In the wake of the recent string of mass shootings, the issues of gun control and gun rights have continued to be a national prominence. The frequencies of the occurrence of these mass shootings have desensitized many of the public. These mass shootings bring up an important issue and question at hand. Does limiting access to assault weapons reduce crime, more importantly mass shootings? Introduction In regard to the main question, as mentioned above, the independent variable is limiting access to assault weapons, while the dependent variable is crime, specifically mass shootings in this particular case. The perpetrator of Florida’s deadly school shooting in Parkland purchased his military-assault weapon legally. As did the perpetrators in …show more content…
“We have found that when large capacity magazines [and assault weapons] are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.” (Klarevas, 2018) It is unrealistic to imagine all gun access to be nonexistent, the cease of access to any type of gun causes chaos in its own sense, and illegal weapons would be purchased, which would ensure even worse repercussions. A gun ban is not realistic, however gun control is. Critics argue limiting deadly assault weapons does not solve the nation’s gun issue. The critics also correctly argue, that the vast majority of gun related deaths are committed with handguns, making the significance of an assault weapons ban on the overall crime rate minimal. Supporters of an assault weapons ban, like Senator Dianne Feinstein, argues for the goal of the bans is to prevent horrific mass shooting incidents, not stop the run-of-the-mill gun violence that kills multiple Americans each day. Feinstein, along with many other colleagues, introduced an assault weapons ban in the Senate after the Sutherland Springs shooting in Texas. “This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets,” Feinstein said in a statement. “Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.” Feinstein 's bill would ban 205 specific “military-style assault weapons” by name, and it more broadly bans firearms containing a detachable magazine and one or more “military characteristics,” including “a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Multiple people live in certain environments where they need these types of weapons to protect them. By banning assault weapons this might ruin their entire life. On the “New York Post”, they state banning of assault weapons is nothing but a symbolism and will not be a difference. The article states this because even if assault weapons were to ban, there will still be handguns and all types of firearms out there. Americans who had an assault weapon before, will still continue to have it.
‘’Guns are responsible for over thirty-three thousand deaths in the United States annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).. In 2014, the CDC reported that 11,008 of the 15,872 homicides committed in the United States that year involved a firearm. Of the 42,826 suicides reported that year, 21,386 involved a firearm. These statistics have inspired efforts at the federal and state levels to enact gun control legislation to reduce crime and violence’’(‘’Gun Control’’). According to the statistic guns are held for over 33,000 deaths in the United States.
The shootings that have happened in schools throughout America over the past few months has divided Americans on what they need to do as a nation to stop additional shootings from occouring. Many believe that creating new laws on buying weapons by requiring background checks, holding adults liable for the actions of their kids and requiring safety devices on weapons to stop youngsters will stop these massacres in schools from happening, it 's a step in the right direction, however, it 's not good enough nor is it effective enough, America needs well regulated gun laws and the politicians must understand that the laws should be based on facts, not opinions. There are several problems that need to be looked at in order to determine which laws are necessary. According to a recent study, America has the highest amount gun related deaths every year in the world. “Germany, has 371 gun related deaths, France 255, Canada 165, the united kingdom 68, Australia 65, Japan 39 and America, 11,200”.
The article “Assault Weapons” supports this claim, “Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have repeatedly been used to commit some of the worst mass shootings in modern U.S. history, and they contribute to the daily toll of gun violence in communities around the country” (“Assault Weapons”). Assault weapons allow for mass shooters to kill many more people at a faster rate than if they had a different weapon, an assault weapon ban could stop this. Assault weapons are also one of the most common choices for mass shooters and criminals in general. An assault weapon ban could only help America. This is wrong as assault weapons aren’t the most used weapons in mass shootings, for example, "The majority of mass shooters use handguns, and the overwhelming majority of school shooters do not legally purchase their weapons but instead took them from family members" ("Gun Control").
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.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for years and numerous solutions have been proposed and enacted. The debate sparked after tragic civilian attacks, like school shootings. An example, is the tragedy in 1999 at Columbine High School. Two teens attacked the school, killing 13 people and wounding more than 20 others before killing themselves. Following this attack, numerous solutions have been argued and purposed.
Gun control is what restricts people from buying and using guns, but these laws are not strengthened at the extent they need to be strengthened. This leads to many people getting these guns and using them to cause mass shootings all over the U.S. For example, according to the Council on Foreign Relationship, a news article that covers major world issues, in 2017, mass shootings at a music festival in Las Vegas and at a church near San Antonio have rekindled the gun control debate (“U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons”). The fact that gun control is still not tightened is a huge margin and error, and still causes mass shootings as we just covered. Many people have said that we should not allow guns to be purchased, which would seem like the logical option. However, according to the same source, Council on Foreign Relationship, some states, such as Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify
This particular gun can be customized to kill even more efficiently with bump-fire stocks, which are completely legal (2018). The accessibility and popularity of this gun has made it the weapon of choice for many. This type of weapon has no place on the streets and neighborhoods of American people, which is why a ban on semiautomatic weapons and bump-fire stocks would prevent such lethal shootings, like the Orlando nightclub shooting where 50 people were killed or the Las Vegas shooting where 58 people were killed on the streets (The Washington Post, 2018). Many will say that a gun is a gun or that mass killings could be done with a knife, however, allowing anyone to buy a semiautomatic weapon and customize it to shoot at fast as an automatic gun that is used to fight in war combat is certainly not
‘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.
During the assault weapons ban of 1994, gun deaths were significantly low, as shown in a graph in the Washington Post. This shows that another ban on assault weapons, and possibly a permanent one, could largely impact the force leading to gun violence and
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.
In fact, this issue is broad and has different faces depending on which angle you look at it. This paper will analyze the different faces of the issue, those who are mostly affected by gun violence, the areas with the most numbers of gun related violence as well as the periods that were mostly
The number of incidents of gun violence last year in the United States was about 60,000. In recent years, the number of mass shooting has risen to about one mass shooting per day in the United States. The country is divided with some wanting to reevaluate our gun control laws and either ban or add additional regulations to the purchase of guns. Others say it is our right for Americans to own guns and something the founding fathers considered important to put in the Bill of Rights. The number of firearm sales has risen with the number of mass shooting many Americans question if banning guns or certain guns could help decrease the number of gun violence deaths.
Moorhouse, John C, and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Ebscohost, 1 Jan. 2006, web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=db378b8b-d9e7-4ee7-b26c-460bc1177bd4%40sessionmgr4008. Moorhouse and Wanner, in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, studied whether or not gun control reduced gun violence in individual states. The overarching theme throughout the individual states is that gun control doesn’t reduce gun violence and is very ineffective.
Even if assault weapons are banned, who is to say that other weapons can’t be used to commit crimes. Handguns, revolvers, and knives are just some weapons that can be used to commit crimes. From 1994 to 2004, Congress banned the manufacture, sale, and transfer of large amounts of assault weapons. However, a study conducted by the Department of Justice in 2004 found that there was no evidence that the ban on assault weapons had any effect on crime or gun violence, and that if it were to be renewed, it would have only a small effect. Even though there are many mass shootings in the US, assault weapons are actually not even connected to a significant amount of crime in the US.