Gun control is one of the most polarizing issues of our time. Because this is such a controversial subject, it is actually harder to make a coherent case -- others are arguing in circles, twisting facts to suit their agendas, and misusing statistics as a matter of routine. This does not mean that we cannot have a reasonable discussion about the subject of gun control, just that we seldom do. This paper will examine the issue of gun control, what governments hope to achieve with gun control and whether or not gun control actually addresses those issues. The latter component of the argument is important, if often overlooked. It is believed that the evidence will show that most gun control efforts are ultimately not aimed at achieving higher levels of safety, and not surprisingly gun control efforts fail to achieve higher levels of public safety. Squires (2001) notes that this fear manifests itself in the feeling that one needs to be armed in order to defend oneself against threat. The threat is a rare occurrence in the U.S. What this means is that the threat has become sensationalized, something the media is responsible for but which the gun lobby also foments as well. They have a fairly consistent message that guns are the best way to protect oneself; even if that argument has no statistical basis an American culture raised on images of gun violence on televisions finds it emotionally compelling. Pew Research (2013) notes that "protection" is now the reason for 48% of gun ownership, compared with 26% in 1999. Hunting has dropped dramatically in that time -- people are less likely today to own a gun for a practical purpose than they are to own a gun on the idea that they will Dirty Harry their way out of a problem.
There are many different forms of gun control. You can usually spot a gun control effort by the froth coming out of the mouths of local NRA members. In all seriousness, however, gun control can range from erecting barriers to purchasing weapons to outright bans. Moreover, some gun control efforts are sweeping, covering a broad range of guns, while other such efforts are narrow. This is actually one of the problems one runs into in formulating a coherent argument about gun control -- a patchwork of laws and cultures to which those laws are applied makes it difficult to compare across jurisdictions. Some writers seek to make their point by offering up comparative statistics but it is where those comparison fall down. Gerbis (2014) does things like comparing the U.S.S.R. To the U.S., as if the two countries are even remotely comparable. It was spurious enough when Michael Moore compared Canada and the U.S., much less some of the multinational comparables we see. Instead, the best approach to offer before-and-after comparisons in the same jurisdiction, where such data is available.
As discouraging as that is, and how strong a case it might seem to make in favor of gun control, this is not necessarily the case. While fear is clearly marketed as a reason to buy a gun, fear of guns is marketed with equal enthusiasm. The media, again, bears blame -- they like guns because guns make news sell. So when there is an accidental shooting, it makes the news, and this fuels fear of firearms to an irrational extent (Lott, 2010). So both sides of the gun control debate rely on fear-based arguments, augmented by whatever statistics they can find that support their claims.
This brings up the question of what the objectives of gun control actually are. We know what the purpose of the NRA's gun lobbying efforts are -- to sell more guns -- but why do government enact gun control? The UK banned handguns in the wake of the Dunblane school shooting (Squires, 2001), indicating that this was a reactive policy based on high public emotion. The debate about Sandy Hook took much the same tone -- new laws were tabled in response to that tragedy, but none of those law would have addressed the fact that the perpetrators mother had purchased those…
Squires (2001) notes that this fear manifests itself in the feeling that one needs to be armed in order to defend oneself against threat. The threat is a rare occurrence in the U.S. What this means is that the threat has become sensationalized, something the media is responsible for but which the gun lobby also foments as well. They have a fairly consistent message that guns are the best way to protect oneself; even if that argument has no statistical basis an American culture raised on images of gun violence on televisions finds it emotionally compelling. Pew Research (2013) notes that "protection" is now the reason for 48% of gun ownership, compared with 26% in 1999. Hunting has dropped dramatically in that time -- people are less likely today to own a gun for a practical purpose than they are to own a gun on the idea that they will Dirty Harry their way out of a problem.
GUN CONTROL & PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL Surname The research paper is on gun control and the push for gun control. To respond to the topic the paper first lays down in the first paragraph basic concepts of the gun control ideals and the pro-gun movement. The introduction explores the basic tenets and motivations of the pro-gun and gun control activists in America. The paper uses the motivation and opposition of both
As a consequence, it is difficult to conclude that strict liabilities for gun owners (a la LaFollette) represent and appropriate and reasoned response. "Gun ownership fails to clearly possess any of the three characteristics of ultra-hazardous activities." It fails to be an activity that is not commonly done, that necessarily involves a risk of serious harm, and that cannot be made safe even with extreme care (Hunt, 2001: p.
gun control, including counter arguments. Owning a gun is much more than just a statement about this country's Constitution and Second Amendment rights. Owning a gun is a measure of protection and freedom that illustrates the principles this country's founders created, and it is a right that Americans should not take for granted. Gun control is not a suitable method for controlling crime, and it has not been proven
Gun Control and Crime Prevention Various Internet sources on the topic, as well as newspaper articles and public debate in general, have proved that the issue of gun control is a controversial one which is far from being resolved. For some critics, gun control is an essential measure to reduce or even prevent criminal activity. According to arguments raised by this camp, gun control laws will prevent criminals from obtaining weapons
Guns Control Gun control Gun control is a law or policy passed with the aim of limiting the possession and use of guns or firearms by private citizens. Gun and firearm control have been a subject of extensive debate in the U.S. The establishment of a balance between the personal rights of individuals to own and the government's commitment to maintain law and order has proved a tricky affair. The ownership of
Gun Control Laws and the Reduction of Homicides in the United States The objective of this study is to determine whether gun control laws will serve to bring about a reduction in the number of homicides in the United States. Toward this end this study will conduct an extensive review of literature in this area of inquiry. It is held by many that gun control laws will serve to bring about a