https://www.echeat.com/ Name: Tutor: Subject: Date of submission: Gun Control: An Annotated Bibliography Peters, Joseph A., Philip J. Cook, and Jens Ludwig. "Gun Crime and Gun Control: The Hawaiian Experience." University of Chicago Legal Forum. 2005.1 (2015). The article looks at the issue of gun control from the perspective of the Hawaiian experience. The researchers consider the factors that influence the use of guns to commit crimes. One of the prevailing arguments in the paper is that the misuse of guns is based mainly on human error. To further address the issue, the authors apply the sociological perspective and the economic respective. While the former perspective supports the argument of human error, the latter addresses some of the authoritative measures put in place to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands. The authors use empirical evidence to support their arguments. Specifically, they use this evidence to discuss the effectiveness of gun regulations. Their supporting resources are credible, for instance, a study that was conducted by Franklin Zimring and the report by the Washington D.C’s handgun acquisition committee. Also, by making reference to a number of acts and statuaries, Peters et al. make a credible argument regarding the control gun use by members of the public. In recognition of the importance of legislations and laws, it is important to think about the effectiveness of gun control laws by making reference to places where these laws have already been implemented. For instance, because Hawaii does not require all guns to be registered, authorities in other jurisdiction can apply their gun crime data to determine the most effective measures to prevent gun misuse. As well, using the evidence from Hawaii, experts may determine the connection between other crimes, such as the use of hard drugs (such as crack cocaine), and gun crimes. The results from case studies, such as the Hawaiian experience in this case, also help to improve the understanding of the application of the social and economic perspectives in gun control. Safavi, Arash, Peter Rhee, Viraj Pandit, Narong Kulvatunyou, Andrew Tang, Hassan Aziz, Donald Green, Terence O’Keeffe, Gary Vercrusse, Randall Friese and Bellal Joseph. "Children are safer in states with strict firearm laws: a National Inpatient Sample study." Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 76.1 (2014): 146-151. The paper compares the matter of public safety in States that have implemented strict firearm laws against those that have not. The research is based on the fact that firearm 2017-03-25T23:53:56.177-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Control-An-Annotated-Bibliography-45302.aspx Whether you are 2013-03-06T12:53:35.363-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Control-34826.aspx We are all involved in the process of education from beginning of our lives. Mr. Thoreau is comparing education to the simple life experience as straight-cut ditch to mentoring brook. Straight-cut ditch is man made trash, and brook is natural crick. But they both has similarities as they help water to reach a bigger reservoir. We all have desires to succeed in that world. And we perceive an education as a straight-cut to the knowledge which will give us a power. Education is incorporated in every child life, and perceived as something mandatory. Most of us have negative attitude toward kids who skip the school and who do not maintain good grades. But it well-known fact that not always the people who were good students in school become successful in their lives. Most of the people will agree, that much more pleasurable to have a deal with educated and intelligent people then with ignorant and uneducated. But not all educated people can reach the goal in their life. Without other important features, as dedication and hard working, it is not possible to make the dream come true. I started to think about continued education when it was time to pick a profession in my life. Education serves as an elevator to reach a goal to become either a teacher, engineer or accountant. To continue my education beyond the school wasn’t even a question, because both of my parents went through this process, and they were working as an engineers. They wanted me to be not only healthy, but independent, and intelligent person. I perceived an education mostly as a pleasant and useful experience which gives us a tool for long life learning. It teaches us not only the particular things, but also how to think. While some of the facts and figures we learn today may not apply to the world of tomorrow, our ability to think will be useful always, in everything we do. It widens our understanding about what is possible in the world. Education increases our awareness and appreciation of areas that affect and enrich human lives, such as music, art, literature, science, politics, and economics. Education teaches us to make things more efficient in human being understanding. But in some cases it 2007-11-07T00:59:01-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Education-on-Gun-Control-33396.aspx Gun Control Essay Since disarming the citizens of this country is the objective of the federal government, and since the federal government proclaims this to be a democratic country based upon equality, then any gun control measures adopted by the government should be democratically applied. If law abiding citizens are to have their guns taken from them then let the law abiding police agencies of the state be disarmed also. (Those in law enforcement who are crooked can keep their guns just as the drug pushers and criminal elements in the civilian population at large will keep theirs.) Democracy based on equality requires that, so far as possible all are to be democratically equal. Why should the police, FBI, and federal marshals remain armed while citizens are