Gun Control Thesis Statement Essay

Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of

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

This view is true for the 26 developed nations analyzed as well as state-to-state level. Opponents of this view argue that this does not imply that someone cannot get shot in a state like Massachusetts. Despite the strict gun laws in this state, injuries and crimes related to firearms has been on the rise (Swanson 1). Opponents feel that gun control does not do much to regulate firearm related deaths and injuries. They argue that anyone can get shot anywhere; hence, this claim does not hold true. However, statistically speaking, this supporters’ trend holds true. When access to guns is controlled, the rate of homicides is likely to go down.

Throughout the past 20 years, the purchase of guns have increased drastically but at the same time, crimes with firearms are down a shocking 69% (Snyder). Gun control is often used to create laws for the intention of reducing gun injuries or death by gun and might involve background checks or creating difficulty to own a gun altogether. Some believe strict gun laws will help America reduce murder rates. However, others believe gun control will remove the right to bear arms as an individual. America needs to refrain from enforcing gun control because citizens have the constitutional right to own guns and gun control will fail to decrease murder rates which would better be decreased by a basic education of gun safety.

Robberies committed with guns are more likely to result in fatalities compared to robberies where other weapons are used. if guns were less available, criminals may commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons causing less damage to the people involved. Research has shown that guns intensify crime situations, and increase the likelyhood of a more violent or lethal outcome in a crime .Strict gun control is clearly the best way to solve Americas problem with crime and violence related to guns. Another fact is that in 97% gun defenses, no shot is fired which means that guns are clearly unnecessary to normal citizens. The United States has the most gun violence and therefore gun control will play a major part in the decrease of the crime and murder rate. Likelyhood and seriousness of crime increase

More than half the homes in the United States possess firearms, so it is hardly surprising that they are among the ten leading causes of death, more than 30,000 deaths annually (Wintermute 1987, p. 3107). While most people have guns primarily for hunting and sports, many owners also have them for personal protection and security purposes.

Before one delves into the heart of the gun control dilemma, he or she must first understand America’s long history relating

Clarke, Kevin, and Martin James. "A History of Violence: Gun Control in America." America, 18 July 2016, pp. 31. Academic OneFile, db10.linccweb.org/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.db10.linccweb.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=lincclin_gccc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA460324799&asid=a5b669bfabb75b77c360e6c5335e21dd. Access Date 12 April 2017

It is impossible for one as an America citizen not to weigh in on the recently reignited gun control debate. As a matter of fact and of necessity, at the very least, this particular debate concerns and encompasses social, moral, and legal issues of fundamental significance to the American way of life. The reigniting of the gun debate in America is perhaps personified by the 2012 theater mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, whereby as Krouse (2012) states, at least a dozen people were shot to death, while a further fifty eight were wounded, seven of them critically. Working from this basis, it is, therefore, stringently impossible that the controversy surrounding the gun debate will be extinguished any time soon. According to Kopel (1988), the gun debate provides a platform for pertinent questions that encompass the understanding of gun ownership in relation to crime and the ordinary citizen. Therefore, as Ghatak (2002) affords, the debate is simply centered on how laws aimed at restricting gun access, legally, morally and socially impact the ordinary American citizen. This research paper proposes and, in effect, argues that while indeed laws need to be made that limit access to guns by ordinary citizens, this should not be done at the expense of constitutional rights provided in the Second Amendment.

President Obama said at a press conference on October 01, 2015 “The solution to such violence is obvious. It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun” (Simple Minded Gun Control). Gun control is a controversial issue worldwide. The reason why this has attracted so much attention is because not everyone is in favor of gun control and each side brings up excellent points about the issue. Research related to this issue strongly supports the claim that there SHOULD be more gun control laws. The first task I will complete in this research paper is clearing up any misconceptions about Gun Control and all the terminologies I will use. Followed by my three arguments that prove this position which are (1) Incidents like Sandy Hook or Oregon will be less likely to occur (2) It reduces the high rates of accidental deaths (3) As the years pass by and technology updates the laws should be up to date as well. Members from the National Rifles Association state that No law-abiding American should be forced to face evil with empty hands. I say I agree with President Obama there SHOULD be more gun control laws because it should not be as easy as it is for someone who wants to inflict harm on others to get their hands on a weapon.

Based on the data, guns are used for crimes and criminal use way more than self defense.

Gun control has a history dating back to 1791, when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was ratified. The Second Amendment has drawn a great deal of criticism in recent years. It has evolved into a much more political issue to which many citizens can relate. After all, many stories involving guns have appeared much more frequently in newspapers, on the television, and the radio. The debate of gun control started with the passage of Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned ownership of guns by certain people and regulated the sale of guns. Since then, two major groups have emerged: people who support strict federal laws on guns and those who oppose them. This essay will cover the Second Amendment, public safety, home safety, and hearing from those who are for and those who are against the federal restrictions on guns.

Most People support the fact that stricter gun control laws will reduce crime, but gun control laws only stop the harmless people from purchasing firearms. For a criminal, majority of their weapons will be bought illegally or through black market. Criminals will always have access to an arsenal of weaponry. Gun control laws will not stop them at any cost. For example, ever since the shootings of Columbine High School and Sandy Hook, mass shootings have increased significantly worldwide. Gun control has been proven to not be effective. A smarter idea would be to partially restrict firearm access to the public.

Next, citizens say guns are rarely used in self-defense, “Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm,” . Although guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. NRA Stated “61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.”

Looking at data from 1992 through 2005 and 2007 through 2011, there were over 192 million violent crimes committed in the United States during this 17 year period. Of those crimes, the victims chose to use a gun as a self-defensive measure to threaten or attack their offender over 1.3 million times. Over this 17 year time period, a gun was used as a form of self-defense to threaten or attack an offender 0.7% of the time. Of those 0.7% that used a gun, 0.3% resulted in a justifiable homicide of the offender.