S. Military, General George S. Patton called it “the greatest battle implement ever devised”. But now the capabilities of semi automatic have been over exaggerated and misunderstood. Some politicians like Kevin De Leon saying “...30 bullets in half a second” when the maximum effective rate of fire from a standard semi auto AR-15 is about 80-100 rounds per minute or about 1.5 rounds per second.
The second reason is because of whether capital punishment is actually a deterrent or not. Freakonomics claims that executing 1 criminal translates into 7 fewer homicides that the criminal might have committed. Later the amount of deaths prevented through the executions are showed. However even as the increase in executions grows, we see that it only accounts for a small fraction of the drop in homicides for whatever year it is. This adds on to be a negative incentive for criminals as they have statistical proof that shows them how ineffective this punishment really is.
So because of this more gun laws should be enforced because more gun control laws would reduce gun deaths, guns are rarely used in self-defense and hunters and civilians should not own military-grade firearms and accessories. First, increased enforcement of gun control laws would reduce gun deaths such as murders and suicides. According to the Lancet, there have been 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013, (270,237 suicides, 174,773 homicides, and 9,983 unintentional deaths.) These gun death totals have increased in the last four years, and many are suicides. More gun control laws could make it so anyone couldn 't own a gun without special permission and special rules.
Some people may argue that without guns society will be a safer place. In all reality more strict guns laws will not make society a safer place. Take New York for an example, they have had very strict guns laws for a long time, but they still have one of the highest crime rate in the nation. Even if there were really strict gun laws across the nation, it wouldn’t really matter because people can still make firearms and ammo. On average it takes about 9 minutes for police to respond to emergencies.
According to the Guardian newspaper (2013), the estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000. Also, gun ownership has increased dramatically in the United States by 88.8 percent per 100 residents, and this is due to many reasons. Firstly, owning a gun by society members shouldn 't be permitted because it damages the society. According to Sarah Boseley, a journalist for the Guardian newspaper (2013), pistols do not make countries safer. US medical team has compared the
amendment is also not granted by the US constitution. To many people, the second amendment is not clear. It confuses a lot in that some people argue that those that have the rights to possess firearms for self-defense are only the military. It does not specify that the citizens have the right to own firearms for self-defense and personal use. A study conducted by a Yale Professor showed that the “shall-issue” laws resulted in a rise in the rates of the violence, crimes, rape, and robbery hence with this it could be concluded that ownership of firearms by citizens lead to an increase in the crime rates.
The average cost of one, single gun crime can even go up to $1.79 million. And, in case you didn’t know, it’s us — the taxpayers who are paying that fee. So, then, not only is it safer without each individual owning a firearm, it’s also much cheaper — and, therefore, more practical. But, back to reality, where, in America, three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns; this may not seem like a problem now, but if robbed or accidents are to happen, you would surely see why this is can be a large risk factor. In fact, according to multiple surveys, 44% of Americans personally know someone who has been shot by a gun.
It is absolutely necessary because it’ll help protect people against the power of the national government. In fact, if there is no limit to what the government can and can’t do, it is safe to say that they could also possibly abuse the people’s rights, taking away our freedom, liberty, etc. As a matter of fact, if we do have a Bill of Rights, it sets limits in place and provides the people’s protection from being exploited by a simple weakness. Similarly, there’s also no mention of freedom of religion, speech, or press. Since these freedoms aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, the government is allowed to exercise authority over these freedoms.