The increase in the crime rate can be blamed on flexible gun control laws. In an ideal situation, lack of guns would mean no gun-related crimes. Every criminal knows that crimes needs means and the means for gun crime is possession of a gun. Therefore, I strongly believe that gun laws should be stricter because gun control laws regulate the right to own firearms, stricter gun laws would reduce crime rate, and protect against accidental deaths.
To begin with, gun control laws regulate the right to own firearms and hence reducing crime rate. It helps to regulate who owns a gun and what type of firearm are they allowed to use. The ownership of gun by citizens does not in any way promote security. On the contrary, it escalates the desire to commit crimes against persons that may be deemed as your enemies. Given the increased black market for sales of unauthorized firearms as well as illegal production of firearms, it is very fundamental to set down clear and strict laws to govern manufacturing as well as possession of firearms by citizens. Deadly violence such as one witnessed in Sandy Hook Elementary School can be avoided by stricter laws that governs ownership of a gun (Dutton, 2012). The murderer, Adam Lanza, first killed the mother, picked the mother’s gun, and proceeded to murder the innocent children in school. Such violence could be avoided by controlling the ownership of guns. Over 50% of US household own about 225 million guns translating to 80 million citizens. This is the highest rate of private ownership of guns in the entire world. Over half of suicides cases and majority of homicide in US are associated with gun crimes. Empirical data shows that other developed countries like Germany and Britain have lower rate of private gun ownership than US which translates to lower gun crime (Pratt, E. (2012).Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Secondly, stricter gun control measures reduce death rates of gun victims. I have heard amazing comments from people that cars have not been burned since they are drunk drivers and why would people think that stricter gun laws would reduce crime rate. Let’s draw your attention to the much gains that have been made as a result of strict laws for drivers. The rate of drunk driving have reduced significantly in the past decades after the enactment of stricter requirements in driving and increased policing. I am not saying that no one should be allowed to possess. I do agree that gun-related crimes cannot be 100% eliminated. However, we can sit and do absolutely nothing in trying to the horrible crimes from occurring. My argument is that there should be some registry and control on gun usage. Study done by Harvard revealed that 30,000 US men, women and children die annually due to gunshot wounds. Out of this number only 1,500 occur as a result of accidental shooting. That study further stated that the number
Third, gun control measures ensure security of innocent citizens. The only way to see the security enhanced is by limiting ownership of guns. People argue that the right to own guns should not be taken away from people since it compromises their security and that of their children. The truth is that you cannot be there all the time to protect your child. There will times when your child is away from your protection. This are the times that dangers strikes. It only takes a few seconds for a person with a gun to shoot you or your child. You cannot foretell one who is inclined to wield a gun at your child. I think it is high time Americans realize that limiting ownership of gun is not an infringe on our rights but rather a measure to ensure that no elementary shooting happens again. If things are not changed then we should be prepared for a worse disaster than the elementary shooting. In other words, without stricter laws on guns, we are allowing anyone in the public to have the ability to everyone at will.
I do believe that stricter gun laws can prevent crimes as well as protect accidental deaths. Adam Lanza, got the opportunity to kill just because the mother was in possession of gun which she could have felt was for her protection. Therefore stricter laws regulating the sale and purchase of firearms would help reduce the number of firearms in the wrong hands. Potential shooters will find it hard to access firearms and this in turn would avert potential deaths. It is statistically true that more guns in the hands to common citizens leads to more mass murders. I believe that attempts should be made to confiscate the firearms from citizens. The population of US is similar to that of Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland combined yet US recorded 30,000 gun-related deaths last year, while these countries recorded only 112 deaths (Dutton, 2012). The huge difference in these numbers is attributable to the stricter gun control measures in these countries as compared to US. While it is true that gun death cannot be totally eliminated, the huge number live lost in US is alarming and call for stricter gun control laws.
I recognize that fact that stricter gun control measures will not yield a 100% reduction in crimes. This implies that, apart from stricter gun laws, Americans must undertake fundamental changes which shall end the culture of violence. It calls for a deeper examination of the social, economic, cultural, and political circumstances that fuel violence. This will be a greater step in curbing violence of all nature. As a matter of fact, the American constitution does not provide for individual rights to own a gun. I am fully aware of the provision of the second amendment. According to my analysis of the provision, the amendment if obsolete since in the context of the government, militias are no longer existing or being formed. I am not saying that no one should be allowed to possess. My argument is that there should be some registry and control on gun usage so as to avert potential deaths such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Connecticut.