Five Arguments Against Gun Control

According to Gun Violence Archive (GVA) “as of today there is a total of 27,645 of gun incidents in the United States, of this total, 7,151 are deaths, 14,749 injuries, 319 are children between the ages of 0 to 11 years old, 1,551 are teens between the ages of 12 to 17, 179 of this incidents correspond to a number of mass shootings, 171 are officers that were either killed or injured, 960 were individuals involved with crime, 1,160 due to home invasion, only 849 are use in defense and 1,179 correspond to accidental” (Gun Violence Archive, 1). Due to high numbers on statistics regarding gun violence a lot of people wonder if by giving the right to people to keep arms is keeping them safe or turning them into a menace to society. Some people believe that gun control will not deter crime and it will prevent citizens from protecting themselves. However, some other individuals believe that gun control will reduce gun

The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes.

Topic: Ownership of Guns for non-professional reasons should be illegal in the United States General Purpose: To argue. Specific Purpose: The specific purpose of this speech is to argue for outlawing private gun ownership in the United States. Central Idea/Thesis Statement: Private ownership of guns in the United States should be illegal. Various specific reasons are presented to support this statement: (1) Banning private ownership of firearms, and, their distribution, would save a large number of lives that are lost as the result of gun violence.

During the late 1990’s and early 2000’s murder rate was considerably increased with stricter laws regarding firearms. In central Russia, where handguns were banned, the murder rate was about 10 times more than Finland, where handguns were legal. Not only was the murder rate 10 times more than in Finland, but it was about 25 times more than Norway, where handguns were legal [3]. This is just one example of how guns can reduce murder rate. Another example is “Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country.

In this world, there are too many people that have died from guns. Some of them have died in large-scale attacks, some of them were in a gun accident. Many want more gun control laws to be passed. In fact, the gun control law must be passed through, because this can be more effective to protect people.

A stronger focus on gun control in the United States involving restriction or even an outright ban of guns could serve to help the problem greatly. In 2015, 13,286 people were killed by firearms in the United States, with 26,819 suffering from non-lethal injuries (qtd. in “Guns in the US”). Taking away guns, the means that many urban criminals have to commit their crimes, would be very beneficial to cities. Recent studies found that the most effective way of reducing gun crime is to lower the amount of guns available in circulation. In the US specifically, studies show that the stricter gun laws are in a state, the lower the amount of deaths related to guns occur (Graham). While many believe that further restrictions on guns would not be feasible, both Australia and the United Kingdom managed to highly restrict or ban guns from their nations in order to reduce gun-related deaths and crime (Graham). Australia was able to rid the country of around 650,000 guns and their rate of robberies per 100,000 people sank from about 100 to 60 (cite later 1). This program of complete gun confiscation costed Australia $230 million. If a program of the same relative scale were to be done in the States, it would cost the government around $4 billion (Rieck). The alternative to a complete gun ban would be simply to restrict gun laws to make it much more difficult for a dangerous individual to purchase a gun. Background checks for all purchases of guns would become a requirement and

As the ideal utilitarian approach focuses on the concept that the good will outweigh the bad, the good through gun control is easily identified through the way it will reduce the amount of violence as the restrictions of guns will reduce casualties. This has become the fundamental argument for the proponent camp where it is also seen how proponents argue the fact that “guns kill people” following cases of gun violence. As seen in the example of the cases that are ongoing in Baltimore, Maryland and Compton, California, these represents the clear fact that gun control is needed. The society will be a better place and it will be in the interest of the overall society for gun control to be needed. The clear advantages and good will be shown through the reduction of gun violence.

Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill

Much of the violent activity that happens in young people are attributed to youth gangs from poor society and inner-city neighborhoods. Easy access to guns can cause violence and threat more common in drug dealing, and gang fights (Lane, 104). Thus, it is necessary to have greater restriction on gun ownership and use, which would lead to a peaceful environment and reduced gun deaths and crimes in the

Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states.

Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.

Problem Solution Paper 95% of people think that america needs stricter gun control laws, yet the amount of shootings in the past years has risen exponentially. Gun violence is a serious problem and the people of the United States have wanted to solve this problem this for a long time. If people feel scared to go to school (which should be a safe learning environment for all children and all ages) that is a problem, and it needs to be solved, or at the very least put in barriers to deal with the mental disabilities and amount of guns associated with this problem. There has been an exponential rise in shootings in America since the 20th century. In the 20th century there were 226 shootings, in the first 18 years of the 21st century there have been 211 shootings.

Justification of Gun Control In other to justify my argument, first I will have to define the meaning of ‘’Gun control’’. Gun control can be defined as the limiting of gun ownership in the society. My argument can be supported by a very reasonable utilitarian argument. However, by restricting gun ownership, the tendency of people getting injured or killed by guns will be reduced.

Gun Control Gun control has become a polarizing and controversial issue around the globe. There have been many reported issues of mass shootings both in schools and in the public, making it a hot button issue. Proponents argue that, if the government strictly controls the ownership of guns, such tragedies can be prevented. Most Americans have an obsession with guns because the law allows them to do so. Therefore, they are always ready to scoff at anyone trying to control gun ownership.

First and foremost, banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining and committing crimes with them. Furthermore, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Lastly, guns prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive. At first, one may think that banning guns would be a superb solution to the growing problem of gun violence.