not? Let us look at this issue in an intelligent, reasonable manner and examine the arguments. It will be said of those in favor of non-democratic gun control that the police come into contact with dangerous criminal elements and need guns to defend themselves as well as to enforce the laws. This is, of course, quite true, but is it not equally true for the citizens of this country? Are they not the chief victims of crime? Do they not need to protect themselves? In most cases, the policeman or FBI agent is much more able to defend himself as a result of training, physical conditioning, and experience than, say, a woman at a shopping mall who is dragged into an attacker's van and raped while her child is beaten unconscious by the assailant. Why, in a equal democratic society, would laws be passed that would provide a pistol for the police officer and not for the woman? Does not the woman as a citizen enjoy the same right to self defense as a police officer? Do not citizens have the same right to defend themselves as FBI agents? For every law enforcement officer that comes into contact with a criminal there are 7,653 citizens that are victimized by criminals. A citizen is 800 times more likely to be the victim of crime than a law enforcement officer, yet those who control the Federal government in Washington wish to make it illegal for any citizens to defend himself! The best place to stop crime is at the time of it's occurrence; in other words, were the 2007-03-05T14:10:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Control-Essay--32737.aspx Gun Control and Linkage Mechanisms There are several institutions or people that influence the government, but are not directly apart of it. These people or groups help influence who is elected, what issues are discussed, and what becomes public policy. These groups or people are known as linkage mechanisms. Four that are extremely important linkage mechanisms to our democracy are public opinion, organized interest groups, political parties, and elections. Each of these influences the government in different ways, including negatively. Although linkage mechanisms are not part of the government, they affect it in countless ways. One controversial subject in American society today concerns gun control. The second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, but with amount of gun related violence today many feel the government needs to step up and enact more gun control. It is a tricky situation since about fifty percent of Americans own firearms, while the others believe that gun regulation is needed. Public opinion is an extremely important linkage mechanism when related to gun control. Public opinion is, “the political attitudes and beliefs expressed by ordinary citizens” (Greenberg & Page 101). Since the United States is a representative democracy, the government should do exactly what the citizens want. Of course this does not always happen, but public opinion still is the most beneficial to a democracy. Listening to public opinion is the easiest way for the government to give the people what they want. In fact the best way to see if it is a true democracy is to see whether or not the citizens feel the government policies correspond to what the public wants. In the case of gun control it is difficult because public opinion is split. Recently many have been pro-gun control due the amount of deaths from guns. This is especially the case after the deadly school shooting at Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado, as well as several others including two recent ones in San Diego, California. Many citizens question how these kids had guns in the first place, and if they were stricter laws maybe lives could have been saved. On the other hand, many anti-gun control citizens have voiced their opinion in retaliation to cries for more gun control. Many of these people own guns for sport or self-defense 2006-12-18T17:45:11-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Control-and-Linkage-Mechanisms-32005.aspx Arguments on Gun Control With the Second Amendment giving American citizens the right to bear arms, and approximately fifty percent of Americans owning some form of a firearm, issues involving the ownership and possession of guns have led to heated debates in American society. Most notably is the issue of gun control. Many feel that the some form of gun regulation is necessary in order to lower the level of gun related violence in the country. On the other hand, the opponents of gun control feel that it would be an infringement on their second amendment rights. The outcome and extent of gun control has strong political implications because it basically determines the present day meaning of the Second Amendment. While each side has strong points to their arguments, one quote by writer Michael Warfel basically sums up the need for gun control. He writes, “ an individual’s right to own and bear arms must be balanced by the greater social needs of a society” (18). Today, based on the number of crimes and violent acts committed with guns, society needs more gun control. Issues and policies relating to gun control in the United States date back to the late 1800s where the supreme court made the decision that the “right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution” followed up with a decision that states are “free to regulate the rights of citizens to bear arms” (Maguire 60). Later in the 1930’s president Roosevelt tried to pass legislation on gun regulations, but they were defeated in congress. Calls for gun control have usually followed major and highly publicized crimes and attacks involving guns, such as the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960’s. Also, the shooting of John Lennon and the attempt on President Reagen, as well as the recent string of shootings in American schools. Following the assassinations, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, with its central aim being a national standard on how and to whom guns were sold. This was added on to in 1994 with the Brady Act, which required gun dealers to run background checks on gun buyers before selling them (Rosen 61). While there is obviously some gun regulation currently in affect in the United States, 2006-11-17T02:45:27-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Arguments-on-Gun-Control-31805.aspx The Myth of Gun Control in Crime Prevention America has a long tradition of gun ownership and for many Americans it is a fundamental part of life. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. However, in recent years, there were many controversial discussions about the Second Amendment because there were a high number of gun-related deaths, wounding, accidents, and suicides in the US. School shootings and massacres shocked the whole country. Now more and more people ask themselves how such incidents could be prevented and if stricter gun control laws might reduce violent crime. There are different opinions about the Second Amendment. The pro-gun lobby, and especially the National Rifle Association (NRA), thinks that gun control should be opposed because it would harm the Constitution and a fundamental right of the individual: the right to keep and bear arms. This right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and therefore they are of the opinion that restricting this Amendment would mean that the door is open to restrict others. Advocates of gun control think that, in the 21st century, the Second Amendment is not appropriate anymore and that the individual simply does not need the gun the way he needed it three hundred years ago. They also say that guns are not only used for self-protection, but they are often used to kill people, especially young people. In 1996, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found out that 50 people die violently in American schools every year, and today the number is probably higher. It cannot be denied that guns are often a big danger. One of the numerous examples for that is the shooting at the Columbine High School in Littleton, and that is only one of the many appalling incidents that happened in recent years. Such incidents also show that guns are often too easily accessible for children and teenagers. The gun sellers are not the only ones to blame. In most households guns are not locked away properly and children can get them easily. Stricter gun control laws or the outlawing of private gun ownership would reduce the number of firearms in American households, and therefore it would reduce the number of gun-related deaths. The government and the lawmakers have realized the problem of growing gun violence and they do not ignore the problem. Some 2006-07-31T19:22:13-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Myth-of-Gun-Control-in-Crime-Prevention-30909.aspx Facing the Reality of Teens with Access to Handguns Handguns and teens do not go together. Why then is the number of young people being killed by handguns increasing each year. It is against the law for anyone under the age of twenty-one to handle a gun, but it seems that this law is not being followed by the world today. Many people have guns in their homes, for “protection” they say, but one can not honestly say that the weapon killing young people is a good means of protection. As a nation, a society, the people of today should stand up for what is right. Do not give teens the opportunity to handle a gun. Handguns should be illegal to the people under any circumstances. There have been numerous occasions on the news when a young child or teenager has been killed by a gun in his or her own house. This scene is so very sad. People today are not even safe in their own homes anymore. This situation, though it has happened many times, can be prevented. If people did not have the right to own handguns things of this sort would never happen. It is like a child with a piece of candy. If the child does not see the candy, he will not want it, but the moment he lays his eyes on it, it has to be his. Do not give people the chance to own a gun and no one will see the need to have one. Guns are a threat to the world today. No one goes into a convenience store and says, “Give me all the money or else,” without some form of a weapon, and nine times out of ten, that weapon it a gun. Think of how much better this world would be without guns. Teens would not be getting into the kind of trouble they are getting into today. Without the driving force of a handgun, young people would never think of robbing a bank, breaking into a house, or worst, killing someone. The violence of today’s teens would drastically decrease if guns were not in the picture. The most devastating thing about today’s teens handling guns, are the many times teens kill other teens. In schools around the world, young people have been bringing in guns and shooting their own classmates as a means of releasing anger. 