The Argument For Stricter Gun Control Laws Essay Example for Free

The Arguwork forcet For Stricter Gun Control Laws analyzeI am writing a persuasive argument in favor of stricter heavy weapon support lawfulnesss. I am very passionate about this topic because the use of firearms in the wrong manpower is a deadly professional personphecy. It ass be in the form of children getting a hold of a natural gas and hurting themselves or others, an adult with violent propensities mishandling a weapon, or somebody who wants the use of a firearm in aiding suicide. When one looks at the increased incident of injury to children, homicide, and suicide, it is clear there is a need for stricter gun control laws. This paper argues that firearms continue to play a dominant role in violence both criminal and accidental regardless of laws such as the five-day waiting period and the Brady Law. I will show how easier gate to guns, rather than vetoing crime, creates much of it through the use of examples and statistics Those whom argon opposed to gun control laws do not like to admit there is a link between retrieve to guns and violence. The NRA says guns dont kill state, slew kill people. They will claim that the right to bear arms for self-defense and complaisant rights would be diminished.However, this view is only one sided and it fails to address the link between the ownership of guns and the violence that occurs because of it. nearly everyday we can open up a newspaper or turn on a national news broadcast on the television and disc everyplace a new case of someone being killed by the use of a gun. Perhaps it was a child whom had entry to his/her p bents gun they mention in the house for self defensive purposes, an adult whom was an innocent bystander during a workplace massacre or robbery, a shooting at a school by a disturbed kid, or a domestic dispute turned deadly. Unfortunately, it is r be that a day goes by that we do not construe about one of the above events. Whatever the case may be, it is apparent that too many people have access to firearms and that access mustiness be circumscribe. The Brady Campaign is one that enforces gun control laws, elects pro gun control public officials, and informs the public about gun violence.It was enacted in 1994 and because of it, all 50 states must do background checks on anyone wishing to purchase a firearm. While this has helped quell some gun violence that may have occurred otherwise, there are still too many who are go through the cracks. These background checks are targeting the wrong people and criminals are still able to obtain guns from nonlegal sources. Take a look at the Virginia tech massacre last spring. This reopened the legislative debate over gun control that was never resolved from the Columbine high school shootings eight years earlier. some wonder how Cho-Seung Hui was able to get his hands on powerful automatic weaponry that killed thirty two of his classmates. This proves that the background checks performed are insufficient and need to be to a greater extent thorough.More than fifty survivors and family members of this tragedy gestural a letter to Congress with one simple message- finish work on legislation that could prevent future tragedies. The notion of more complete background checks leads me to another issue that is the abolition of handguns. More handguns are used in criminal acts than any other type of firearm. The FBI reports that more than 60 percent of murders are caused by guns and handguns account for 70 percent of these. Lets look at some scenarios that stem from the lack of access to handguns Sure, anyone with a penchant for killing could pull out a knife or a baseball bat but the victim has much better chance of survival. The likelihood of injury and not demolition are much greater as the victim may be able to get away. The contiguous scenario are home burglaries. Most of these occur with the occupants are out of the house so the need for a gun inside the home is unnecessary. If there is a gun inside of the home, the perpetrator will tie it a eagle-eyed with other valuables, thus placing it in the hands of criminal for future misuse. Approximately 40 percent of handguns used in crimes are stolen out of homes of law abiding citizens whom had guns for their own protection.If handgun manufacturers were stringently restricted and only allowed to sell to police, our environment would be much safer. Fewer criminals would have access to them if the sale of handguns to characterless citizens were outlawed. They could not obtain them by way of stealing and their illegal underground network would be hampered. If this were to occur, those stern people would not have the opportunity to slip through the cracks and get a hold of a weapon. The end result would be fewer violent crimes and fewer injuries and/or deaths related to these crimes. Many states in the United States have right to acquire laws that allow citizens to carry concealed handguns if they are qualified. Qualif ication includes a clean criminal history, age restrictions, and completing a firearms safety course. In 1986 only nine states had that law and as of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws. Half of the citizens of the U.S. live in those states. This will engender only more violence as journalist Philip Cook states if you introduce a gun into a violent encounter, it increases the chances that someone will die.In the end, the notion of violence in self-defense will only create more violence. It is for that reason that not only should handguns themselves be eradicated from the hands of the general public, but they should never be allowed to carry out in public. It is a fact that the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights states 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. Our founding fathers who authored the Constitution were certa inly aware of the British efforts to disarm the colonists and believed a militia was necessary to defend democracy. However, in the present day, owners of handguns are not members of a militia attempting to fight a tyrannical power or oppression.Any type of gun that can be concealed should be abolished from the hands of ordinary citizens and only placed in the hands of the men and women of our police force whom are trained professionals. This will de-emphasize the use of another slogan If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. It simply will not be the case as long as only those who are legitimate protectors of society are the only people who have access to them.WORKS CITEDAgresti, James D. Gun Control. Just Facts Foundation. 10 June 1999. 20 October 2007. www.justfacts.com. Desuka, Nan. Why Handguns Must Be Outlawed.. flowing Issues and Enduring Questions. Boston Bedford, 1993. Cassidy, J. Warren. The Case For Firearms. Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Boston Bedfor d, 1993. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Families of Virginia Tech Victims and Survivors Call on U.S. Senate to Strengthen Brady Background Checks. 21 October 2007. www.handguncontrol.org