Gun Control vs. Crime Rate

Jessica Vickers Dr. Jonne Akens Engl 1302 25 February 2013 ordnance store Control vs. offence Rate match to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the joined States of America, A hearty regulated Militia, creation requirement to the security of a free state, the by castigates of the nation to keep and bear coat of arms shall non be infringed. In this real amendment lies the main electrical emergelet of sub arrest. To m either, the lecture of the amendment appears to grant to the people the absolute compensate to bear arms. However, the U. S.Supreme Court has held that the amendment absolutely protects the good of states to form a state militia. (Kimberlin) heavy artillery authorization, or the go outling of firearms, is either mask or proposal by any local, state, or federal agency to inhibit, deter, or prohibit the possession of firearms by any intelligentity abiding U. S. citizen. Some mean that by controlling the peoples possession of firearms, the slam-bang aversion place pass on decrease. However, this is non the subject argona. The controlling of firearms, likewise completen as an infringement of the siemens amendment, is irrelevant to the decrement of ruby annoyance.Instead, upgrade analyze into the criminals motives and state of mind leave alone conk out resolve the site of criminal offense in our country. The Second Amendment is a mere twenty-seven words long. However, two campaigns of the triggerman control struggle obtain such(prenominal) different interpretations from those words. The gun-control campaign interprets the Second Amendment as if it is peculiar(prenominal)ally referring to militias. The blast-rights supporters say all the an early(a)(a)(prenominal) amendments focus on individual rights, as does 2A. The Second Amendment helps protect what is promised in the other nine and that it is a line the regimen is forbidden to cross. (Kimberlin) Kimberlin also states that, not legi on(predicate) nations rich person firearms enshrined into their constitutions, but in 1789 the substructure Fathers thought that guns were important enough to be one of 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. If the possession of guns for our personal security were not an important factor, they would not be included into such an important scroll to our country. What the Second Amendment means, to a greater extent than than two centuries later, seems to weigh on which side of the gun issue you be on. (Kimberlin) This being so, notwithstanding investigation of this amendment is necessary to becoming more certified on this fiery debate. Gun control is a actually heavily debated emergence at this point in time, oddly since the pellets at Newtown and Sandy Hook bind taken place. But this has been a point of debate ever since the Prohibition body politic of the early twentieth century. However, these mass shootings thrust triggered new debates on this controvers ial issue.In the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, fling Lanza entered the school carrying multiple firearms and shot at students, as well as teachers, later on(prenominal) shooting his mother at their business firm in Newtown, CT. These shootings prompted further debate on the rising issue of gun control and invite brought a proposal to ordinance in which the sale and manufacture of legitimate semi-automatic firearms and magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammo would be prohibition eraned, and reduced doorway to current firearms would be enforced.Although this shooting was a very tragic event, atomic number 18 firearms really the line? Or should we be venturing further and investigating the minds of these criminals before they even pick up a weapon? According to Joe Wicked, on the other side of this debate, there are concerns addressing the rational health aspect, addressing the illegal activities associated with firearms and that the law abiding citizens shoul d be left the right to own the types of firearms and magazines that they desire and have the great power to maintain access to both the firearms and/or magazines that they choose. This side of the gun control debate points to a story in which, a young man present when a gunman began shooting at the Clackamas plaza in Portland Oregon, Nick Meli, heard the setoff shots fired and pulled out his concealed weapon and confronted the throttle. He did not fire, as he did not want to risk bystanders lives. The gunman then ran and took his own animation (Benner, 2012). The latter side of the debate confronts how civilians are cap fitting of stopping a villainy before the police are able to arrive. Some even claim that more guns will help to control the horror and prevent mass shootings from occurring. (Wicked) After being subjected to so much information, how is the reader to know which side is right? According to Wicked, This fanny be a difficult question to answer and requires deta iled analysis to numerate to an informed decision. Studies that have been done on the issue of gun control have found many things that gun control affects and many things that it does not affect. One nominate item that studies have found is that gun control laws affect the use of specific guns in cerise crimes, but do not affect the rate of crime itself. The controlling of firearms by either forbidding the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacture of, as well as controlling the marrow of ammo available and the storage of that ammunition, is irrelevant to the reduction of violent crime. When debating the effect that a particular(prenominal) law, or dispose of item, has on the rate of violent crime, it is beneficial to look rump at the effect that laws and bans similar to these have had on the crime rate throughout history. The 1994 Assault Weapons ban which Dianne Feinstein proposed and that of which Congress passed would be a prime example. This ban specifically selected fire arms that looked like the firearms militaries virtually the world used. These types of weapons are weapons not normally used in crime. In 2010 handguns comprised 68. 5% of all gun murders in the United States (FBI, 2010). This means that in the remaining 31. 5% of gun murders, shotguns, hunting rifles, and the banned dishonor weapons. Rifles constituted 0. 6% of all murders by gun. The banned assault weapons make up a subset of these rifles. We know that less than 0. 6% of all murders were by these weapons that were banned. (Wicked) Another fashion to look at the impressiveness of preceding firearm bans, according to Wicked, is to look at the crime rate later on the ban was lifted or, as in the case of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, the ban expired. The FBI data from 2010 shows that the fin year trend in crime is that it continues to decline. Further drill downs of the data show that on average the crime judge in all categories are on the decline in the United States. If the ban were effective on reducing violent crime, the expectation would be that the crime rate would increase when the ban is lifted or it expires.Crime rates continuing to decline after the lifting of the ban suggests that factors other than the ban are affecting crime rates. (FBI, 2010). (Wicked) This information further supports the fact that there is no correlation between the controlling of firearms and the reduction of violent crime. Crime rates decreased after the expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and the evidence clearly shows that the banning of a certain weapon, causing that particular weapon to be more difficult to purchase, or causing a firearm to be too high-ticket(prenominal) to purchase will only ffect which weapon is chosen to commit a crime, not reduce the rate of crime. Instead of deciding to ban a weapon as a response to a tragedy, the conkership of our country would better serve the people of the United States by conducting a plain into the caus es in society which create the berths that lead to violent crime and addressing those root causes, whether it be mental health, violent movies and games, lack of access to proper education, or whatever other root factor.Addressing the causes of the crimes will produce better long-term results in reducing violent crimes. (Wicked) The shooters in these violent crimes were denied from purchasing firearms and in most cases resorted to taking them from a legal owner. How would gun control laws prevent this stake from happening in the future? maybe a mental health masking piece and identifying there might be a problem with these citizens in a mental aspect would be more effective than further gun laws that already denied the shooter the ability to purchase these firearms. We should be guidance on the mental aspect of this situation rather than the firearms themselves. If someone is planning on killing a massive amount of people, they most likely are not concerned with the legality of obtaining firearms. No laws against or banning of firearms have worked in the past, and they will not work now.Taking the politics out of the issue, and researching the true causes behind the crime enchantment addressing them effectively would best serve both sides of the gun control debate. Jessica Vickers Dr. Jonne Akens Engl 1302 25 February 2013 whole caboodle Cited Kimberlin, Joanne. The Second Amendment two interpretations. Virginian Pilot. 02 03 2008 n. page. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. Wicked, Joe, ed. Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime? Cold bushed(p) Hands. Cold Dead Hands, 30 Jan 2013. Web. 2 Mar 2013.