In today’s world, the newspaper headlines are all about crimes and the government believes that in order to reduce the crime rate, guns should be banned. However, this is not the answer because people need guns for self defense, it has been proven that having more guns diminishes the amount of crimes, and that there has been no gun control study that has proven to be effective.
For centuries, guns have done more to benefit people than to disservice them. Colonists having access to guns helped them to rise up against the British in America’s fight for independence during the Revolutionary War. The founding fathers decided to add the Second Amendment to America’s Constitution because they believed that private property of guns was vital for …show more content…
Right now, there are nine nations in Europe that have the lowest rate of their citizens owning guns but have a steep death rate due to guns. Their death rate is about three times higher than the other nations that have the most citizens owning guns (Crooker 90). This means that nations that have more gun ownership have less crime rates. On the other hand, countries in South America have the world’s highest prevailing murder rates because they constrain their citizens from owning guns (“Gun Control” 4). The country that is number one in allowing their citizens to own guns in the world is the United States who is also ranked 28th in deaths caused by guns. Since 1950 in the United States, all the group shootings have taken place in a state that has rigorous gun prohibiting laws (Bolin and Denzin 5). If guns are banned, the crime rates will start …show more content…
In 2010, when Chicago prohibited the sale of firearms, the number of murders rose from 432 to 500 for every 100 thousand people. In 2012, Chicago was named America’s “Murder Capital” due to the fact that the city had more murders in a year than the entire nation of Japan (McCreary 841). Chicago is a prime example of the fallacies of gun control laws that are supposed to inhibit gun violence. In the state of Georgia, there was a law passed that required every single home to own a gun. Since this law was passed, the crime rate has dropped dramatically by more than 50% with an 89% decrease in burglaries (Crooker 123). In 2013, there was a total of 5,782 murders by handguns in the United States and a big percent of these murders took place in California and Illinois which happen to be two states that have the strictest gun control laws (“Gun Control Overview” 3). When D.C. banned handguns in 1984, the average murder rate jumped 73% (Blocher, “Gun Rights Talk” 825). When the Firearms Act got established in 1997 in England, the murder rate rose from 1.24 to 1.43 for every 100 thousand people. England’s handgun robbery rate has also doubled in the past 12 years. There was a Sullivan Law that was tried in England, but failed because it was not able to stop citizens from owning guns in the city limits (Crooker 124). With stricter gun laws, the crime rate will increase whereas more flexible gun laws
For centuries, guns have done more to benefit people than to disservice them. Colonists having access to guns helped them to rise up against the British in America’s fight for independence during the Revolutionary War. The founding fathers decided to add the Second Amendment to America’s Constitution because they believed that private property of guns was vital for …show more content…
Right now, there are nine nations in Europe that have the lowest rate of their citizens owning guns but have a steep death rate due to guns. Their death rate is about three times higher than the other nations that have the most citizens owning guns (Crooker 90). This means that nations that have more gun ownership have less crime rates. On the other hand, countries in South America have the world’s highest prevailing murder rates because they constrain their citizens from owning guns (“Gun Control” 4). The country that is number one in allowing their citizens to own guns in the world is the United States who is also ranked 28th in deaths caused by guns. Since 1950 in the United States, all the group shootings have taken place in a state that has rigorous gun prohibiting laws (Bolin and Denzin 5). If guns are banned, the crime rates will start …show more content…
In 2010, when Chicago prohibited the sale of firearms, the number of murders rose from 432 to 500 for every 100 thousand people. In 2012, Chicago was named America’s “Murder Capital” due to the fact that the city had more murders in a year than the entire nation of Japan (McCreary 841). Chicago is a prime example of the fallacies of gun control laws that are supposed to inhibit gun violence. In the state of Georgia, there was a law passed that required every single home to own a gun. Since this law was passed, the crime rate has dropped dramatically by more than 50% with an 89% decrease in burglaries (Crooker 123). In 2013, there was a total of 5,782 murders by handguns in the United States and a big percent of these murders took place in California and Illinois which happen to be two states that have the strictest gun control laws (“Gun Control Overview” 3). When D.C. banned handguns in 1984, the average murder rate jumped 73% (Blocher, “Gun Rights Talk” 825). When the Firearms Act got established in 1997 in England, the murder rate rose from 1.24 to 1.43 for every 100 thousand people. England’s handgun robbery rate has also doubled in the past 12 years. There was a Sullivan Law that was tried in England, but failed because it was not able to stop citizens from owning guns in the city limits (Crooker 124). With stricter gun laws, the crime rate will increase whereas more flexible gun laws