Some people are for new gun control laws, but I am one of the many that are against them. Now, it is impossible to pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news without being bombarded with the details of another mass shooting, or another child that was killed while playing with a gun. Unfortunately, there are many people who take the easy way out when it comes to a solution to this problem, they choose gun control. There are many facts that support my position in which I will explain.
First of all, numerous studies have proven that there are many protective uses of firearms, but most are masked by the few larger negative gun stories in the news. Mark Johnson, a journalist for Media General News, reports that despite scholarly studies indicating that law-abiding citizens use firearms from 764,000 to 3.6 million times each year to thwart crime, most defensive gun use incidents go unreported to the authorities. A survey done by Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, suggests that there are 2.2-2.5 million protective uses of guns each year. John R. Lott, a graduate of University of Chicago Law school, has found with his studies that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. Also, National attention has been given recently to the notion that foreign countries that harshly restrict gun ownership have crime rates much lower than that of the U.S. . In fact the lowest gun crime rates in Japan, Great Britain, and in Canada were when there was virtually no gun crime laws.
The Term Paper on Anti-Crime Law: Three Strikes, You’re Out
We have all heard of the newest anti-crime law, the “Three strikes and you’re out” law. It wasn’t easy getting this law from the bill stage in Sacramento to the law stage, because it is not a criminal friendly law. Meaning that this law’s purpose is to bring pain, suffering, and intimidation to criminals. Our state government was basically ran by the Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, now mayor of San ...
The Second Amendment to the Constitution 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,”. The definition of gun control is; government regulation of possession and use of firearms by private citizens.These laws do nothing to stop criminals from buying illegal guns, who are unlikely to obey the law and register their guns. With these laws, gun rights groups say the legislation is infringing mostly on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens that are just trying to protect themselves. Our Founding Fathers gave the citizens of the United States the right to bear arms, and our current government is slowly trying to take it away.
The Columbine high school shootings victims are blaming weak gun control laws for this incident. In reality it should be the parent’s responsibility to control their children and lock guns away. Also, just because of one isolated incident, I don’t believe people should try to take guns away from responsible people. It is much harder to buy guns with these laws and it takes more money and time to get them. That is why I believe the citizens of Columbine are wrong for blaming this incident and the few others on the concept of gun control laws.
Many believe that gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens and it does nothing to stop criminals from buying illegal guns, who are unlikely to obey the law and register their guns. I feel that the term gun control is improperly used. The government is using it as a way to take our right to bear arms and other than a bodyguard or a law enforcement officer at one’s side twenty-four hours a day, the most effective deterrent to criminal attack is the criminal’s fear that the victim is armed and prepared to defend him or her self. It is for these reasons that I am against these and also because America should be able to protect themselves from criminals that do abuse firearms.
