The Importance Of Gun Control Laws In The United States

The author’s methodology first includes a discussion of the issue at hand leading to a synopsis of why this problem even originated. Additionally, the author presents information on how other people in the field perceive the issue and who is to “blame” through the use of quotes. For example, Mark Rosenberg, the founder of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control argues that it was the leadership of the CDC who prevented further research on gun violence. On the other hand, another primary speaker, current Injury Center Director Debra Houry has been thought to have defended the agency’s decision by saying it still partakes in data collection of firearm research. After discussing the CDC and the need for it to address an issue like this, the NRA’s influence on the organization is explained.

He adds to this development by stating three intriguing and interesting facts that show that gun violence is clearly an issue in the United States in this day and age. Something that is only applicable to the website version of the article is that he even further establishes his credibility with these facts with clickable links that will bring one to the source of the fact or statistic that he used. At this point, he states the purpose of his article which is to essentially throw in his view on what should be done about gun violence in the United States. He uses a general gun proponent quote to show the opposing side of the argument, and uses it to strengthen his own argument. At this point he begins to state how gun safety should replicate toy, car, or swimming pool type safety.

By reading both of these two article about guns control, I can only say the they both the authors make sense in a way, for example we take David Burnett’s, director of public relations for ‘Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) article "Students Should Have the Right to Carry Guns on College Campuses.” In his article “Students Should Have the Right to Carry guns on College Campuses”, on the issue of banning guns on college campuses. Burnett’s strongly agrees and he defends his view in support of a student’s right to having concealed firearms with permit. Burnett uses statistics about ‘gun-free’ colleges and how being gun free doesn’t necessarily mean crime free. He uses the crime statistics from two colleges in Colorado to support this.

The reliability of official statistics, especially through documents based on police data, can be hindered by a number of limitations. As police data is one of the main sources of data looked at when studying statistics, the limitations revolve around the reporting and recording of the crimes. There are instances in which the official crime statistics do not reflect the precise crime rates. (Ross, 1999) Misrepresentation can be caused by a number of different factors.

Some days crime rates are up and then the next they are down, what we do know is that America is becoming safer. In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm, (National Institute of Justice). Surprisingly, a lot of gun violence in America is related to self defense. Between 1987 and 1990 it was found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.

(Kleck, Kovandzic and Bellows, Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime?) Among all these different studies, as well as the different aspects that have to be considered when analyzing the data, there is not enough strong evidence to support that gun control laws reduce violent gun crimes. Strong supporting evidence produced by Kovandzic, Marvell, and Vierait in 2005, whose panel data was pertained to 189 large cities from 1980 to 2000, used city data that did not influence the county crime rates. They found that Right to Carry (RTC) laws have no real significant effect on violent crime rates.

The second and third sections go into detail that guns reduce crime. I plan to use this resource as direct facts in my paper. The facts can be implied throughout the paper to reinforce my thesis. By putting hard facts of how guns save lives there would be evidence to say that guns are good and thus promote the theme of the

“A growing body of evidence from academics, advocacy groups and others supports the link between gun restrictions and a reduction in violence.” (Lichtblau) In fact, a recent study from the Center of American Progress concludes that gun fatalities in states with weaker gun laws are over three times as high as those in states with rougher restrictions. (Lichtblau) These findings were reviewed by an expert in gun violence at John Hopkins University by the name of Daniel Webster.

Gun control is a very controversial topic in the United States, where the two main sides are the people opposed to gun control and the people in favor of gun control. It has been a major controversy since owning guns has come into question regarding the nation’s overall safety. It has become increasingly popular with the growing fear of terrorism, and how easy it is to attack the US. “The effect of [the Second and Fourteenth Amendments] on gun politics was the subject of landmark US Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010, that right for individuals to possess guns for self-defense.” (Wikipedia.org).

Overall, gun control laws are an important impact on each state. This article is about whether or not we should have gun control laws, people say it is necessary, other people say that even if we have gun control laws people don 't follow them. I disagree because with no laws more people are making their own guns and there are more attempts and acts of shooting attacks. With gun control laws people would safer and there wouldn 't be as many deaths caused by self

Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill

While, “39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source.” These facts and statistics can clearly prove the firearm limitations placed upon the people of the U.S. by the government is neither effective, nor required; the only purpose that is served by these limitations is increasing the government’s control over its citizens and thus leading them

Guns are just a tool, like knives and hammers and it completely depends on the people on how they use it. People who support guns and arms say that the Second Amendment secures individual’s right to carry guns with them and that gun rights is needed for self-protection, and was intended for military to have peace and defend the country if needed (Spitzer, 70). Most of the Americans use guns as a source to protect themselves and they believe that gun ownership prevents crime. A study conducted on November 26, 2013 showed that bans on weapons did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level (Lane, 5). Moreover, even if the rules and regulations are executed on gun control, not all criminals obey the law.

This paper also provides an interesting solution to gun violence; instead of already proven ineffective gun control laws, these authors suggest looking at why these laws are ineffective. Planty, Michael, and Jennifer

Moreover, in over 3/4 of the homicides, a gun was used. This begs the question, would deadly crime go down if it is harder to get a gun? Maybe not the acts of crime themselves but the fatality of these crimes could possibly go down. In a perfect world, yes, the deadly crime would go down, but the fact is that most of the guns used in homicides are not legally