Stricter Gun Control Laws

2192 Words9 Pages
Guns have been a part of America’s history since its creation, so much so, even an amendment of the very Constitution it was founded on is devoted to civilian possession of firearms. It therefore comes as no surprise that any initiative to somehow enforce stricter laws and regulations regarding firearms, or God forbid, strip the people of their Second Amendment right, is faced with some resistance, to say the least. However, following the example of countries that have virtually solved some crime or firearm related issues by employing somewhat unorthodox measures, could potentially reduce the amount of violent crime that is sweeping the US.
Gun control has been subject to much debate and controversy in the US and is still somewhat considered
…show more content…
This statement seems more than likely since most countries that don’t allow private firearm possession or CCW still suffer from firearm related violent crime, while those states that allowed CCW have reported a decrease in violent crime (Kovandzic, Marvell 2003). For example, the firearm ban in the UK in 1997 resulted in an almost immediate increase of violent crime and homicide rates (Lott 2013). A couple of years later, in 2005, doctors urged the government to ban long kitchen knives since they were being used “in as many as half off all stabbings”, which simply goes to show that crime and murder is being committed despite all efforts to remove firearms from the streets. It is widely known that making something illegal doesn’t necessarily stop it, or prevent one from acquiring it, so what makes some people believe that banning guns will stop criminals from acquiring and using them? Illicit drugs, driving under the influence, rape, murder, and plenty of other crimes have been “made illegal”, however that hardly decreased the number of lives lost due to…show more content…
However many anti-gunners like to point out that repossession of firearms is not a particularly difficult task, seeing as Australia managed to buy back around 660,000 firearms from civilians between 1996 and 1997 following a massacre in Tasmania where 35 people lost their lives (Lewis, Reeve 1997). If the US government attempted to buyback guns from American citizens, the sheer number of guns in circulation (upwards of 300 million) combined with the devotion of most gun enthusiasts to their Second Amendment right and their general dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs would exacerbate rather than solve the problem. That having been said, even if by some miracle, the government successfully persuaded gun owners to hand over their guns that would hardly stop criminals from procuring firearms from the black market and using them for criminal activities, as they do currently regardless of it being illegal. The fact of the matter is that just like drugs, alcohol, and vehicles, firearms have no mind of their own, and require human input in order to be used and abused. With that in mind, it becomes quite clear that it isn’t the guns that we ought to control, but the people having access to and using these guns. A proof of this lies in the tragic mass shooting that took place in the past decade. Infamous outliers such as James Eagan Holmes, Adam Lanza, and Seung-Hui Cho do not warrant
Open Document