Gun Control Laws Will NOT Reduce Crime Essay

Gun Control Laws have been proven ineffective. Cities like Chicago and Detroit have very strict gun control laws, yet they have some of the highest crime rates, whereas cities with more guns have lower crime rates. Places that have a higher rate of gun ownership, have less murders. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from breaking the law. Criminals will still obtain firearms, or

With the popular culture providing positive images of guns, the United States has a gun prevalence that is very rare in the modern world. While many people appreciate the “gun culture”, guns are heavily involved in violence in the United States. According to U.S. Department of Justice, since 1960, more than 750,000 Americans have died under firearms, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries. The figure 1 provides a comprehensive survey of U.S. violent crimes for the period from 1993 to 2011.This figure illustrates that from 1993 to 2011, about 60% to 70% of homicides were associated with a firearm. Over the same period, between 6% and 9% of all nonfatal violence, with about 20% to 30% of robberies and 22% to 32% of aggravated assaults involving a firearm.

* It was found that “criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.” Studies show that the number of respondents claiming to be victims of gun violence outnumbered those claiming to have used a gun in self-defense by more than 4 to 1.

“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it”. -- Clint Eastwood

The most common reason why people argue that they need to have a gun is for safety, so they can protect themselves against burglars. If a burglar would come into your house, you would have a better chance defending yourself and your family with a gun, than if you did not have a gun. The number of concealed weapon owners is at an all time high. In comparison the number of homicides had drastically decreased alongside the growing rate of legal concealed weapons. This number had been nearly cut in half in the past 20 years(Goldberg).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies,[16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries.[17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have

The only reason for our nation to enact gun control laws is to reduce violent crime. There is no other logical reason for gun control outside of reducing crime. If gun control proves to be ineffective in reducing crime rates then why have it? While researching this I found time after time where statistics have shown laws such as banning handguns to be completely ineffective in reducing crime rates and I also found where allowing the carry of these same weapons resulting in a reduction of crime rates. One of the major aspects that should be heavily considered by those wanting to take away the legal ownership of firearms in the U.S is that we would also be taking them away from the people who have weapons for their intended purpose. Washington DC had a law in place from 1976 through 2008 that made it illegal for residence to possess handguns and also required trigger locks on all other firearms rendering them useless. During this period of time murder rates in DC were seventy six

Researchers at the University of Alabama have conducted studies trying to find links between guns and mass shootings (Michaels). There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in America today. In fact, “the total number of guns in circulation is at least 240 million” (Ballaro and Finley). Adam Lankford, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama, suggests that “America’s high rate of public mass shootings is connected with the number of guns circulating in the country” (Michaels). Implementing stricter gun laws would cause fewer people to want to purchase guns, resulting in fewer guns in circulation in the coming years. In the United States, “around 30,000 people die from gun fire each year. Around half of these are murders, a little less than half are suicides, and the rest are lethal accidents” (Ballaro and Finley). (2) Currently there are several million guns in circulation, and gun deaths in America are higher than any other developed country. (5) If the trend continues, the number of gun deaths will continue to increase. As stated in the article “10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down.” author Dave Gilson states that “People with access to more guns tend to kill more people- with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates- as much as 114% higher than states with lower gun ownership rates” (Gilson). (7) More

Gun control is an ineffective means of reducing both violent, and firearm related crime. Limiting the ability for law abiding citizens to responsibly own arms only reduces their ability to provide to provide security to themselves and their family. It is not the duty of the federal government to dictate what a citizen chooses to legally defend themselves with.

Anyone who believes strengthening the gun control laws would reduce gun violence is correct. However, if someone wants to kill someone, not having a gun is unfortunately not going to stop him or her. If a gun is not accessible, a person who wishes to kill someone will use another weapon that is accessible, such as a knife or bludgeon of sorts. Banning guns will lessen gun violence, but will bring up a rise in violence with other weapons.

The amount of crimes happening today will only increase with stricter gun control laws because there is a higher temptation to steal guns. An American citizen claims, “Ever since I first learned how to shoot, the issue with gun violence around the nation became clear: Guns are not the problem; people are” (Sherfenski). Police need to lock up these people committing the disastrous crimes that affect so many innocent lives. These blameless people are not prepared when they are being attacked, and that is because most shootings tend to happen in areas where guns are controlled. The former United States Secretary of Education, William Bennett, explains the reason that criminals decide to go to places that have controlled gun laws is because: “These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They show up to schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back” (Bennett). Even if guns are controlled in public places including malls and schools, where there are uncontrolled shootings, why would it make a difference if they were controlled everywhere? It would not make a difference whatsoever because these crimes are done out of pure, revolting pleasure. Committing a crime is one thing, but taking away a right that was given to Americans in the 1790s is a whole different story.

America has always prided itself on being the land of the free. Our national Constitution and Bill of Rights have ensured that the people of America maintain their basic rights. Nevertheless, many of the rights guaranteed in these historic documents are often the subject of heated debate. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination, the First Amendment’s protection of speech and petitioning activity, all of these issues have been subject to contentious arguments in courts of law and the courts of public opinion. Of late, however, the most lengthy, argumentative and noisy debates have focused on gun control. Some people think that

Further, despite the fact that gun ownership in the U.S. increased enormously during the 1990’s, there was a consistent, dramatic reduction of criminal violence. In fact, homicide and violent crime have plunged over the last 15 years. Considering that 18 of 25 countries surveyed had an increase of violent crime, America’s large decline is impressive. Moreover, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, and Denmark also have a high rate of private gun ownership, and the murder rates in these countries are as low as or lower than developed nations with less gun ownership (Kates & Mauser, 2007).

Gun laws are a subject many people feel strongly about, and as with any subject people feel strongly about there are no shortage of data and statistics that seem to support either side. I decided to look into any correlation I could find between gun laws and deaths in the US. Just like with political parties and deficit spending I didn't really have any expectations, but would probably guess that there wasn't much correlation.

Handguns were used most often in homicides, most cases being in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s before falling to a low in 2008 (Cooper, et al.). Most gun involvement occurs with gang related activity, which increased from 73% in 1980 to 92% in 2008 (Cooper, et al.). The percentage of homicide victims killed with a gun increased with age of the victim until age 17, where it peaked at 79% and declined thereafter (Cooper, et al.). The sharp increase in homicides from the mid-1980’s through the early 1990’s, and much of the subsequent decline, is attributable to gun violence by teens and young adults (Cooper, et al.). From 1980 to 2008, more