Gun Violence Essay

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

Example #1

The issue of gun control and violence, both in Canada and the United States, is one that simply will not go away. If history is to be any guide, no matter what the resolution to the gun control debate is, it is probable that the arguments pro and con will be much the same as they always have been.

In 1977, legislation was passed by the Canadian Parliament regulating long guns for the first time, restructuring the availability of firearms, and increasing a variety of penalties. Canadian firearms law is primarily federal, and” therefore national in scope, while the bulk of the firearms regulation in the United States is at the state level; attempts to introduce stricter legislation at the federal level are often defeated”.

PaperHelp.org Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically For You!


Check Price

The importance of this issue is that not all North Americans are necessarily supportive of strict gun control as being a feasible alternative to controlling urban violence. There are concerns with the opponents of gun control, that the professional criminal who wants a gun can obtain one, and leaves the average law-abiding citizen

helpless in defending themselves against the perils of urban life. Is it our right to bear arms as North Americans? Or is it privileged? And what are the benefits of having strict gun control laws? Through the analysis of the writings and reports of academics and experts on gun control and urban violence, it will be possible to examine the issue sand theories of the social impact of this issue.

The paper which looked at gun control and firearms violence seine North America, Robert J. Mundt, of the University of North Carolina, points out that “Crime in America is popularly perceived [in Canada] as something to be expected in a society which has less respect for the rule of law than does Canadian society…”.

In 1977, the Canadian government took the initiative to legislate stricter gun control. Among the provisions legislated by the Canadian government was a “Firearms Acquisition Certificate” for the purchase of any firearm, and strengthened the “registration requirements for handguns and other restricted weapons…”.

The purpose of the 1977 legislation was to reduce the availability of firearms, on the assumption that there is a “positive relationship between availability and use”. In Robert J. Mundt’s study, when compared with the United States, trends in Canada over the past ten years in various types of violent crime, suicide, and accidental death show no dramatic results, “and few suggestions of perceptible effects of the 1977 Canadian gun control legislation”.

The only positive effect, Mundt, found in the study was the decrease in the use of firearms in a robbery with comparison to trends in the United States. Informed law enforcement officers in Canada, as in the United States, view the “impact of restricting the availability of firearms is more likely to impact on those violent incidents that would not have happened had a weapon been at hand”(152).

In an article by Gary A. Mauser of the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, he places special emphasis on the attitudes towards firearms displayed by both Canadians and Americans. According to Mauser, large majorities of the general public in both countries “support gun control legislation while simultaneously believing that they have the right to own firearms” (Mauser 1990:573).

Despite the similarities, there are apparent differences between the general public in the two countries. Mauser states that “Canadians are more deferent to authority and do not support the use of handguns in self-defense to the same extent as Americans”.

As Mauser points out that “it has been argued that cultural differences account for why Canada has stricter gun control legislation than the United States”(575). Surprisingly enough, nationwide surveys in both Canada and the United States “show remarkable similarity in the public attitude towards firearms and gun control”(586). Both Canada and the United States were originally English colonies, and both have historically had similar patterns of immigration.

Moreover, Canadians are exposed to American television (both entertainment and news programming) and, Canadians and Americans read many of the same books and magazines. As a result of this, the Canadian public has adopted “much of the American culture”.

In an article by Catherine F. Sproule and Deborah J. Kennett of Trent University, they looked at the use of firearms in Canadian homicides between the years of 1972-1982. Their findings firmly support the conclusion that gun control is beneficial. According to

Sproule and Kennett, gun control “may be influencing some suspects to kill by other methods, but it is less likely for these suspects to kill multiple victims”. From the study conducted by Sproule and Kennett the rate of violent crimes was five times greater in the U.S than Canada, and “almost double the rate of firearm use in American than Canadian homicides” (32-33). In short, the use of firearms “in Canadian homicides has declined since the legislative changes in gun control in 1977″.

As mentioned in lectures, Canadian cities have been traditionally safer, and less vulnerable to ‘Crime Waves’ than our American neighbors due to our extensive police force and gun control laws. A factor to be considered, though, is our national heritage or culture which holds traditions of passiveness and peace, unlike the American Frontier heritage.

From our textbook, Why Nothing Works, Marvin Harris points out that the “American Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, and this has made it possible for U.S. criminals to obtain firearms more readily than their counterparts in countries like Japan…”.

