Texas is considered the state with the most tolerant gun laws. This has initiated a constant debate on whether these laws are justified or not. Drug cartels have been named as one of the effects of this leniency (Fisanick 2010). Over the years, this vice has been on the steady rise; both in Texas and the neighbouring Mexico country. For some, once the government allows private ownership of guns, crime rates will reduce drastically. For others, the number of laws should be increased as a means to reduce the ever-rising crime rates. For others, however, gun laws play no role in reducing (or increasing) the crime rates in a nation. This paper seeks to show that it does not matter the leniency applied where gun laws are concerned; all that matters is the individuals holding these arms.
Texas allows everyone (men and women) to bear firearms. This is quite uncommon and is almost unique to this American state. Carry permits are offered to all eligible residents by the relevant authorities. Normally, these are individuals who are over 21 years old or those serving in the military. Handgun training is, however, a necessity before one is considered eligible for the same. Opponents of this law have argued that, at 21, individuals are not fully matured up; instead of logic they think emotionally (Roleff 2007).
Those with a criminal record or are considered to be chemically dependent or insane are normally denied gun-handling licenses. Texas permits are normally recognized by a number of states all through America; all one is required to prove is that they are from Texas and that they have the carry a permit. This continues to be a matter of major contention especially given the fact that most people attribute increased crime rates to such (or lack of) rules (Sim 2000).
Whether this is true or not, depends on one point of view. Crime takes place in states the world over; regardless of the rules they have in place regarding gun ownership and handling. As such, blaming elevated crime rates on these gun laws would not only be misplaced but also baseless. This then raises the need to revaluate the stand one has on the issue. As a matter of fact, Texas is not the most dangerous city to live (Valdez 2003).
Parliament keeps on discussing this issue year in and year out, but has never settled on what facts say about embracing such laws. Instead of “casting stones and overlooking the log in one’s eye”, it is imperative that legislators (and all involved parties) purpose to identify what the issue is. Blaming it all on lawful gun holders would be beside the point, to mention the least. Burying our face in the sand will do no good; the grave cause of increased crime should be identified (Fisanick 2010).
In conclusion, the debate on whether it is justified to have such lenient rules (just like it is in Texas) is not about to stop any time soon. Legislators need to share notes with all relevant parties to come up with a solution that will bring in a sense into the security industry. The underlying factor, in as far as security is concerned, has to be identified. Blaming the failure of a system on rules that have been there is more like avoiding what the problem is. The bottom line, however, is that the guns control laws in Texas have little or nothing to do with the increased crime rates.
References
Fisanick, C. (2010). Gun Control . Detroit, MI : Greenhaven Press.
Roleff, T. L. (2007). Gun Control. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press .
Sim, F. H. (2000). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control . The Journal of Nerveous and Mental Disease , 188 (7), 473-474.
Valdez, A. (2003). Gun Control . Philadephia: Chelsea House Publishers .
