ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Banning Gun Free Zones

588 Words3 Pages

Gun Free zones, one of the most attractive signals for any mass shooter. The topic always strikes the idea of banning guns for the sake of peoples lives, but that's against the second amendment which is the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection - most importantly - of a tyrannic government. Based on simple logic, disarming the innocent does not protect the innocent. In addition, blaming an object for a crime is not only ridiculous, but also does not prevent the reoccurrence of a felony. Lastly, a major underlying connection between children and mass murder is living in a broken household. Although this topic is fiercely growing in repute, a close look at evidence collected worldwide proves that gun law revisions will not only further attract a gunman, but is also dubious in bringing an end to gun violence. …show more content…

In both cases, a 2007 British Journal of Criminology and a 2008 University of Melbourne study came to a conclusion that gun ban had zero effect on the gun homicide rate. According to the Crime Research Prevention Centre, “The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002 … Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.” (“Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans”) With this evidence, it’s indisputable that outlawing guns will bring change, but would rather add more muggings, murders, and

Show More
Related
1807 Words | 8 Pages

The U.S. is in dire need of stricter gun control laws. Many citizens would refute this claim, however, not the majority. In fact, the large majority of United States citizens are in agreement that stricter gun control is needed (Spitzer). Why then are so few gun control bills passed into law? The answer is influence, and perhaps even more so passion.

Read More
912 Words | 4 Pages

One may ask why this kind of act is happening in such harmless places such as schools. Mass shootings happen more frequently in gun-free zones than in areas where guns are authorized. Blogger and professor of law at the University of Tennessee, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, eludes to the thought that gun-free zones are a “magnet for mass shooters” (Reynolds, 2015). Anti-gun activists believe that imposing “gun-free” areas will reduce the number of weapons, thereby, decreasing the number of violent and heinous acts. By keeping firearms out of the public people’s hands, they hope to eliminate the threat and if needed, they will rely on the police to ensure their safety.

Read More
1037 Words | 5 Pages

If you recollect about it, this really should be an anticipated effect of gun control, though most people don 't remember far enough past the words "gun" and "control" to see it. When you do give up and recollect about it though, the criminals who are committing crimes at present are the ones still making this a relevant issue of discussion in the foremost position. They are the aces who are either getting access to certain weapons that are already illegal and/or the ones who are using legal weapons illegally. If it weren 't for them disregarding laws and causing these crime rates to fail up, gun control would not still be in

Read More
930 Words | 4 Pages

Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.

Read More
630 Words | 3 Pages

Similar results were seen in the United Kingdom after all handguns were banned. Homicides rates have been higher than before the ban in 1997 in all but one year. Specifically, handgun homicides have nearly doubled as a result of the

Read More
931 Words | 4 Pages

On the other hand, those who oppose it claim those stricter gun laws will increase crime. It was found that between 1993 and 2003, gun ownership increased by 56 percent, yet gun violence decreased by almost 50 percent (Centers for Disease Control). Even

Read More
746 Words | 3 Pages

This, they argue, would reduce the pool of guns that criminals can get their hands on, thereby reducing gun violence. One of the articles that entailed this line of thinking was Jonathan Masters’ “Gun Control Around the World: A Primer.” This article, published by the Atlantic in 2016, strikes as a trustworthy news source because it uses facts about what is happening in our world today to communicate why is regulating guns heavily a viable option, all while keeping an objective tone, free from personal

Read More
589 Words | 3 Pages

It’s been said by many people that guns need controlled restricted and even banned. Restricting who gets their hands on guns is a good thing, but it has shown that countries with more restrictive gun licensing laws show fewer deaths by firearms and a lower gun ownership rate. A lab was done and showed that for every 100 people there is about 88 guns. Stated in the same article on the Huffington post it was said that “similar results have been found by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, which states that countries with higher levels of firearm ownership also have higher firearm homicide rates.” (Huffington post 2015).

Read More
751 Words | 4 Pages

One benefit of tighter gun control laws is fewer mass shootings. “Lack of data” is commonly used as the reason politicians refuse to strengthen gun laws (Hughes and Bryant, A9). However, there is data out there that proves gun control laws will help. “Following tragedies such as the killings in Parkland, Las Vegas, and Sandy Hook, gun apologists are fond of saying that stricter laws wouldn’t have prevented the carnage. Yet we can easily see that this claim was false in Parkland” (Hughes and Bryant, A9).

Read More
2402 Words | 10 Pages

All statistics point to their being an issue with gun violence, and since American citizens look towards their government for help and support, the government needs to step in to action to remedy the current situation. There are numerous measures that the government could take in order to curb gun violence, one being to pass more gun control legislation. However, because of the aforementioned gun control debate, legislation is often hard to pass. So, the government must turn to alternative ways to curb gun violence. One such way is to pass legislation for gun violence prevention in schools, which are, as of recently, a popular target for mass shootings.

Read More
868 Words | 4 Pages

The issue with implanting strict gun control regulations in our society is that people will become vulnerable targets for criminals. Criminals will continue to conduct harmful crimes, despite the laws, and law-abiding citizens won’t have the necessary weapons needed to successfully defend themselves. For instance, “59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are ‘hot burglaries’ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a ‘hot burglary’ rate of only 13%” (“Crimes and Guns”). The implementation of gun control laws will thus increase crime rates as people will become vulnerable targets for criminals.

Read More
846 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.

Read More
942 Words | 4 Pages

Moorhouse, John C, and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Ebscohost, 1 Jan. 2006, web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=db378b8b-d9e7-4ee7-b26c-460bc1177bd4%40sessionmgr4008. Moorhouse and Wanner, in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, studied whether or not gun control reduced gun violence in individual states. The overarching theme throughout the individual states is that gun control doesn’t reduce gun violence and is very ineffective.

Read More
1634 Words | 7 Pages

Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states.

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Banning Gun Free Zones

Related Topics

Open Document