Apparently, those that argue against gun control have a considerable number of reasons. Firstly, irrespective of the fact that there exist policies and laws that regulate possessions and use of guns by civilians in United Kingdom for instance, the rates of murder are still considerably high. Based on research findings, the homicide rates in UK as of 1996 during the time of Dunblane massacre was 1.12 per 100,000 (Lott 34). It was before the firearm act came into effect. As of 2002, when this act had already been implemented fully in UK, the homicide rates stood at 2.1 per 100,000 (Lott 34). In essence, this establishes that homicide rates rose irrespective of the fact that gun control policies were in effect. Fundamentally, it is imperative to denote that though gun controls are put primed to regulate the negative effects it poses to the citizens of a nation, such as homicide. These cases are still intermittent regardless of the fact that suppression of the major cause (use of guns) has been executed.
The second argument against gun control stems from the fact that any form of gun limitation is unconstitutional. Based on this notion, some of the American states have since adopted a framework where its citizens can own a gun as long has he or she pays the required fee. In essence, gun owners are advised on how to use guns and how to conduct themselves in situations that require the use of the same without necessarily limiting the use. Based on this notion, it is accentuated that people can still execute crimes and other destructive actions using things like knives, it is, therefore, pointless to limit the use of guns (Lott 45).
Thirdly, gun control is not effective in the sense that people can still acquire guns illegally if the urge to own one is elevated. In Germany, for instance, a 17-year-old boy in 2009 was reported to have acquired a gun illegally that he later used to shoot people randomly (Wilson 88). Irrespective of the fact that Germany is one of the nations that has eminent gun control laws and policies. It is apparent that these laws are ineffective owing the fact that people can still acquire guns illegally and execute their disparaging activities. Lastly, gun control should not be effected in regards to the notion that the majority of the civilians don’t trust their governments for security and protection. Imposing gun controls in essence alienate them from their rights of protection.
On the flip side, some people favour the formulation of gun control policies and laws owing a number of reasons. Firstly, gun control is fundamental in effect because more guns equal more homicides and murder (Spitzer 197). Based on this notion, it has been established that people are predisposed to committing suicides and executing homicides when they have an easy access to a weapon. Considering that gun controls in effect decrease the accessibility of guns to the civilians. Rates of homicides and suicides will incredibly reduce.
Secondly, gun control policies and laws are effective owing the fact that most massacres executed in history were predominantly done using guns. In United States for instance, the sixty-two mass shootings executed between 1982 and 2012 were predominantly executed using guns (Wilson 97). A total of forty-nine massacres were executed using guns. The above in essence establish the significance of establishing gun control rules and regulations.
Thirdly, it is apparent that a considerable majority of people are in favour of gun control. Based on research findings, it was established that the majority of the Americans are in favour of gun controls. The above in effect means that majority of the people have perceived the aftermath effects of gun use and therefore perceive the same to be destructive. Lastly, gun control in effect is fundamental owing the fact that banning guns saves life. In Australia, for instance, after the 1996 massacre of Port Arthur, the government banned and subsequently destroyed a total of 650,000 weapons (Spitzer 201). Consequent to that, cases of death resulting from homicides and suicides incredibly reduced.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is apparent that pertains gun control will remain controversial. While others argue in favour of gun control, others hold on against gun control policies and laws. Those that argue against gun control accentuates that guns protect them because loopholes exist in national security. Additionally, they argue that guns are not the major cause of homicides and other related crimes because people can still execute the same using other weapons. On the rear, people argue in favour of gun control emphasising that possession of guns fosters homicides and suicides. Additionally, guns are predominantly used in massacres, and that majority of the citizens are in favour of gun control.
Works Cited
Gale, . Gun Control. Place of publication not identified: Gale, Cengage Learning, 2015. Print.
Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.
Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of Gun Control. S.l.: Paradigm Publishers, 2014. Print.
Wilson, Harry. Triumph of the Gun-Rights Argument: Why the Gun Control Debate Is Over.
S.l.: Praeger, 2014. Print.