2006-07-27T12:34:26-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Facing-the-Reality-of-Teens-with-Access-to-Handguns-30720.aspx Social Benefits of Allowing Gun Ownership Gun control has always been a splitting issue with activists and politicians. The question that is frequently asked is, “How far is too far when it comes to controlling guns?” Gun control has boiled down to three essential points, which are continually being debated within the United States government. The most common point that is made is that the American people have a “right to bear arms” according to The Constitution. The second issue is that guns are not what kill people; People kill people. There are some responsible uses for guns and if people use them irresponsibly, then that is when people will injure others. The last point that is made is that there are questions to gun control and how it effects crime. Having the right to guns teaches people self-defense and responsibility, which can assist in reducing crime. If you take the right to bear arms away, people will not be as secure in their communities. In order to understand the laws for gun control, one must first examine the law and how it is written. The 2nd Amendment for the United States Constitution states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers of the United States included this in the Constitution because they were in fear that the Government might oppress the people if they did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation and as individuals. This law was written with the concept in mind to keep the people safe and ease their minds during times of struggle and war. The militia mentioned in the constitution is meant as a group of defenders to the country that is made up of free men of every creed and every background. In times of war, the “free people” will be called into the fight and will need to have some sort of prior experience with guns and firearms. If we take away this right of the people, then there will be less training and experience with guns by the populace. There are however practical uses for guns that need to be kept in mind when considering gun control. Hunting is a popular sport to thousands of Americans across the country. Many activists claim that hunting is bad 2006-07-23T19:48:51-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Social-Benefits-of-Allowing-Gun-Ownership-30556.aspx A History of Gun Control in America In the 1960s after the assassinations of President John F. Kenedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Senator Robert F. Kenedy, gun control became a major subject of public passion and controversy. To some people gun control is a crime issue, to others it is a rights issue. Gun control is a safety issue, an education issue, a racial issue, and a political issue, among others. Within each of these issues there are those who want more gun control legislation and those who want less. On both sides of this issue opinions range from moderate to extreme. Guns are not for everyone. Certain individuals cannot handle a firearm safely, and some individuals choose to use firearms inappropriately. Our society has passed laws regulating the ownership and use of firearms, and more legislation is being considered. Most of this legislation restricts, to some degree, the rights of individuals to possess or use firearms. Some restrictions may be necessary, but some recent legislation has gone too far. Society benefits from firearms in the hands of responsible citizens. Attempts to keep firearms away from these citizens do more harm than good. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in our bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation and as individuals (Halbrook 65-84). This idea was not new. The Founding Fathers’ thoughts on the right to keep and bear arms were influenced by Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney (Halbrook 7). The militia referred to cannot be construed as meaning the Army or National Guard, in the words of Sanmuel Adams: “The Militia is composed of free citizens” (qtd. In Halbrook 62). Additionally, George Mason considered a “well regulated Militia” to be one “ composed of … Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen” (qtd. In Halbrook 61). The Revolutionary War was won with the help of “ armed populace composed of partisans, militias, independent companies, and the continental army…..”( Halbrook 63). It is obvious from this that the Founding Fathers 2006-07-22T12:34:56-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-History-of-Gun-Control-in-America-30441.aspx Issues over Gun Control in America The right to bear arms is a constitutional guarantee, and is not open for discussion; however the United States Government has used its power to limit and regulate this guarantee. Our government has been attacking this right for years, and like a covert terrorist organization, it denies its action. Pretending that they just want to limit the right to bear arms is their blanket of protection. They will slowly move from under that protection only when the nation is ready to accept the loss of this right and when it doesn't appear to be huge a movement to give up that right. At some point in the future, the right to bear arms will be so limited that it will just be a natural move to ban firearms altogether. Warren E. Burger defends this movement in his article. Although Burger may appear to be a reputable source on this subject, I question the entire warrant for his article. His entire article is pure speculation, and is it speculation from the common man who would be most affected by the loss or restriction of his right to bear arms? No, it was speculation from a pillar of the United States Government, the Chief Justice. The warrant, or underlying assumption brought forth in Burger's article is that banning or restricting the right to keep and bear arms will decrease violence. This has been the warrant for the Government movement against gun rights for years. If you really think about it though, this notion is simply absurd. To demonstrate you must first separate Americans into two general categories. First there are the upstanding citizens who work to support themselves and/or a family. These people may experience some trouble with the law only because nobody's perfect. The next category is the criminal. Many categories could be made out of this one, but to keep it simple, we'll just use one. These people generally have little respect for the law, and this is why many of them are in our jails and prisons. These are the people responsible for the murders, rapes, robberies, and other violent crimes in our society today. Now, if you present gun restrictions or a ban on guns to both of these