L85-A
Search and Destroy The people of the state Utah, were shocked to find a murder which occurred in the night. Police came to the scene, only to the find the corpse of a 5-year old girl. Apparently, the girl was murdered by her mother due to a heated argument and a mix of alcohol. The crime was not a surprise, but what surprised the people was the weapon used: A spatula. Quite an odd story isn’t it? However, this was a real occurrence back in July 2005. That news is evidence that when it comes to crime, everything is a weapon. This means that even the tiniest object can be fatal against a person, and not only the ‘bigger’ weapons such as guns. Many activists claim that through a total gun ban, crime rate would efficiently go down in the Philippines. Furthermore, they claimed that it would even protect the civilians and even prevent further crimes from happening. Can a gun ban really achieve these promises? No. A gun ban has no significant connection to those promises and as such, a total gun ban should not be implemented. Those activists strongly believe that a gun ban would really reduce the crime rate occurred in the area. Their strongest claim was the result that during the electoral gun ban in the Philippines, there was a 70% reduced crime occurrences which were recorded. While one cannot dispute these statistics, it is highly doubtable that these reduced crime rates occurred because of the gun ban. Other factors might have affected it: The increased number of security personnel, the check-points, and the stricter enforcement of the law (Pangilinan, 2013). Another issue that these activists wish to pursue is the idea that guns are the main source of weapons for crime. However, according to Bisio(2010), guns only count as 10% of the crime rates even in the US, and that, although in a morbid sense of thinking, one could have better chances of getting killed by a club than a gun. This is further supported by Harrel(2012), as she stated, crimes committed through the use of firearms only comprised 10-12% of the whole crimes committed, as compared to other weapons. Still, activists argued that if gun bans are implemented, criminals would lose their weapons of choice. This is highly debatable as criminals, once they have been deprived of their weapons, would just think of more ways to achieve their schemes and crimes (Pangilinan, 2013). In addition, crimes are not only committed through the use of guns but in other weapons as well such as knives, and that implementing a gun ban would not stop the bloodbath but just temporarily amend it (Sotto III, 2013). In relation to this, people often claim that through a gun ban, crimes would be prevented similar to the first argument, but in reality, a gun ban would just promote or cause more crime. A data from the PNP Officials (2012) stated that, Gun Smuggling would inevitably heighten should a gun ban be implemented, furthermore, Esmeralda(2013) said that, should gun bans be implemented, gun selling in the black market would be a popular occurrence in criminals. To support this, Cook & Ludwig(2004) stated that there were no significant connections to the gun bans being able to prevent crime as crimes can still be carried out without the use of firearms. Lizoch & Toch(2004) supported this as they stated that crimes are mainly in the individual and not the weapon. Furthermore, even police officials believe that a gun ban would actually inspire a sense of security and loyalty in the people since they can now fully rely on their officials. This is not entirely true. By implementing a gun ban on the public, the people would just come to fear the police instead of being loyal to them. Once a police starts harassing you, you don’t fight back because they have a gun, and you don’t (Karger, 2012). In addition, gun bans would not only cause fear against the authorities, but even denotes a perpetual hierarchy (Braman & Kahan, 2006). This is because only those in position can own guns while those who are in the general masses cannot even dare hold one, which can lead to a further clash in social standings, further promoting injustice than justice itself. Lastly, many believe that a gun ban would actually protect civilians and provide more societal safety. Again, this idea is untrue for most aspects. A gun ban would not only violate the constitution of 8294, where citizens are free to acquire guns as a method of self defense, but even jeopardize the safety of those unarmed civilians (Cook & Ludwig, 2004). Because people are now unarmed, criminals can now easily prey on them, whereas, civilians are unable to defend themselves (Panganiban, 2013). In addition, implementing a gun ban would be wrong for the legitimate gun owners who are licensed, and should the government provide a refund, it would take a large amount to compensate those owners (Bisio, 2010). Furthermore, many would still argue that if authorities are the only ones who could wield firearms, then, they could protect the civilians. However, this is just impossible as it would take a large amount of resources to mobilize a small force to protect a small place, and it would be implausible that police personnel are guarding a place 24/7. Sometimes, even family members would nestle guns in their homes to protect their loved ones because as stated, authorities are not always reliable as they are not always present ( Panganiban, 2013). As long as there is a sense of fear in society, guns will always be an option for self-defense. To conclude, a total gun ban does not have any significant connection when it comes to reducing crimes, furthermore, it only promotes fear and hierarchies in communities, and can even undermine the safety of the civilians. If people adapt the mentality of banning guns just because they can cause crimes and murder, then people should just start banning electricity because they can cause electrocution and death, or even ban fire because they can cause houses to burn down or swimming pools because they can cause people to drown. In its stead, the government should not ban guns but instead promote more efficient methods of controlling gun usage. As an example, increasing the standards of gun ownership licensing screenings, decreasing the gun calibre to those of only low gun types such as pistols, and imposing stricter laws on illegal gun usage (Lindeen, 2010). Furthermore, authorities should also root the problem to its core which is the smuggling of guns. I hope that in the near future, responsible gun ownership would be enforced because as an FBI agent once said: ‘It is not guns that kill people. People kill people.’
