Angela Forte
ENGL 102-048
Causal Argumentative Essay
29 January 2013
Gun Control: Can It Actually Stop
Gun Violence?
Columbine, Virginia Tech, University of Texas, and Sandy Hook Elementary School
are some of most deadly and widely known school shootings to this date. Every
time an attack like this happens, most recently Sandy Hook, the second
amendment becomes jeopardized. Gun critics demand for stronger gun laws
and assault weapon bans to be enforced nationwide. In the past few months, it
has become a widely debated topic among American citizens, those who are in
favor of stricter gun laws and those who wish to keep the rights that the
Constitution gives them. Gun control in the United States will do little to
enforce the safety of the Nation, instead it takes away from the safety of
others.
"Connecticut
has become the third state, following California and New Jersey, to pass a
comprehensive ban on assault weapons" (State Legislatures
19.10). Connecticut banned the sale of assault firearms on October 1, 1993 and
believed that this ban ultimately would result in a lesser crime rate (State Legislatures
19.10). On December 14th, 2012, Adam Lanza shot and killed twenty six people,
twenty children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,
Connecticut (CNN). Joining the list of other famous school shootings, it further
proved that enabling gun laws do not lessen the crime rate. Connecticut had
this ban in effect for quite some time and the shooting still happened because
nothing, not even a strict gun law, can really stop people from getting their
hands on guns. People will find ways to obtain illegal things, like they do
with drugs. If said people are not able to get their hands on guns, they will
use a different weapon.
The
most frequent policy lesson drawn following the Columbine school shootings was
the need for more gun controls. Review of the details of both Columbine and
other contemporary school shootings indicates, however, that the specific gun
control measures proposed in their aftermath were largely irrelevant and almost
certainly could not have prevented the incidents or reduced their death tolls (Kleck).
After the tragic shooting at the Columbine High School in
1999, the people of Colorado strongly advocated stricter gun laws in hopes that
an attack like the Columbine would never happen again (Kleck). After the
details were reviewed, it was proved that gun control was irrelevant and
nothing could have prevented the shooting. In the summer of 2012, James E.
Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado
(Kleck). If Colorado were to have had an assault weapon ban, would this
shooting still have happened? Most certainly, it would have. It does not make
sense that one law could stop violence completely. "Shortly after the
massacre, John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado, suggested
that stricter gun laws would not have stopped the shooter"
(Goldberg). The governor of Colorado even addressed that stricter gun laws
would not have stopped the movie theater shooter. Hickenlooper went on to
suggest that the killer would have found another weapon, most likely a bomb.
"46
percent of Americans think gun laws should be stricter, 38 percent want them to
stay the same, and 13 percent want them less strict" (State Legislatures
37.3). While it seems like the majority of the people in the country want
stricter gun laws, 51 percent either want them the same or less strict,
juxtaposed to the 46 percent that want harsher laws (State Legislatures 37.3).
Stricter gun laws is unconstitutional, as it contradicts the rights that
citizens are believed to have under the second amendment of the United States
Constitution. What good does an amendment do if people are limited to those
rights? Amendments are not meant to be disregarded or overridden over time.
Guns, including assault weapons, save lives. People need to have a way of
defending themselves when they are in danger. The police could take anywhere up
to ten minutes, and in some cases beyond, to arrive. That is too long of a time
for a person in danger. That is where the privilege of having a firearm for
self–defense comes into play. Guns do not kill people, people kill
people. It depends on who is operating the firearm and if they are capable of
owning a gun.
A balanced
approach to gun control in the United States would require the
warring sides to agree on several contentious issues. Conservative gun–rights
advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal
background checks—or if a federal law put these in place—more guns would
be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable.
They should also acknowledge that requiring background checks on buyers
at gun shows would not represent a threat to the Constitution
(Goldberg)
Background checks on people who wish to buy guns is a far
more reasonable way of ensuring firearm safety than taking them away all
together. Neither approach will do away with gun violence all together, but at
least background checks are far more reasonable.
"Violent
gun–related deaths have been declining for the past 20 years" (Stengel).
If violent gun–related deaths have been declining over the years, does that not
mean that stricter gun laws would serve no purpose? It does not make any sense
to pass a law that will anger more people than it will please. The entirety of
gun laws do not make any sense. How can a gun law minimize violence? Are there
not already gun laws that prohibit violence and killing? Do people actually
follow them? In my opinion, gun laws hurt more than they help because it only
seeks to anger people who already own guns and use them for the right purpose.
 |
Figure 1 argues for anti-gun
control, explaining that the gun itself has nothing to do with the crime, more
so the operator (Anti–gun control).
|
could have been something worse like school bombings, which
would be far more deadly and destructive.
"There
are an estimated 280 million to 300 million guns in private hands in
America – many legally owned, many not. Each year, more than 4 million
new guns enter the market" (Goldberg). Harsher gun laws do not
even make sense because there is so many guns already out there and in the
hands of American citizens. It is very unlikely that all the guns can be
confiscated. People would most likely hide their guns before they would ever
give them up. It all traces back to the freedoms that are granted in the
Constitution. People believe that is their right to own a firearm and will not
stand to have their rights taken away from them. There is just no possible way
that every firearm could be taken away, people would find them elsewhere or probably
even secretly manufacture them.
Though
most tragic accidents occur because of the misuse of a firearm, there is no way
to prevent it. Stricter gun laws or assault weapon bans will not stop homicides
from happening. There is just too many guns out there in the hands of citizens
that there is no way to make them inaccessible. Death is inevitable and so are
tragic attacks on innocent people, no matter what laws are out there. If the
killer is planning the homicide in the first place, then they are going to
break the gun laws or find a stronger, deadlier weapon to use. Guns can be a
great privilege when in the right hands and used correctly.
Works Cited
"Anti-gun Control." Tumblr. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
"Connecticut bans assault weapons." State Legislatures 19.10 (1993): 6. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Jan. 2013.
Goldberg, Jeffrey. "The Case For More Guns (And More
Gun Control)." Atlantic
Monthly (10727825) 310.5 (2012): 68-78. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2013
"Gun laws reconsidered." State Legislatures 37.3 (2011): 11. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Jan. 2013.
Kleck, Gary. "Mass shootings in schools: the worst possible
case for gun control." American Behavioral Scientist 52.10 (2009): 1447.Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Jan. 2013
"Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?" CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 05
Stengel, Richard. "Talking Common Sense About Guns." Time 180.6 (2012):4. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan.
2013
No comments:
Post a Comment