In the article," How to Reduce Shootings", by Nicolas Kristoff in The New York Times Kristoff claims how automobiles could kill as many people as guns but they don't because we regulate them and limit easy access to automobiles. "We don't ban cars, but we work hard to regulate them - and limit access to them – so as to reduce the death toll they cause. This has been spectacularly successful, reducing the death rate per 100 million miles driven by 95 percent since 1921" (Kristoff). Regulations that could be added before accessing guns to help reduce gun violence are banning people under 21 to purchase firearms, background checks, and banning bump stocks. Cars have been regulated greatly since 1921 and the death toll has gone down to 95 percent for every 100 million miles driven, if we regulate guns the way we do with cars the death toll could also go down greatly and we wouldn't have to worry about these shootings happening.
According to an article by the name of “The research is clear: gun control saves lives” by German Lopez, it says, “A more recent study from 2013, led by a Boston University School of Public Health researcher, reached multiple conclusions: After controlling for multiple variables, the study found that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level.” If more gun control laws were passed, it would be more difficult to get a gun. As a result, there would be fewer deaths by guns. The homicide rate would be positively impacted since people wouldn’t have guns to commit any shootings or crimes. Conversely, others may say that even though passing gun control laws will lower gun deaths, the general homicide rate will still continue to rise. It is understood that the homicide rate will still continue to increase even with gun control laws.
According to the article, the author suggested that passing more laws is not the useful solution of decreasing criminal rate. That is true the existence of estimate 260 million guns in the country raised the shooting death rate. We might build some places gun-free, but we cannot destroy all the guns. The killer can still bring guns to the gun-free zones from other places. In addition, the author suggested we should focus on dealing with dangerous and unstable personalities.
Gun violence occurs based on the unstable people in control of the gun not the gun itself. Likewise why should the government have to deal with these problems. The court system should not have to deal with these cases on gun violence they have more important problems to deal with. Court systems should not have to deal with unstable people who own and gun who have caused panic throughout their town or city. Stated in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control”, “ Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.” This shows the court could waste a lot of money funding gun classes when they could be funding something more important like schools or homes for homeless people.Along with this fact why should mentally unstable citizens own a gun in the first place.
Brad Pitt has said in the past "I feel better having a gun. I don't feel the house is completely safe, if I don't have one hidden somewhere." Also, Washington DC attorney general Karl A Racine said that, “We believe that the District’s gun laws are reasonable and necessary to ensure public safety in a dense urban area.” The actual problem is not the gun, it’s the person. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. This is a very common statement used by many people.
It’s tragic to say that gun violence, such as mass shootings happen so often in today’s society. Compared to countries around the world, the United States has the highest mass shooting rate. In our country we tend to blame our mass shootings and homicides on guns, but without a human behind it guns are harmless. Instead of banning these firearms all together, which may only cause an uprising in illegally owning guns, why don’t we strengthen our gun control laws? By banning people the right to carry and own a gun, we are restricting them of their basic rights.
Similarly, bettering the control of who the guns are being sold to would prevent the guns from getting in the hands of the wrong people. For instance, requiring yearly background checks for anyone who purchases any type of gun would add more control to these weapons being in the proper hands. In states that require a background check for all handgun sales, had 52% fewer mass
In the United States of America certain regulations are definitely necessary for public safety. The regulations are there to better the nation and not further control it. The government can not get rid of everyone 's right to own and keep a gun but, they can simply control the amount of guns able to be purchased. Therefore, the government is not taking away peoples guns but, simply regulating those who can or cant not own them to better protect the citizens of America. And thus any remarks about the government taking away peoples guns are untrue, the government is doing this for everyone 's well
In today 's society, weapon brutality is a sparking debate and controversy on how to control gun violence. Anyone who thinks that we have enough gun control laws is either the NRA, or severely misguided individuals. All across the nation, a large number of laws and directions have been made to help in the control of firearms. Through much research, the gun laws and regulations have very little effect on the number of firearm-related deaths and injuries. More needs to be done to establish an effective way to create stricter gun laws to help reduce violence.
Residents of the United States can, and do state that more gun control and assault rifle laws would reduce gun deaths. Senator Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, asserted "This happens nowhere else, other than the United States of America. It only happens here, not because of coincidence, not because of bad luck, but as a consequence of our inaction. We are responsible for a level of mass atrocity that happens in this country with zero parallel anywhere else” (Lopez). Citizens can conclude, through research and data, more gun control would lead to fewer suicides.
People also “...support the rights of hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen.” (openreader.org).Criminals are already breaking the law, so adding more won 't deter them. “Criminals will get hold of guns – indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one – and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever.” (bigthink.com). Gun control laws do not help deter, and only slightly inconvenience them. Guns are a high trade item in the US, so there are definitely many other illegal sources. Also making strict gun laws takes power from the people.
Senate bill S.649, introduced by Sen. Harry Reid in 2013, greatly oversteps just sales of firearms. The bill states that “It shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter.” (Kopel) Simply put, this means handing any gun to another person can be a federal crime. Say you were hunting with a friend, and have your friend put your gun in the car, or such. You would now be a felon! Even if you were teaching firearms safety, if your pupils handled the gun, you would be a criminal.
Millions of guns each year are sold without a criminal background check, there is no way to know if a person who is openly carrying an AK-47 is a responsible gun owner, or if that person is a threat to moms and children. Making sure children are safe is one of the most important steps to a great nation people take and allowing the carry gun law to be legal is not a step forward but a step back. The community worries the most about our next generation because they have the key to the
As handguns become more accessible to a larger variety of persons within a limited area the rates will rise due to availability (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2013). Overall guns on campuses will result in the cons heavily outweighing the pros. There are more efficient ways to keep students safe than allowing concealed handguns on college campuses. Allowing firearms will escalate sparse occurrences of school shootings. Suicidal deaths among the student population will also increase as more than half of all college students already consider suicide, the presence of a firearm will only increase the risk more (Neuberger, Joan and Spiro, Ellen, 2015).
If we would get rid of guns, that would trigger a whole new battle of crime to worry about. We would have to worry about the rape crime going up if Americans weren’t allowed to have guns. Today the world is not safe against anything, why take away the source of keeping this world semi safe. Our 2nd amendment wasn’t used for just the military. “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.” I get were the critics think that the word militia means military, but that’s simply not true.