Marvin Harris indicates that “the high rate of homicide in the United States undoubtedly reflects, to some extent, the estimated 50 million handguns and rifles legally and illegally owned by the American people” (122). As demonstrated in the film: Cops, Guns, and Drugs, the problem with controlling urban violence in the United States is that it is out of proportion in contrast to the available police force.

In his book, The Saturday Night Special, Robert Sherrill explains the cheap, usually illegal, easily concealed handgun that plays a part in so many crimes in the United States. He reviews the role of guns in American life-from the shoot-outs of the Old West to the street violence of today. According to Sherrill, “most murders occur in shabby neighborhoods; of the 690 murders in Detroit in 1971, for example, 575 occurred in the black slums mostly by handguns”.

As a Detroit sociologist added to this alarming figure: “Living in a frustrating stress-inducing environment like the United States every day of your life makes many people walking powder kegs” (38). In agreement with this statement, Sherrill suggests that the hardest hit of all American urban centers is the inter-cities of Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, and Washington.

These cities largely consist of visible minorities who are frustrated with the hand dealt with them and simply resort to “drugs, guns, and violence” as a way of life. As discussed in the lecture, and viewed in the film: Cops, Guns, and Drugs, many of the youth in the underclass who become involved in this way of life, “are considered to be old if they live past the age of 20″.

In another paper by Catherine F. Sproule and Deborah J. Kennett, they compared the incidence of killings by handguns, firearms other than handguns, and non-shooting methods between the United States and Canada for the years 1977 to 1983. In their study, they found that “in Canada, there were 443 handgun killings per 100,000 people compared to 4108 in the U.S. over the period of 1977-1983″.

They also noted that the “American murder rates for handguns are higher than the total Canadian homicide rate”(249). According to Sproule and Kennett, “Canada’s favorable situation regarding murder relative to the United States is to a large measure the result of Canadian gun control, and Canadians must be vigilant against any erosion of our gun control provisions”.

 

Example #2

I believe that it is time for laws that govern guns to be tightened and a compromise to be made between gun banning and complete gun freedom. First I strongly believe that gun owners must be responsible for their guns, no matter who gets a hold of them or how.

A gun is a deadly weapon and if you own one and it is used in a crime, you should bear some responsibility. People need to be responsible for their dogs, and although some dogs are dangerous, they are much less dangerous than a gun. If a dog owner allows his dog to roam, and a person is seriously injured because of it, the owner is held in part accountable.

Guns should be dealt with in the same way. This means storing them in such a manner that they cannot be stolen or are easily accessible to children. If gun owners can t be responsible for their own weapons, they should not own one.

Second, I think that gun licenses and owner licenses should require a test. We require both our automobiles and their drivers to take an examination before entering traffic. Because of this, drivers have a certain level of skill before getting on the road (not to say there are no bad drivers).

Education about guns would result in the responsible storage and usage of these deadly weapons. It would also give a potential victim a better chance of protecting himself in the event of an attack. Many people believe that a household that owns a gun is running the risk of having it used upon themselves. However, if everyone in the household were taught the proper way to use a gun, this likelihood would decrease. It is true that guns are deadly weapons, but they also a form of self-defense.

A criminal that enters your home, or approaches you on the street is more likely to think twice if you can point your gun back with knowledge and skill. A person with a gun as well as the knowledge to use it, no matter their size or strength, is a much more formidable opponent them a person with pepper-spray. I also believe that if a person is educated about the gun itself and what its capabilities are, then people would have greater respect for them.

Finally, I support a waiting period and the keeping of gun ownership records. If a law-abiding citizen feels the need to protect himself, this period can be used to teach him about the gun, and the laws that currently govern its use. Also, this would give the government enough time to do a background check to make sure guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

I realize that this is by no means a cure-all for the end of gun violence. I realize that there are criminals out there with no respect for the law and if they want a gun they will probably get it, but the answer to stopping these criminals is not in taking away all guns from innocent, law-abiding citizens. The only thing this would result in is the complete upper hand given to criminals.

A better solution is to educate the public about guns and try to make these deadly weapons a force to be reckoned with on both sides. I am not saying that guns are for everyone, or that we should become a generation full of snipers. I am simply saying that unfortunately gun violence has become a problem in our country, and everyone has the right to protect themselves responsibly and knowledgable.

