People argue that taking away these guns from normal abiding citizens does not stop criminals from obtaining these weapons. (Zimring 441) Nobody knows if this is true or not, but it is a legitimate argument for those who want the ability to own guns. They also argue that criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if they know that the victim is armed. (Zimring 441) This could be true as well, but there have been no dramatic difference in the number of deaths without or with the laws. Some also argue that gun control laws take away people’s second amendment right to bear arms.
In addition, if lawmakers are able to create new gun control laws they would be helping decrease burglary rates. Therefore, new laws created would lower the chance of burglary, because the individual who is planning on robbing would not have easy access to a harmful weapon, such as a gun. A thief would be less likely to rob, because with the gun control laws in place they are less threatening. Without having a weapon, catching the intruder would be an easier assignment. Crime rates have dropped in the western nations, but not as drastically as in the United States (Bailey and Borwein).
People often wonder why guns are legal for citizens to own. Guns are put to blame for much of the crime that happens in the world but it is the people that do the crime not the guns. Gun control laws have been debated about and tried to be put in place for many years in the United States. There are laws restricting some types of weapons and where weapons can be used but some people want more laws controlling all guns and some wanting to ban all guns. Many people promoting gun laws are not educated on some of the statistics and ways that guns save and protect innocent people.
In the year 2014 much debate began on gun laws and whether they should be authorized. This political fight became a disputable issue among Americans. A source at the Smithsonian said, “More Americans thought it was important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than to control gun ownership.” Most Americans believe that their gun ownership is unrelated to someone else 's gun use in crimes. Many people want strict gun control but that won 't help because mass shooters don 't follow the law; strict gun laws won 't reduce violence and the removal of guns would leave people defenseless, especially in a time where terrorism is rampant. Making gun control more strict won 't really make it harder for mass shooters.
Most of which are unarmed. This is usually only in developing countries but this has spread into the United States. We need legal arms to protect ourselves. An argument from the other side is, why not just hire more police officers to help us be more safe and secure. This isn’t really solving the problem, because the police response time isn’t really fast enough in life or death situations.
"The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them." Most can agree that, with gun control laws make it hard to own a gun and with such few people owning guns, criminals can’t steal guns. On the other hand, gun control laws don’t make it impossible to own a gun, therefore guns can still be stolen. “Even if the gun owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and would never use it in furtherance of a crime, is it likely that the same can be said for the burglar who steals the gun?” Admittedly, it is true that without people owning guns, criminals can’t obtain a gun by stealing it. However, if you do have a gun you won’t use it for anything wrong, but anyone who steals our gun can.
It seems to be very plausible that criminals can still illegally trade firearms even under strict gun regulations, and law-abiding citizens cannot protect themselves when they don’t have access to guns. Yet, there are two logical fallacies tied to this argument. First, gun control policies do not necessarily deprive the rights to owning a gun for law-abiding citizens. For instance, under the strict background check system, people with clean criminal records are still able to acquire a permit to purchase guns and protect themselves when incidents happen. Second, as Michael Boylan wrote in his book, since a large number of gun owners do not regularly use their guns, they are not prepared enough to cope with dangerous situations (130).
An article in the National Journal dispels the belief that improving mental health treatment will combat mass shootings. It states that multiple of the mass shooters in America had “no contact with the mental-health system” (Sanger-Katz, 2013). It is also states that statistics show that violent crimes are not often committed by the mentally ill. The belief by opponents is that because guns require something or someone to trigger them, they cannot kill on their own and the answer is not to limit the access to them. Because that would limit “the good guys” from owning them also.
The Democratic party 's views are reasonable enough to grasp, although the proposition offends Republican citizens. By having gun control in the states, suicides, homicides, and overall violence could decrease drastically. Citizens would no longer have to fear walking the streets alone at night or anything of that sort, or unarmed citizens getting shot by other citizens. The people of the States, tourists, and visitors will feel safer and more secure going about their days knowing there is a gun control act in place and although this will not stop all gun-related violence, this will decrease it. The safety of the People is more important than the violent and life-threatening American tradition.
Zakaria writes, “The United States could do better, but we take mental disorders seriously and invest more in this area than do many peer countries.” He then goes on to say “There will always be evil or disturbed people.” While Zakaria is correct that “There will always be disturbed people” his assertion is still difficult to accept. These “disturbed people” should be focused on, he fails to realize that the focus in other issues such as mental health issues could lead to a decrease in “gun violence” in the country. Gun issues cannot be the only issue focused on while there is other important issues to be dealt with also, like a mental disorder that cannot be avoided. Zakaria’s entire argument rest on the idea that “easy access to guns” are somehow more important than any other thing going on. Furthermore, by asserting that gun violence can stop, with more attention Zakaria forgets that that’s how gun violence
When putting cars into the statement, you realize cars aren’t meant to kill people. He says, obviously cars should not be illegal, but notice that this has nothing to do with the fact that they are proximate causes. (Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do?). Cars do in fact kill people just like guns do but they both don’t just get up and say “Hey! I want to kill someone today.” There has to be a person behind the wheel, or behind the firearm.
Those who properly own guns would not be able to defend themselves if a situation came to that point. Making something illegal means that its production will spread into homes of such criminals, thus possibly making weapons less safe. New, stronger gun laws are not the answer. “The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law abiding citizens while would-be criminals ignore them.” (Lott) We need to work on enforcing current gun laws to ensure the safety of others. While there should be a background check, looking at criminal history, history of
Truth be told, they vision gun control laws with the same disregard that they outlook laws against murder. The argument that more or better gun control will hinder some killers avoids the fact that these standards make it difficult for law-abiding Americans to practice their original, domestic and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
The asinine idea of gun control Gun violence in America isn’t a gun problem it’s a people problem. By limiting access of firearms you limit the freedoms and right to protect yourself and the ones you love. Not only are the rights of the people being infringed but banning firearms is unconstitutional and unfair to the people. I find it very interesting that people high up in our political system are still so blind to the facts. Less than 1% of all gun crimes are used with legally obtained firearms.
Gun limitation is an unpopular opinion, and the elimination of guns altogether can be protested with evidence from the Constitution. The Second Amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms, and there is a section of the document that states that the “pursuit of happiness” is a right that the government is not allowed to remove. Granted, the pursuit of happiness argument is unstable, because the ending of lives due to guns is another violation of the constitution, but the argument is valid for those who use guns responsibly, and do no harm to others with them. Even though eliminating guns is an unpopular opinion, the evidence still point to the fact that mass shooting numbers have increased substantially in the most recent decade. There are however, some people who have a viewpoint on the other end of the spectrum-meaning that they want no restrictions on guns at all.