Reference List:
Braman, D. and Kahan, D. (2012). OVERCOMING THE FEAR OF GUNS, THE FEAR OF GUN CONTROL, AND THE FEAR OF CULTURAL POLITICS: CONSTRUCTING A BETTER GUN DEBATE. [e-book] Emery Law Journal. pp. 570-582. Available through: Google Scholar http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/55/4/Kahan.pdf [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Cook, P. and Ludwig, J. (2004). Principles for Effective Gun Policy. [e-book] Fordham Law Review. pp. 590-591. [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Donohue, J. (2004). Guns, Crime, and the Impact of State Right-to- Carry Laws. [e-book] New York: Yale Law School. pp. 624-625. [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Felipe, C. (2013). Gun ban ends tonight. Philstar, [online] 12 June. Retrieved from: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/06/12/952924/gun-ban-ends-tonight [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Hoskin, R. (2010). Mexican Drug Violence: Why the Merida Initiative, Gun Bans and Border Controls Will Fail and Drug Reform is the Solution. [e-book] New York: George Mason University. pp. 1-7. Available through: Google Scholar http://digilib.gmu.edu:8080/jspui/bitstream/1920/6549/1/133-791-1-PB.pdf [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Jacobs, J. (2008). EXCEPTIONS TO A GENERAL PROHIBITION ON HANDGUN POSSESSION: DO THEY SWALLOW UP THE RULE?. [e-book] Law and Contemporary. pp. 5-10. [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Kates, D. and Mauser, G. (2009). WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE. [e-book] pp. 9-11. [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Lindeen, L. (2010). Keep Off the Grass!: An Alternative Approach to the Gun Control Debate. [e-book] Indiana: Indiana Law Journal. pp. 1664-1666. [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Progun.ph (2010). Gun ban statistics project | PROGUN. [online] Retrieved from: http://progun.ph/content/gun-ban-statistics-project [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Rodriguez, J. (2013). How effective is the Election Gun Ban?. ABS-CBN NEWS, [online] 29 January. Retrieved from: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/01/29/13/how-effective-election-gun-ban [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
Tamayo, B. (2013). Sotto defends responsible gun owners. Journal Online, [online] 7 January. Retrieved from: http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/top-stories/42441-sotto-defends-responsible-gun-owners [Accessed: 30 Aug 2013].