 

Example #3

This opinion piece from The Washington Post was written by U.S. Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut. Published days after the recent Las Vegas Shooting, Murphy tells of his past experiences with gun violence urging for stronger gun control legislation.

He states that the “phenomenon of horrific mass shootings is exclusive to the United States”, so the solution should be able to be solved by Americans. He argues that our response to “regular mass shootings” has been un-American, and how can a country that has solved the greatest problems in the world, not solve a problem that puts our fellow citizens in harm. “…we choose to be an increasingly distant outlier of exceptional violence”, Murphy states.

He mentions one statistic in the article, “In my state of Connecticut, which has expanded background checks and requires issued handgun permits, gun crimes have dropped by 40 percent.”. No other evidentiary support is presented to support Murphy’s argument. He is appealing to human emotion that we, as Americans, are failing to take care of each other and continually allowing others to be put in harm’s way if nothing is done.

Murphy’s biases are evident from the beginning of the article when it is stated that he is a democrat, as most Democrats are in favor of stronger gun control; it is a common party platform. It is later shown that Murphy has a personal connection to gun violence as he served as the congressman for Newtown, Connecticut during the Sandy Hook shooting.

 

Example #4

On January 17, 2017, “Surge in the Violence” was released by the Crime lab at the University of Chicago, which had combined a report on the statistics of homicides taken place in the year 2015 and 2016. The number of homicides takes place in the year 2016 has soared by a record high of 67 percent than the previous year.

Chicago is one of the busiest and advanced cities in the world and getting such high numbers in the field of crime is a shame and leaves a bad impression on the rest of the world. The violence related to guns has also increased enormously and according to “Chicago Tribune”, 2,958 people have been shot dead by now this year.

Though the data shows that the homicides by gun have decreased significantly but the number is still a problem. Gun violence now is a serious problem and the current situation demands strict gun laws. During the past years, gun violence has seen an enormous increase in various parts of the world, and the majority of the cases been reported in the United States.

The case includes victims such as children, senior citizens, and young adults engaging in violence or getting caught in the crossfires. The life of common people is being affected, people are concerned as to how they can live safe lives when guns are being used in increasing numbers. On average, every day you hear about some sort of gun violence affecting people either in your hometown or in another part of the world.

 

Example #5

In America, guns have been in our everyday lives. Guns have affected so many families. Every day there are people who die from guns. The government should have different ways of gun control. There are schools getting shot up and nothing has been done about it. Parents are sending their children to learn but they get a call from the school saying their child school got shot up.

According to Molly Ivins’s article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, she states “The argument that guns don’t kill people is patent nonsense”. In agreement with Ivins, she states the truth guns kill many people and we shouldn’t have it.

In Ivins’s essay, she explains that whoever wants guns should only use it for target shooting, hunting, or battling rattle shack. She also mentions how many families argue and they bring out guns and shoot each other. That shouldn’t be allowed at people’s houses. It scary how anybody can buy a gun anywhere from anybody. We as American people need to find a stricter law for guns.

In agreement with Ivins when she mentions guns should be for the military, armed forces, and the National Guards only because they protect our country. We have so many people dying from guns and kids are dying so young from guns as well. Ivins mentions guns have the power to kill anyone, In agreement with her because guns do kill so many people. Anyone can pick a gun that can kill someone.

Even though we have the second amendment a part of the Bills of Right. We as Americans should know to put the guns down and stop killing innocent people. The second amendment is protecting us Americans. Ivins says “A well-regulated militia” surely implies both training and long discipline. That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns because a gun is literally to power to kill”. Ivins means the military should have guns because they will protect us.

She also is saying guns have the power to kill anyone. Ivins also mentions “guns don’t kill people” is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because three was a gun in the house”.

Ivin is explaining how families who argue lead to them killing each other and that shouldn’t allow. She also says people who work as cop knows how guns kill people. America has the most gun violence than all nations. Ivins says “Ban the damn thing. Ban them all.

Do you want protection? Get a dog”. Ivins was stating how people shouldn’t need guns if they want protection they should get a dog. Anyone can buy a gun and kill anybody so they should illegal. Anybody can buy a gun from someone and that dangerous. Ivin also says “By the time someone who studies the martial arts become a master- literally able to kill with bare hand- that person has also undergone years of training and discipline.

