Gun Control Effects On Police Officers

In "The ‘Right to Carry’ Fallacy ," Daniel Webster argues that a local person having a gun during a shooting could save lives. Therefore, the laws that allow the right to carry guns are indistinct to determine who can use a gun in public sites, and whether or not it increases the violence. In addition, the research of gun laws showed certain defects, and the teachers Ian Ayres and John Donohue produced the best research. Another key point is that where laws prohibit the carrying of a gun, this proved to be favorable to the police. I agree with Daniel Webster that laws permitting the carrying of guns would not help the police to decrease gun violence.

By concealing the weapon, citizens can go about their day normally without being distracted by a handgun on someone’s person. Many Americans are beginning to grasp the concept that gun control laws are rapidly becoming useless. John C. Moorhouse and Brent Wanner, authors of “Gun Control Law Do Not Reduce Violent Crimes” State that the reason gun control is ineffective, is because it does next to nothing to stop criminals from getting their hands on firearms (Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce). To reduce gun crime, more needs to be done to stop criminals, instead of focusing efforts on law abiding citizens, they are not the ones to worry about.

Public safety is the main concern to everybody, I want to feel safe when I am gone out to the mall, not always have the fear of something tragic happening due to someone else’s silly mistake. According to an article on concealedguns.org, they believe public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers, not to private citizens, with less or no training. Not everybody is capable of handling a life or death situation while using firearms in a mature way, possibly allowing the situation to escalate more then what it was in the beginning. For example if I was to be at the mall, and a random individual is

To prevent this from happening, the weapon must be concealed. Moreover, carrying firearms can lead to unnecessary police calls, which could cause huge misunderstandings. To put it in a police officer’s point of view, there could be so much confusion when approaching somebody who has a weapon

In the past six months, there have been a total of 19,635 gun incidents. Out of those 19,635 incidents, 107 were mass shootings, 829 were home invasions, and 604 were for defensive use, according to Gunviolencearchive.org. It is unbelievable to see the number of gun related incidents that have happened in just the past six months. What is even more unbelievable to imagine is that so many of those incidents could have been avoided if people were allowed to carry concealed guns in certain places. Concealed carry, or concealed weapons, is the practice of carrying weapons, such as a handgun, in public in a concealed manner. All fifty states in the United States allow concealed carry in public places to some degree. But, some places, for example, schools, restaurants, and stores, prohibit concealed weapons. The controversy about whether concealed weapons should be prohibited in certain locations has been debated for years, and more often in the past decade. On one side of the debate, supporters of the “gun-free zones” claim that prohibiting concealed weapons in certain locations will reduce crime and ensure that the location is free of gun violence, allowing concealed weapons can result to more guns landing in the hands of criminals, and some even insist that public safety should be left to professional, qualified police officers, not ignorant citizens with little to no expert training. However, it is absolutely necessary to know that prohibiting weapons in certain locations

Current Gun Control regulations do not deter violence and crime. It has been shown that places that have relaxed their gun control laws have a higher crime and death rate. Data proves that homicide rates “[...] among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states”(Bailey). This is evidence that there is a correlation between gun control and death rates. It is also proven with statistical evidence that places with the least amount of gun control have the most violence. Statistics show that “‘none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register

Many people around the United States are victims of shootings, whether they be school shootings, mass shootings, or Terrorist Attacks. There seem to be two common ideas either support or oppose gun control. In the United States, many gun control supporters believe that guns are the reason mass shootings happen while gun control opponents believe that people are the cause of mass shootings. But they both want the people in the United States to be safe, whether that is from government tyranny, mass shootings, gun violence, or mental health.

Recently, the topic of gun control has been at the top of everybody’s list in regard to what this country needs to focus on. With the recent tragedies in Las Vegas and Orlando, some may claim that giving more people the ability to carry a concealed weapon would deter some criminals from committing crimes due to fear of failure. This theory was discussed and tested in an article by David Fortunato entitled, “Can Easing Concealed Carry Deter Crime?” This article shows results of many surveys and case studies completed within the US regarding topics like types of permits, ease of issuance, and the perceived number or carriers per state. It then goes on to break down this data, and draws a conclusion from it that may surprise some.