categories, what will be the outcome. The outcome is the entire basis for why gun restriction has a reverse effect. What happens is that 2006-07-13T15:30:57-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Issues-over-Gun-Control-in-America-30222.aspx Importance of Tough Gun Control Regulations Gun control is an issue that has been used in electoral campaigns for decades, but in the last 20 years, has become a very heated debate. I chose the topic of gun control honestly, because I am interested in the money that is involved. I know money has to be in the middle of all of the controversy. How else can one explain the easy accessibility to guns and the limited legislation to prevent the sale of guns? I feel it is important to cover all of the aspects of the issue of gun control, from the history, to the effects of gun control, to the effects on families. The definition of gun control is self-explanatory, but the actual measures that should be taken to control the sale and use of guns are the issue at hand. Gun control laws were passed forbidding the sale of firearms to Native Americans, ignoring the Second Amendment. These laws were often passed when the government reacted to a hysterical public demanding action after reading gruesome newspaper accounts of atrocities allegedly committed by rouge bands of Indians. Native tribes were forced to trade with smugglers and criminals who demanded outrageous prices for old and new barely functioning firearms. Tribe members took to raiding white settlements in efforts to obtain firearms to protect themselves from a government and a white citizenry bent on genocide. (Masters, 1999). After the civil war, the white people in the South (and in many cases in the North) passed several different gun control laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the recently freed African Americans. Klan type raids on African American communities were frequent and the “brave” white knights of the order just could not tolerate the thought of anyone resisting a lynching. (Masters, 1999). In the mid 1970’s, the Federal government was trying to was trying to implement different gun control measures as a result of a series of mass by a lone gunmen. Charles Whitman had killed 18 people, chiefly using a hunting rifle, and wounded 30 people in Austin, Texas. Jimmy Essex killed 10 people and wounded 17 people in New Orleans. At the same 2006-06-20T17:42:07-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Importance-of-Tough-Gun-Control-Regulations-29726.aspx Gun Regulation in America A gun, defined as a weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is discharged by the force of an explosive, was the object used by thousands of men as they fought from the freedom of the United States. The gun is the object in which 62% of murders are committed , but the gun is also the most effective form of self-defense . Guns have played a very important role in America’s government, and our country has arrived to its current stage with the use of guns. Several organizations such as the NRA promote gun control, and likewise there are several groups opposing the use firearms such as Hand Gun Control Incorporated. However, before one can argue gun control they must be familiar with the Second Amendment, the article allowing the people of the United States to bear arms. The English Bill of Rights states: “That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.” This statement is what initially gave Americans the idea of creating the Second Amendment to be what it currently is.” “On June 8, 1789, James Madison proposed the amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of beating arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. Madison’s proposition and the English Bill of Rights were the basis on which the Second Amendment was formed. Although, the Boston Massacre was “the fuse that lit the powder keg of debate over the right of the people to be armed.” Madison’s amendment was modified through a select committee, the House of Representatives, and the Senate before it stated: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment clearly states that the people of the United States have the right to have guns, but many people continue to debate the issue of guns in our modern society. The constitution was constructed over two centuries ago, and the founding fathers of the United States surely did not expect America to become 2006-06-16T15:28:03-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Regulation-in-America-29627.aspx Advocating Gun Control and Background Checks on Gun Owners Bang! Death can happen just like that. That is exactly how guns work. As deadly as they can be, almost every house holds some kind of in their possession. Guns are used for a number of things. People use them for hunting, competitions, self-defense, and even collection items. It is when in the wrong hands when guns become fatal. Guns can be harmless if handled in the proper fashion. Guns are able to get in the wrong hands because the Bill of Rights gives every American citizen the right to bear arms. Because of guns, people are getting hurt, killed, or even worse. They are also being used to provide force on the side of criminals. These things are happening because the guns are being used to purposely hurt someone. Also, kids are getting a hold of them and in some cases people don’t know how to operate them properly or are not taking the proper safety precautions. Ever since guns were invented they have been a weapon and an aid in acts of violence. With the United States the way it is now, it seems as if violence will be around for quite a long time. There is no way violence can be stopped for good all of a sudden. If it were even to be slowed down it would take a lot of time and energy. Things can be done though to help keep guns from being involved in forms of violence. Gunlocks, which are already in stores and on the shelves, may help keep accidents from happing and somewhat keep guns from the wrong hands. They keep children and all others but the key’s owner from getting a hold of the gun and even from firing it. This way only the owner of the gun can use it or allow anyone else to use it. Clinics that teach people how to operate guns properly would help make owners safer. Not only could they teach the proper way to operate the gun but also, they could demonstrate the proper safety precautions that need to be taken into consideration when handling any sort of fire arm. The Bill of Rights would have to be changed to have control over who should have 2006-06-12T02:59:48-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Advocating-Gun-Control-and-Background-Checks-on-Gun-Owners-29291.aspx APPLICATION OF THE THEORY TO THE ISSUE: ALBERT K. COHEN'S THEORY OF GANGS AND THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE Albert K.Cohen was the first person that attempted to find out the process of beginning of a delinquent subculture. His perspective has been referred to an integrating theory of several sociological theories such as the Chicago School¡¯s sociologist¡¯s work, Merton¡¯s strain theory, cultural conflict theory and Sutherland¡¯s differential association theory. In Cohen's book ¡°Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gangs,(1955) it was quite apparent that his work was a product of the 1950's. Having won World War 2 and with the country gradually returning to normalcy, Americans were once again obsessed with the ¡°American Dream.¡± People believed that a prosperous future could be attained by education and employment. Middle-class values that emphasized ambition and material success became dominate, anything otherwise was not accepted as ¡°normal.¡± However, behind this promising climate, the great fear of delinquency was lurking and rising. During the period of World War 2, juvenile delinquency became one of the most important ¡°home front¡± public issues. This label ¡°juvenile delinquency¡± applied to youthful misbehavior, mostly to lower class and immigrant children. The separation of the ¡°we-they¡± led the middle class to see itself as a far more superior class. Cohen¡¯s subculture theory was one of the post war studies of delinquency. He believed that the history of a deviant act is the history of an interaction process, of which the problem of delinquency is mainly a male phenomenon. Cohen assumed that the subculture was found in the lower class where social control was not strong enough to constrain the delinquency and that lower class boys in particular have not been equipped to deal with the competitive struggle that takes place in middle class institutions. Crime culture existed in certain social groups and the individual learned the values of deviance through participation in gangs. Since delinquent boys rejected all middle class standards, some acts considered to be ¡°wrong¡± by the middle class may not be wrong by the delinquent boy¡¯s standards. For example, a child fostered in the subculture that did not respect the law was prone to temptation of deviance. This theory explains why crime rate is so high in inner city and rural areas. In a democratic society, children are not evaluated against others of their own group but against ¡°all corners¡± and measured by ¡°the middle-class measuring rod,¡± whereby all children are 2005-12-24T06:48:53-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Albert-K-Cohen-s-Theory-of-Gangs-amp-Deliquent-Subculture-28215.aspx Gun Control in the U.S. Gun control, as we know it, consists of the government restricting the ability of individual citizens to purchase weapons. The different types of gun control vary from waiting periods between when you purchase the gun and when you actually get it, background checks so that high-risk people can't purchase guns through legal channels, and completely banning certain types of guns. There are countless ways for criminals to avoid these government regulations, causing them to only render the ability of innocent citizens protecting their home and family's ability to purchase guns. The "waiting period" method of gun control is basically a two-step process. The first step in the procedure is that the person wanting a gun goes to his local shop (or calls a reputable mail order outlet) to place the initial order. Then, he must wait one to two weeks while the government performs a small background check for past criminal activities, disorderly conduct, or lack of mental/emotional stability. During this time, if the purchaser of the gun wanted the gun for impulse reasons (out of rage), it is hoped that they will not still want to cause bodily harm after a couple weeks. The problem with this method of gun control is that it stops the ordinary citizen from purchasing a gun on the whim, but it actually protects the common criminal. Underage buyers and other delinquents can purchase mass quantities of weapons through "dummy buyers" that have clean backgrounds. So if a burglar enters a house with full intention to maim or kill, the innocent victim (who can't get a gun to protect his family because he was arrested for drunk driving seven years ago) is simply a victim of a law that supports black market trade. There are over 200 million registered guns in circulation (Larson), and they are the ones that will not be killing our children. The unregistered ones are owned by murderers, rapists, and thieves. Another practiced technique of preventing dangerous firearms from killing honest people is to ban an entire type of weapon. The AK-47 is a commonly-used example of that. Again, the criminals still have limited access to the weapon through underground channels, but these banned weapons are so powerful that there is really is not practical purpose for them in the home (or in hunting). This can 2004-10-30T05:47:22-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Control-in-the-U_S_--25646.aspx While many people believe there should be more gun control and the possibility of banning guns all together, I believe the gun control laws should not be changed. Although there are many reasons that may persuade people to choose to ban guns, I believe that there are several other reasons that lead to all the tragedies with guns in America. Banning guns is not an answer the gun problem in America, there are a few other things that could be done to stop gun violence. In this essay I will tell about why I believe gun control laws should not be changed. After the many shootings in schools over the past two years, many people believe guns should be made illegal for civillians to posses or purchase guns. While this may make it difficult for minors, drug addicts, and people with mental deficiencies to get hold on a gun, The Constitution allows all citizens to possess arms to defend themselves, their families', and their property. However if guns were made illegal, there would still be people who would smuggel guns. If a burgular were to smuggle a gun in to someone's home, that man or woman should be allowed to posses a gun to defend theirself. And if guns were illegal, mostly only people who do not abide the law would smuggle them, leaving all the law-abiding citizens unarmed and more prone to attack with a gun. Some people suggest making a longer waiting-period and deeper background check to purchase a gun would reduce the amount of violence with guns. While once again that would make it more difficult for minors, drug addicts, and people with mental deficiencies to obtain a gun, it would not prevent many people who wish to have a gun from getting one. Also, many people obtain guns from stealing it from another person, or buying it off a citizen who is unknowledgable or uncaring for the law, or the temperment of the buyer. Besides, if a person who is of age, and has a clear record wishes to buy a gun to be violent with it, there is no way of preventing him or her. Anyone who believes strengthening the gun control laws would reduce gun violence is correct. However, if someone wants to kill someone, not having a gun is unfortunately not going to stop him or her. If a gun is not accessible, 2004-07-12T21:59:05-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Control-Laws-Should-they-be-altered-25547.aspx The Right to Own Guns As American citizens, we have more rights and freedoms than any other group of people in the world. The founders of this country established these freedoms because they had previously lived in countries where the people did not have as many rights. One of these rights is stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which proclaims "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But over the years various laws and regulations have infringed upon this right. The reasons for these laws are to get the guns that cause crime and injuries off the streets. But most of these laws have only prevented the common citizen from acquiring a firearm. There should be some regulation with regard to who can own a gun, but we need to ensure that this regulation is done in a fair and practical manner. The best argument for the protection of the right to possess arms is the Second Amendment. The purpose of the amendment, and the entire Constitution, is to establish certain rights that cannot be abolished or changed by our government. But the wording of the amendment has been a source of debate. The main argument is that the amendment only provides for a militia, and that the "right to keep and bear arms" is referring to militia members only. But the amendment also states that it is the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. But is "the people" referring to only the militia or to all citizens in general? In 1990 that question was answered in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (Cramer 171). This case was about a man who had committed a crime while in Mexico. The man argued that his constitutional rights had been violated. But the court ruled that since he was outside the United States when the crime was committed, he was not protected. During the case, the question of what the "right of the people" meant in the Constitution (Cramer 171). The court decided that "’ the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community… (Cramer 172)." This decision clearly shows that the right to keep and bear 2004-07-05T22:53:59-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Right-to-Own-Guns-The-Right-to-Bear-Arms-25530.aspx Gangs are a violent reality that people have to deal with in today's cities. What has made these groups come about? Why do kids feel that being in a gang is both an acceptable and prestigious way to live? The long range answer to these questions can only be speculated upon, but in the short term the answers are much easier to find. On the surface, gangs are a direct result of human beings' personal wants and peer pressure. To determine how to effectively end gang violence we must find the way that these morals are given to the individual. Unfortunately, these can only be hypothesized. However, by looking at the way humans are influenced in society, I believe there is good evidence to point the blame at several institutions. These include the forces of the media, the government, theatre, drugs and our economic system. On the surface, gangs are caused by peer pressure and greed. Many teens in gangs will pressure peers into becoming part of a gang by making it all sound glamorous. Money is also an crucial factor. A kid (a 6-10 year old, who is not yet a member) is shown that s/he could make $200 to $400 for small part time gang jobs. Although these are important factors they are not strong enough to make kids do things that are strongly against their morals. One of the ways that kids morals are bent so that gang violence becomes more acceptable is the influence of television and movies. The average child spends more time at a TV than she/he spends in a classroom. Since nobody can completely turn off their minds, kids must be learning something while watching the TV. Very few hours of television watched by children are educational, so other ideas are being absorbed during this period of time. Many shows on television today are extremely violent and are often shown this from a gang's perspective. A normal adult can see that this is showing how foully that gangs are living. However, to a child this portrays a violent gang existance as acceptable. 