"Studies have shown that guns are needed for the safety of the people and there is a need to repeal Gun Control for all guns."
Semiautomatic weapons have been brought out by a student of suburban high school and fired resulting in fatal injuries to his classmates and teachers and several others. The consequence is that a pre-teen boy was sentenced for life under the charge of murdering a 6-year-old girl. One teenager breaks out a pistol and gun and another fired at the girl. The news became so widespread that the respective horrors have initiated to coalesce, making our sense of hope and security as individuals and as a society becomes irresistible. The school yard insults that once resulted in a confrontation to deal with have extended to the children literally proceeding for their guns. In the past it was a matter of grave concern for some children to bring a knife to school. Presently it is all so easier for a child to get a gun -- the metal detectors mounted in many of the public schools are in testimony of that grave reality. And as a society, we are confronted with the hope of trying children as adults for crimes ranging from rape and assault to murder. (Graves, 2001)
No victory is visualized when it is to be chosen between the sentencing a minor to life in prison or sending that child to the executioners. Over the period of more than thirty years the American public has been seriously guaranteed that the peace loving individuals who possess guns for self-defense are adversaries in waiting. It is evidentially true that a gun in the home is more prone to kill a member of the family than to protect against an intruder. Permitting the citizens to carry firearms beyond the home for self-protection will convert the streets into Dodge City and the parking lots into the OK Corral. The prisons and graveyards will be filled with several more African-Americans. This is the last to be tolerated. The question arises as to when it will stop. And who is liable for completing it. The solution is imitated with the strategy for Gun Control. (Graves, 2001)
Those who support Gun control are of the view that by allowing people to hold guns would create a condition whereby criminals can carry guns and can use them at their discretion whereby innocent lives are lost. Instead of seeing innocent children and other people being killed because of the use of guns, it is much better to have a Gun control, since Gun control is for the safety of the pople and not to harm them in any way. They argue that criminals would feel more confident when they know that their victims would not have guns to defend themselves or to attack them and hence crime levels would increase. By having a Gun control, criminals and other dangerous people can be kept under control and thereby the misrepresentation of the guns can be checked. But those who are against Gun control measures advocate that even the sponsors of Gun control recognize their proposed legislation that would have little impact on crime and violence. (Cottrol, 1999) The gun-control movement is in waters in various parts of the world. From Britain to Australia to Canada and to U.S., the arguments that gun control would lower crimes and would enable the safety of the people have been negatively effected. For example in Britain the crime rate has been increasing since Britain had brought about a tight gun control of all weapons which criminals need. Handguns were being outlawed in the year 1997, and almost all other firearms are being tightly regulated. In spite of all these regulations the crime levels in England and Wales have almost doubled in the 4 years after the ban with the violent crime rate increasing by 118%. And in comparison to the U.S. The crime levels in England and Wales are almost double the levels. (Lott; Lehrer, 2004)
Those who are against Gun control are of the view that studies have revealed an amazingly high amount of firearm is sensibly used in self-defense. They indicate that the research by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and others indicate between two and three million cases of self-defense per year. Awesomely, these incidents associate not with firing the weapon at the attacker, but simply brandishing it and thereby resulting in the attacker's withdrawal. Moreover, they indicate that in contemporary era several states have legislations allowing the honest citizens to hold concealed weapons and the consequences reveal much about the self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. (Cottrol, 1999)
More than 1 million Americans have authorizations to hold firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been very negligible. The opponents of the Gun control advocate that criminologists now deliberate the good effects of the concealed-carry laws rather than the magnitude of injury inflicted by this. The detailed analysis by John Lott of the University of Chicago reveals that concealed-carry laws have had a considerable restrictive effect on crimes of violence. Lott also found out the dramatic benefits for the urban poor and minorities. The final propositions that international comparisons prove the case for radical gun control may be the most difficult of all. Definitely, the simplistic conclusion that American homicide rates are more than who in Western Europe and Japan due to the fact of the greater existence of firearms glosses over considerable cultural and demographic variations between us and other advanced countries. The American population is considered to be younger and more varied. Not like the Western Europe and Japan, the United States has always had more number of immigrants and internal migrants.
There is also a tradition of racial exclusion and a fight against the exclusion as ancient as the Republic and without the real parallel in analogous nations. All of these have resulted in crime rates higher than those in other western nations. All of these have given rise to crime rates higher than those in other western countries. Therefore, those who contradict Gun control advocate that the final civil liberty is the liberty to protect one's own life, that without that right all other liberties have no meaning and that without the proper method of self-defense the liberty to self-defense is but an empty promise. (Cottrol, 1999) The advocates of Gun-control apply misleading statistics about the lower murder rates in selected countries with reinforced gun-control laws in comparison to the murder rates in the United States. However, such advocates diligently avoid mentioning the higher murder rates in other nations also having stringent gun-control legislations, or lower murder rates in some nations like Israel, where guns more widely are available than in the United States. (Sowell, 2002)
Astonishingly, in light of the enthusiastic support for stricter gun control that many academics expressed in the 1960s, stern research in this area did not initiate until the 1970s. That research demonstrates that no magnitude of control over mere weaponry can overcome the fundamental socio-cultural and economic determinants of crime. The evidences pointed out that banning gun possession by the normal pubic is really counterproductive. The most creative analyst in this field is Gary Kleck of Florida State University School of Criminology. His encyclopedic 1991 publication, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America could succeed in gaining high praise even from the educationists distressed by its findings. In broad terms the revelations are: Gun possession by general individuals is not a difficulty; the culprits of gun crime and accidents are abnormal individuals with traditions of substance abuse, violence, felonies, and other dangerous behavior. While the prohibition of gun possession by such people is simply rational, it can bring at best nominal benefit as long as the basic factors of their activity remain unchanged. Since the guns strengthen the weak against the strong, and since victims are normally weaker than felons, widespread gun ownership is a net benefit for society. (Kates, 1995)
On the basis of the surveys of both the general populace and imprisoned offenders, Kleck reveals that gun-armed victims beat criminals three to four times more often than gun-armed criminal assault victims. A victim who defy with a gun is only half likely to be injured as a victim who submits -- and far less prone to be robbed or raped. Other scholars have also varied in their views. University of Maryland political scientist Ted Robert Gurr and State University of New York criminologist Hans Toch were intimately involved with the Eisenhower Commission, which completed in the Sixties that declining the availability of the handgun will decrease firearms violence. On the basis of the following analysis, however, each presently contravenes such judgment when applied for safeguard; the firearms can gravely inhibit aggression and can entail a psychological bugger against the fear of crime. Moreover, the fact who national patterns reveal little aggressive crime where guns are most impenetrable entail that guns do not result in any aggression in any…