The amount of crimes happening today will only increase with stricter gun control laws because there is a higher temptation to steal guns. An American citizen claims, “Ever since I first learned how to shoot, the issue with gun violence around the nation became clear: Guns are not the problem; people are” (Sherfenski). Police need to lock up these people committing the disastrous crimes that affect so many innocent lives. These blameless people are not prepared when they are being attacked, and that is because most shootings tend to happen in areas where guns are controlled. The former United States Secretary of Education, William Bennett, explains the reason that criminals decide to go to places that have controlled gun laws is because: “These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They show up to schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back” (Bennett). Even if guns are controlled in public places including malls and schools, where there are uncontrolled shootings, why would it make a difference if they were controlled everywhere? It would not make a difference whatsoever because these crimes are done out of pure, revolting pleasure. Committing a crime is one thing, but taking away a right that was given to Americans in the 1790s is a whole different story.

Staff carrying a concealed handgun will help stop a shooting spree before the shooter can pull off a second shot, and before the police even arrive. For example, after the Apr. 20, 1999 Columbine High School massacre, the state of Colorado enacted the 2003 Concealed Carry Act to allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon. The CATO Institute concluded that this law helped to stop a massacre at the New Life mega-church in Dec. 2007 when a volunteer security guard for the church who was carrying a concealed handgun shot an attacker who had opened fire in the church (Pros and Cons). This only took a matter of seconds, whereas if no one was carrying a concealed handgun, the attacker would have shot and potentially killed a few people before anyone could even pull out their phones to call 911, and then the response time it takes the police to arrive is enough to kill a few more people. The same thing would have happened at Columbine if staff were allowed, able, and able to carry a concealed weapon. What was a total of 13 deaths, could have turned into maybe just 1 if a teacher was carrying. However, someone could propose that criminals are more likely to carry a gun if they think that their

Throughout the last two years there have been many police involved shootings where they have killed someone. Some say the cops where right and others say they were wrong in the situation. Are the police right in using deadly force instead of trying a different situation? When is it ok for police to use deadly force and are they right in doing so? In the past two years there have been multiple police shootings, which have been the main topic with police. Some have said that race has played a huge role in the recent shootings and blame racism on the deaths by the officers. In the recent cases it has been a white officer who has killed a black person. Who has the say in the case if the police made the right decision if

“Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the legal use of guns” (pg.125). Author James Q. Wilson, a professor of management and public policy at the University of California in Los Angeles writes the article “Just Take Away Their Guns” to provide the American public with evidence of why taking away their guns will have little effect on crime in the United States. “Just Take Away Their Guns” was published into the New York Times Magazine in March, 1994. Professor Wilson, author of many books such as “Thinking about Crime,” “Bureaucracy,” “The Moral Sense,” and “Moral Judgment” uses statistics to advocate for perspective on gun control. The article not only addresses the use of guns but also provides a lot of textual evidence to support the author’s claims related to legal restraints on lawful purchases of guns. Firearms present in the homes of American citizens, while potentially dangerous, provide these citizens with a sense of security.

Gun control is often considered as an effective means of protecting ordinary citizens. We all want to feel safe, and it's easy to ascribe notions of safety to the idea of gun control. Unfortunately, feeling safe and actually being safe can be very different things. Gun control sounds wonderful in theory: no guns means no shootings. If only it were that simple. When one considers some of the worst shootings and gun-related crimes in recent history, it's peculiar to realize how often these occurred in places where guns were illegal to carry or even own. It's downright disturbing to realize that, in some cases, the only armed person in sight was the one planning a crime. A sign that says 'no guns' might as well say 'no resistance'.

On average, there is a shooting throughout the country where the victim was left defenseless each day. even with strict gun control laws set in by the federal government, many Americans still have faith in our second amendment. Gun control is proven ineffective, According to Richard Epstein of the New york University of Law, “We can confidently predict that crime will go up unless and until there is a vast expansion of the public police force.” (Epstein 1). While gun control law are in place there are still too many guns for the federal government to keep track of within the country, Richard Epstein states that “upwards of 200 million firearms of all descriptions are available for general use in the United States.” (Epstein 2). With recent

There are an abundance of causes and effects in the way guns are used, purchased, and sold – legally or illegally. A few causes include how guns are kept (with a safety and locked away or not), and in the way guns are obtained. The effects of these acts are, peoples state of mind, and the criticisms law enforcement may receive. Thought of as technical and firm, the laws about guns can easily be bypassed by criminals and people who are not in the right frame of mind.