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.
Gun control is a law in which determines how firearms are used, sold and who have the right to use them. There are statistics that show how most of the population of a country is in favor of owning a firearm for self-defense. In my opinion, gun control should be enforced because it will make us safer and would reduce crimes. If people use guns as self-defense then they would increase the homicide rate.
The Second Amendment of the constitution states that as an American citizen, you have the right to bear arms. While this has been one of our rights for hundred of years, some believe that this amendment causes more issues and violence. Mass shootings generally trigger the gun control debate. As the two opposing opinions disagree, along with the pro-gun right party is the National Rifle Association(NRA). On the opposing side is a group of lobbyists that have called themselves the Brady Campaign but have changed their name along the way, adding various other gun restriction advocates.
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.
In this day and age, gun control is a major debate. Many believe that guns should be banned due to gun violence, but is that absolutely necessary? However statistics and historic documents like the Second Amendment, show evidence against gun control advocates, proving that guns should not be banned in America due to gun violence.
Guns are undoubtedly dangerous yet, unlike most dangerous items they are far more controversial to talk about. There are two extreme positions on this topic that many can fall into when talking about firearms. Some want to ban guns completely, while the other side feels like guns are a right granted by our constitution and do not need regulation but instead, educate gun owners on the proper usage of a firearm. There are some flaws in both arguments. The problem with banning guns is that we should protect ourselves if the need arises.
Implementing gun control laws on domestic regulation of firearm manufactured, trade, possession, use, and transport can reduce violent killings, and suicide but policies should not focus on reducing crime via restrictions of liberty, but rather address the root causes and motivations. Gun control fails to solve the causes of gun violence in favor of political grandstanding. Studies have shown a decline and murdered victims, violence in urban areas and drug prohibition . The largest U.S. cities have seen some of the largest percentage declines.
The subject of gun control is hotly debated not only by the media and special interest groups but also by law enforcement agencies, and ordinary citizens alike. Some feel that since the Second Amendment was written before the advent of modern firearms that it is outdated. Others believe that it is an inalienable right that must be preserved in order for Americans to remain a free people. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”(archives.gov)
In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves had their lives taken away.  Could this outcome have changed if the Jews were armed with guns? Could thirteen million innocent lives have been saved? Does taking away firearms help someone in a situation like this?
Gun Control Laws always has two good argumentative sides either what should be allowed and what should not be allowed when gun Control is involved. The U.S. has more than 300 million guns every and stands out as for its gun death rates. When Japan has less than one gun per 100 people, and fewer than 10 gun deaths a year in the entire country. It Started with the violation of the second amendment that states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” meaning a man from sixteen to sixty has the right to carry weapons and the giver my should not try to stop that or take away that right . After the assassination of the president at the time John F Kennedy.
Did you know that 80% of people who commit mass shootings are using legally obtained guns? Gun control is a very controversial topic in America. The second amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Is this saying that each citizen has the right to own arms or that just the militia, or people in the army, have the right to bear arms? This highly debated topic goes two ways.