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
American radio host and political commentator, Tammy Bruce, in her article, Why Gun Control Wont End Mass Murder, describes many statistics of gun violence. Bruce’s purpose is to make her readers aware of gun violence and the many factors contributing to it as well as how it is statistically unlikely that gun control will help. She adopts an aggressive tone in order to support those that agree with her. The main ideas expressed throughout this article are that politicians use shootings and gun violence for political gain and aren’t doing anything to stop it. She explains that gun control wont stop gun violence because of problems such as drugs leading to terrorists. Tammy Bruce in her article uses many statistics and viewpoints to support her claim against gun control.…
- 918 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In her essay “Why Handguns Must Be Outlawed,” Nan Desuka brings for the issue whether handguns should be outlawed except to police and other service units. I disagree with Desuka’s position on banning handguns. This essay offers arguments why they should be banned without offering realistic solutions to the problems Desuka states in owning handguns. Retaining legalized handguns affects all of us. It’s essential to Collectors and sportsmen, and vital to all our safety. I do not believe that banning handguns will overall decrease violent crimes or the deaths due to violent crimes.…
- 1132 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
As mentioned earlier, Washington, D.C. and the United Kingdom adopted stringent gun control laws and it literally increased crime. If laws become too tough to handle, people will work their way around the laws. Owning or not owning a gun will not make people less susceptible to experiencing crime. In 2010, across four counties, 444 domestic homicides relating to guns were recorded. In only eight of these instances, the gun involved had been kept in the home. Furthermore, the instances when the gun in the home had been used, it is safe to say that it was used in self-defense. Most homicide victims are killed by weapons carried by the intruder (Lott, pg. 26,…
- 1963 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In fact, the FBI has released statistics that show that more people are killed by weapons other that guns, such as clubs and hammers. (Stand) If you think that banning guns will take them out of the hands of criminals, you’re mistaken. It has been proven that criminals don’t obey the rules that our society has put into place. They will get their hands on them through the black market, and then because we banned guns law abiding citizens will be defenseless. Imagine this scenario. You’re at Whataburger, a restaurant that has banned guns, enjoying a nice burger with your best friend. You look up from your conversation, and a man has walked in. He is wearing a black ski mask, and your stomach drops. He has an illegal gun, and it’s pointed right at you. “Hands up!” He shouts. No one moves in your defense, they just comply with the masked man’s order. The good people have left their weapons in the car, or at home to respect the company’s decision to have a gun free zone. You’re left at the mercy of this stranger, whose intentions are quite clear. Now imagine if the company hadn’t banned guns in their restaurant. That man sitting in the corner booth has his concealed handgun license, and could’ve stopped the crime as soon as the masked man had walked in. “You can’t blame an inanimate object that’s availability has absolutely no correlation to murder and expect it to end violence.”…
- 720 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Why do most of 19 different major varieties of gun control laws appear to have no impact, with a few exceptions, on the types of violence which frequently involve guns? Many explanations are suggested by both our own results and those of prior research. First, some gun laws are intended to have their effects by reducing gun ownership levels, so some gun laws may fail because they do not achieve their proximate goal of reducing gun ownership (Table IVA). However, our results also generally indicate that gun prevalence levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates (top row, Table IVB). Consequently, gun laws may fail simply because, even if they did reduce gun prevalence, this would not produce a reduction in violence rates.…
- 255 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Statics have shown that some advocates would like to see the government to enforce a stricter rule on the manufacturing and selling of guns. Having gun control will reduce crime a little because it would limit the availability of getting the guns. On the other hand, a lot of parents leave their guns unsecure and the kids steal them. Also, advocates feel that keeping weapons from criminals would help. Meaning, if they are caught with a concealed weapon or if they are convicted felons, they would return to prison with a more harsh punishment.…
- 1501 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
THESIS STATEMENT: This paper elucidates the causes for the gun violence is the presence of guns in our society, rather than the citizens who are using them for their bad intentions.…
- 89 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Although guns provide a good way to protect us, they also offer an effective method to kill others. Perhaps many people may argue that gun is just one of the numerous tools killers use, they believe that gun control can’t eliminate murder. However, “The biggest problem with firearms is they kill quickly and they kill efficiently. The problem there is the instant impulse leads to death” (Schoener). Even though the government set up several restrictions for owning guns, killers can easily get them. What is worse, with the gun culture, people are more likely to release their anger by shooting. These entire make the gun law the most dangerous law we’ve ever…
- 688 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