But any fool can pick up a gun and kill with it”. Ivins is saying how study marital take time to learn it but when it comes to guns anyone can pick it up and kill anyone. For guns, you really don’t need to learn anything there a button and touch and kill someone. The past years gun violence has drastically gone up. People have been killing each other with guns. People say guns shouldn’t be ban but there are kids and adults who die from guns for being at a place at the wrong time.

Ivins says “We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with”. Ivin is saying how we should do more background for people who wants guns. We shouldn’t give guns to anybody. Letting citizens have guns without no background cause more violence, even if we give background, some people will lie. To improve gun violence we need stricter laws and more police force.

Another source is “Guns are the problem’: activists get tough on gun control after Vegas” which discusses gun violence happening across America. Ivins says in the article how guns shouldn’t be allowed and she said we should have stricter background checks. In the same source “Requiring a background check on every gun sale- rather than just as current federal law requires has been the major policy goal of most American gun control groups in recent years” by Lois Beckett published by The Guardian on October 5, 2017.

Both articles are both agreeing on getting stricter gun control laws and giving a gun to anybody. That shows innocent people. Furthermore, Ivins tells guns should be for law enforcement and military. She also says guns shouldn’t be allowed at all if you want the protection to get a dog or knife. In this source, it discusses “The Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, had no serious criminal record, and a local gun store said he had passed a background check before buying some of his guns” by Lois Beckett published by The Guardian on October 5, 2017.

The article is saying the Vegas shooter got and gun and had a background check and still got accepted for getting a gun and 58 people got killed. Ivins also is stating America should have stricter gun control laws. Also in the article, it says “Nobody saw any red flags. Nobody thought anything was wrong with him” Volinsky said thought of Paddock. “It’s not enough to just limit the kind of people who own guns.

You have to go to after the hun themselves. Guns is the problem” by Lois Beckett published by The Guardian on October 5, 2017. The article was saying how they didn’t see any warning signs and he still killed 58 people. Both articles are saying we need more strict laws and the government needs to do more. Ivins says how anyone can be killed with a gun anytime.

Finally, in the essay “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” by Molly Ivins, she has a belief of gun shouldn’t be allowed if you want protection you can get a dog or knife. She makes a good statement “Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do”. She is saying how cars don’t really kill you do like guns kill you.

She is correct we shouldn’t be having guns there have been so many school shootings going on in the world and so many people dying. That we should have stricter laws. Us as Americans should know not to kill innocent people.

 

Example #6 – interesting ideas

The issue of gun control and violence, both in Canada and the United States, is one that simply will not go away. If history is to be any guide, no matter what the resolution to the gun control debate is, it is probable that the arguments pro and con will be much the same as they always have been.

In 1977, legislation was passed by the Canadian Parliament regulating long guns for the first time, restructuring the availability of firearms, and increasing a variety of penalties. Canadian firearms law is primarily federal, and “therefore national in scope, while the bulk of the firearms regulation in the United States is at the state level; attempts to introduce stricter legislation at the federal level are often defeated”.


Statistics can be bent into whatever shape you want! Want to prove that private ownership of guns increases the death rate? Google Brady law! Want to prove that gun ownership reduces crime?  It’s easy … Just Google whatever group you want to support … BINGO “honest” stats to support your position!

On a personal note, a quote that has been attributed to many people sticks in my mind (among the people who this quote has been attributed to is, unfortunately, Al Capone!) “An armed society is a polite society”

Also attributed to Al Capone: “You can get more with a kind word … and a gun than you can get with a kind word alone”. Are you trying to separate “justified violence” from “criminal activity?” If so, stay away from the CDC and other government sites, the best place to support your position is NRA affiliated sites.

If you want to lump all violence where a gun was used in any aspect (criminal using a gun against honest citizen, honest citizen using a gun against criminal, cop using a gun against criminal) go to CDC related sites, Brady law-related sites, etc. The two basic lies in existence today are Outright fallacy and lies supported by statistics!


Well, let me put it this way. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm.

When I carry a firearm, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an 85-year-old lady as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Now if you and your teacher are not brain dead liberal sheep you will understand the truth in that. If you are brain dead liberal sheep you will never be able to understand anything that has the common sense to it.

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 black Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican, and a schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several blacks rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a knee grow hunt,” killing every knee grow (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find.

 

Cite this page

Choose cite format:
Gun Violence Essay. (2020, Sep 12). Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://essayscollector.com/examples/gun-violence-essay/



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *