What the article is saying is that if you take away the handgun of a citizen who has done no harm, and when there is a need for the protection of your family and they have no gun then they have nothing else to do but hide and hope the criminal does not find them before the police come. In conclusion, Gun Control can be good in many different ways, until it interferes with the protection of someone else's life or family. To understand gun control more it is important to know about the laws passed, pros, and cons. The laws that were passed play an important role in Gun control and they can help the crime rates with guns go down. Gun Control can do its job with interfering with law abiding gun owners as little as possible.
That’s an average of 99 gun deaths a day” (Pratt). This explains how dangerous guns could be when it’s in the wrong person’s hands, and how it’s logical if less people have guns, then less gun violence will happen. In addition to gun violence, stricter gun laws are necessary because guns give people the ability to cause great destruction on others and cause a huge threat. In a Tylt article, it states that, “In most of these other countries, the worst thing that might happen is somebody gets hit with fists, or a glass bottle, or even stabbed, and in those cases there probably won’t be any deaths. But when there’s a gun, it really makes it so much more likely that something terrible will happen” (Hemenway).
Any weapon can be deadly, but people want guns banned. Another example is that if there were a good guy with a gun the outcome would be different. In the same article, it states, “In this instance, however, we don 't have to ponder how different the outcome would have been had a "good guy with a gun" been present, since there was one: a police officer working extra duty. Despite being armed and exchanging gunfire with the shooter, the officer was unable to prevent him from gaining entrance to the club.” Sometimes a good guy can’t always save the day. Society today think that just because guns kill a majority of people, if the government bans them, everything in society will be perfect and there won’t be murders or a police officer can always eliminate the danger.
As Pollitt says in The Nation, “… without a gun, it’s difficult to kill and injure a whole crowd of people, no matter how much you’d like to” (484.) Background checks are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of people who will do harm with them. Background checks should not be limited to stores. More should be included as well on the background checks being done. There is no reason they should not also be used in purchasing arsenal.
Now making gun laws stricter will not mean the death rate or shootings will decrease right away because mainly the only people that go to a gun store to buy a gun are law abiding gun owners. A criminal will always have a weapon and a way to get more weapons, criminals do not follow the law. In Chicago, they have some of the strictest gun laws in America, but the shootings still increase; they have had at least 141 people shot and over 40 deaths since the start of 2018. No
If mentally ill people are only helped during emergencies, they are free to do whatever they want if they give a ‘normal’ disposition, such as buying weapons to inflict harm upon others. While a mentally ill person can buy a gun, it will be very hard to pass a background check, considering the gun control act of 1968. In summary, three reasons why increased gun control is not likely to happen is gun laws are rarely made, current laws are effective, and banning guns will not stop crime. In order to prevent trying to enforce harsher gun laws, people should learn about gun laws instead of using news stories to fuel disgust towards civillian owned weaponry. People want the banning of guns because they do not know about the laws for guns and think that anybody can own a gun when in reality there are certain restrictions.
Another problem with taking guns away, or banning them, is that the government cannot expect everyone to abide by the laws. In past circumstances when guns were banned, criminals were the kind of people that the government wanted to make sure did not have guns. In reality, they were always the ones who still had the guns (Lott). People can say that gun crime is a serious firearm problem, but guns are not always the exact cause of the crime. Even if the government tries to deny groups access to guns, they could still find their way around the law and gain access to one
Similarly, bettering the control of who the guns are being sold to would prevent the guns from getting in the hands of the wrong people. For instance, requiring yearly background checks for anyone who purchases any type of gun would add more control to these weapons being in the proper hands. In states that require a background check for all handgun sales, had 52% fewer mass
Another question is “Are guns really necessary in our daily lives?”. Many people buy guns for many reasons. However, there are others who abuse that power to inflict pain upon others. The sad truth is, banning all guns will not stop all the gun violence because ultimately, its not the guns that kill people. However if somebody wants to buy a gun, then there should be stricter background checks on medical records to see if there are any issues with mental health.
They also argue that criminals will find a way to get a gun even if more gun control measure are put into place. While it is possible that may happen, stricter gun laws will at the very least allow less guns to be put out into the general public and as a result, decrease the chance a criminal is able to get a gun. When it comes to guns, many Americans