An argument used many times against gun is that bans on assault weapons and large magazines simply don't work 2). However for many countries around the world this statement is entirely false. In the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, not only do all of these countries have strict gun laws but they also have the lowest death by gun rates, violent and accidental. In Australia during the 1980's the Prime Minister at the time initiated wide sweep of gun control. Since the 1970s Australia had had thirteen "mass shootings”; in the almost thirty years since the enactment of their gun control reform laws Australia has not had a single mass…
- 951 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
There are several strategies that can dramatically reduce cases of gun violence. First, there are no reasons for citizens to purchase any type of semi-automatic or assault weapons. Instead, they should only be able to purchase handguns for protection purposes. Allowing citizens to purchase assault weapons only translates into providing support for people that have wrong intentions. Because these weapons are easily available, people who intend to cause harm can obtain one and carry out their plan. This is why it is very crucial to ban citizens from purchasing weapons that can inflict substantial damage. Although handguns can also cause great damage, they are less…
- 740 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
They claim that other countries, with less crime because of strict regulations, are examples the U.S. could follow (Gun Control: Update). This is highly unreasonable because expanding upon gun ownership, in the U.S., has actually decreased violent crime. A 2010 article published by the NRA and the ILA notes, "Forty states have Right-to-Carry, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law. And, since 1991, the total violent crime rate has declined over 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate has declined by half to a 45-year low” (Gun Control Reform) Therefore, the evidence proves that many of the states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that do not. One example of broadening gun ownership would be the concealed carry law. In 1987, Florida enacted a concealed carry law. Before the law, Florida’s homicide rate was 11.7 per 100,000. By 1991, it dropped 20% to 9.4 per 100,000. Since adopting a concealed carry law, Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58% (Stearns). Besides Criminals, Floridians are safer due to this law and Florida isn’t the only one. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law (Stearns). A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996…
- 1709 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
In Russ Thurman’s article, “Guns up. Crime down. Anti-gun mum.” he discusses how anti-gun advocates have had nothing to say about facts revealing that with more people owning guns, crime rates have gotten lower. (“During the past six months, studies have shown that while gun ownership is at an all-time high, violent crime is at a 30 year low…”) The article is clearly structured and easy to read. Although wanting to prove a point to anti-gun and pro-gun control advocates, Mr. Thurman avoids the use of slang, jargon, angry words or vagueness. Nor does he appear to “lash out” at the other side. He simply states straight to the point facts with clear and valid evidence. He denounces anti-gun and pro-gun control advocates theme-“guns equal crime”-with supportive evidence. Drawing statistics from The National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Thurman proves wrong, a high belief of pro-gun control advocates, that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun violence. He found that studies done by the Centers of Disease Control show that there is no meaningful proof that gun control efforts have any affect on crime control. In addition, he goes on to prove that those restrictions also do not reduce gun crime, gun violence or gun accidents.…
- 945 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
Guns do a lot of bad, but do a lot more good for society. Banning guns will not stop the problem, but will just make it worse. Guns are apart of our society as Americans they have been around since colonial years, and are not leaving anytime soon. “The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half. (Kristof, The Times).” Guns offer protection for individuals. One day you could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a shooting breaks out, you will pray there is someone else there with a concealed firearm to help control the situation while waiting for police to arrive. They can’t do that if guns are banned. “We need to understand that we cannot stop crimes and murders. And banning guns would be a step, or two, backwards instead of moving forward in the right direction (The Times News).” The research conducted to produce this paper was drawn from a multitude of sources all with different…
- 1133 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Writer Christine Watkins, at htt://ww.socialstudies.org claimed that “there are already some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and that, as more laws pass, more gun violence occurs. “With the significant increase I gun control laws passed by President Obama in the past years, along come a rise in the percentage of gun violence where more gun control laws have been put into action. Stronger gun control laws will make it more difficult for the citizen to protect themselves and their families if a criminal appears. The police aren’t around all the time and might not be able to make it on time or help the situation at…
- 278 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In (JTATG) there are three sentences that stand out at the beginning and they are “The president wants still tougher gun control legislation and thinks it will work” ( Wilson). “ The public supports more gun control laws but suspects they will not work” (Wilson). “The public Is right” (Wilson). In the article it states that there are around 200 million firearms in private ownership and that around one-third of them are handguns.] For example, while it is true that the number of shooting rampages has increased in recent years, the rate of violent crimes and homicides for both Blacks and Whites (including those committed with firearms) has decreased significantly over the same period, despite the tremendous increase in the number of firearms in the U.S., according to both the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (Miguel A. Faria…
- 1453 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays