The Issue of Gun Violence in America Today Gun control is not a problem, yet. In 2011 over 312 million people lived in the US, 2. 5 million died. Of those 2. 5 million, roughly 33,000 died from firearms. That is %1. 32; which can then be diluted by the fact that 2/3rds of all firearm deaths are suicides. This means every year, a placid %0. 003 of people in the US unwillingly died due to gun violence. In recent years we have seen mass shootings all over the country; twenty-eight died in Newtown CT, thirty-three in Blacksburg VA and fifteen in Littleton CO (Follman).
Although we are in a day and age that contains violence, the U. S. government should not create laws to withdraw the right to bear arms because the positive results of reduced gun ownership are outweighed by the benefits it will create for criminals. It may be possible to ban gun ownership but this will not remove violence and insanity. There is prey and there are predators, simply disarming the prey in order to resolve this matter will prove ineffective, for it will only make the predator’s Job easier. We need to do Just the opposite.
If we became more roactive as a nation by encouraging more right-minded individuals to obtain and carry weapons with them, we will cause the demented to become afraid of the public; and therefore less likely to commit heinous crimes. Creating laws that advocate gun control will result in only the government and felons reserving the ultimate power to take life. We must choose to fght for the right to protect ourselves and our families. Police data on attempted homicides is very inconclusive, making it difficult to argue the benefits produced by carrying a gun for protection.
Let’s put it this way, can you imagine being in the shoes of a criminal? Imagine for a second that you are about to embark on a crime, but wait, you have Just found out that your potential victims own guns and are very capable of biting back. What is the logical thing to do? Well Just as any other person would, you will move on to easier prey. Now let’s imagine that so many people in the US carry guns that it would be near impossible to guess where to strike. How could you possibly know if they carry unless you are a close friend or family member?
This will highly discourage criminals. Gun control will destroy the Constitution, which some may argue is the only thing protecting the people from genocide. We the people must stand against the destruction of our rights. The second amendment is there to protect the people from tyranny; therefore we should not allow politicians to violate their oath of office which states that they must defend the entire Constitution of the United States, not Just the parts that they like (US Senate). Countries that practice gun control end up with genocide carried out by the government.
By the lowest estimate, 50 million people died in China, 12 million in Germany, 8 million in Belgium and many more in other countries (Scaruffi). These enormous genocidal killings happened in countries that denied the citizens their right to carry weapons. Who could imagine that the US would do such a thing as kill their own citizens? I certainly would think to after recounting the countless civilians killed in wars such as our most recent in Iraq which has brought a death toll of over 100,000 innocent people. Gun control is not likely to reduce violent murders.
One of the most prominent reasons in arguments for gun control is that we will see a reauctlon 0T crlmlnal nomlc10es Oue to lack 0T weapons. one could also argue tnat eliminating guns would not have an effect because a criminal will find a way to carry out their deed. In laymen’s terms, there is more than one way to kill someone. If using gun control will bring down the amount of violent murders via firearm, would we not just see an increase in knife or blunt object homicides? The reduction of guns will result in weapon substitution, not in the overall homicide rates.
Adjusting consequences for aggression is more likely beneficial against crime than gun control. It could be argued that loss of self-control is a choice in which an individual perceives the cost and benefit of their aggression which then causes them to fully commit, or not, toa specific action or emotion such as aggression. It is a well-known fact that career criminals stagnate once they hit their 2nd strike, walking on egg-shells, so to speak, because they are always thinking about the unfortunate long-term effect of heir 3rd strike.
If we adjust the consequences to become steeper against violent or aggressive behavior then we might be able to keep potential perpetrators from committing to their irresponsible actions. Death by firearm is going down from year to year and therefore isn’t a problem. In a FBI publication, the numbers are clear as day that every year less and less people are dying by fire arms. Knives or other cutting instruments have been out-killing four out of the five categories of fire arms every year since at least 2007.
If you combine blunt objects and personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc. ) you will also find yourself besting three out of the five categories. This means that less people are turning towards guns to commit crimes. The truth is, guns aren’t easy to come around unless you plan on using as a law abiding citizen. Criminals are becoming less likely to use guns because they know that it will be traced back to them. If you have a gun and are willing to commit homicide then its most likely pre-meditated and the lack of a firearm probably wouldn’t stop you anyway.
As a nation we believe we can make laws against violence, but we cannot. Some people may place the blame of violence on guns, high capacity magazines, or semi-automatic rifles, but this is because we want to blame something that we can control. You cannot control the human condition. As a law abiding citizen of this nation, I feel appalled that legislators would ever introduce such a notion as taking our right to defend ourselves by destroying our right to bear arms, and you should be too. Gun control is not the answer to crime control.