'The Ends Justifies the Means' mentality is also taught through many shows where the "goody guy" captures the "bad guy" through violence and is then being commended. A young child sees this a perfectly acceptable because he knows that the "bad guy" was wrong but has no idea of what acceptable apprehension techniques 2004-07-05T22:52:57-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gangs--25528.aspx On April 20th, 1999 two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into their school in Columbine Colorado and began a one-hour long killing spree, which ended in the death of 12 of their fellow classmates and one teacher and left another 28 wounded. The shooters then took their own lives. The two teenage gunmen did not have a previous history of violence but were both enthusiasts of killing-oriented video games. The violence in video games was a major factor in teaching these kids how to shoot other people in real life. Violent video games can and have led children to committing acts of violence against other children and adults. Growing children are easily influenced by the examples laid out before them. A young boy who plays hockey and follows the sport closely is probably more likely to resort to violence to solve a conflict than a boy whose role model is a pacifist folk-singer simply because violence and fighting is a prominent overtone of the sport. The same goes for a child who is very interested in one or more of the numerous video games available that focus on killing as their main theme. A child who plays violent video games will resort to violence more easily when faced with a problem than a child who has never been exposed to such interactive killing. Violent video games do not teach any other way to deal with a conflict. So a young, impressionable youth will be susceptible to resorting to violence if that child has been exposed to violent video games. Violence in video games can also act as a gateway to more serious forms of violence. If a child who has no interest or knowledge in guns and weaponry begins to play a "shoot-em-up" video game where the sole purpose is to kill other people that child could become interested in guns and move on to something more realistic such as pellet and paint ball weaponry. From there the child could move into actual guns when he/she is able to acquire such weapons and this could lead to an act of violence against another human being. Violent video games can foster an interest in guns and violence in children, which can lead them to more realistic violence. Video game companies are continuously releasing more and more realistically violent video games onto the market in order to sell more copies, 2004-07-05T22:41:35-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Columbine-Shooting-Killer-Kids-25514.aspx Handguns and other firearms have a long tradition in American civilization. The right to bear arms is an American right featured in the second Amendment of the Constitution. In the 18th century, when the constitution was written, times were different; there was a need for armed citizens to insure the safety of the society as a whole. Contemporarily the police department preserves the safety of society and the need for armed citizens is out of date. The founding fathers of the Constitution could presumably never imagine the horrendous outcome of their actions. Every year too many lives are claimed as the result of the American government’s inability to fully face up to effects of the issue. Compared to other western countries that have considerably stricter gun control laws America is still viewed as "The Wild-Wild West". The growing gun related death toll in the U.S. has to come to a turning point. Stripping away the constitutional right to bear arms might have the effect that only criminals will have access to guns. It is important to understand that in a society where both criminals and law abiding citizens have access to guns the likeliness of an innocent person getting shot, when both parties are waving guns, is probably greater than if only criminals have guns. A ban on firearms might not be appealing as a short-term solution but it is important that people don’t limit their thinking to their generation and not think about the safety of their children, grandchildren and the society people are creating today for them to live in. The main obstacle in removing firearms from citizens in the U.S. is the second Amendment of the Constitution. It reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The second Amendment can be interpreted as every citizen right to bear arms. However the key word is "Militia", meaning soldiers or defenders of the State. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, times were very different than those of contemporary America. People were scared of possible invasions from Native Americans, the English, and other nationalities. By "a well regulated Militia…" the founding fathers probably meant that citizens could have a muscot standing in the corner just in case anything would happen. Note that the writers of the 2004-07-05T22:29:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Consequences-of-Guns--25499.aspx