The argument of firearm restriction and regulation has been a heated topic for many years. On one side of the debate, there are people who do not believe the constitutional right to bear arms and it should be tightly restricted and regulated, and on the other side there are people who completely stand with the constitutional right, and believe that as an American citizen, you hold the right to bear arms as a part of the militia. Some think that gun laws will dramatically reduce violent gun crimes, and some feel that the second amendment will dramatically reduce violent crimes. Both sides are working towards the same objective, however only one proposition will work. I believe every law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones against people who intend harm. Gun control is ineffective and has an adverse effect on crime and violence. Instead of reducing crime, it enables delinquents to carry out criminal acts with more confidence, without the worry of law abiding citizens protecting themselves.
Gun laws do not keep convicted criminals from possession of firearms. In fact, criminals rarely by guns in stores, rarely buy guns at gun shows, and rarely steal guns (NRA-ILA). Whether the law restricts criminals to possess or purchase guns or not, it will be unlikely for criminals to obey these laws. Unfortunately, no law can stop illegal purchase and trade of firearms. If there is money to be made in the black market, someone will profit. Criminals have easy access to guns on the black market and felons know that there are guns everywhere; if there’s money anyone can retain a firearm. Gun laws have an adverse effect on society. If a criminal wanted a gun, it is extremely unlikely they will walk into a store and purchase a gun legally. Criminals don’t put themselves into positions where they have to go through background checks and other means to restrict gun purchases, so these gun laws and regulations only impact the law-abiding.
Many gun control activists immediately blame guns after a tragedy, instead of raising concern for mental health. Society should work to keep firearms out of mental ill citizens who are prone to committing violent acts, however, stating it is more important that we fix the corrupt mental health system (Carolyn Wolf). Many mass shootings could be prevented not by stricter gun laws, but by increased mental health awareness. Recent gun control legislation aims to prevent the mentally ill access to guns, however, the main objective is inadvisable. Instead, policymakers should be focusing on modifying and changing existing mental health restrictions, like increasing the preexisting insufficient funding that is not allowing the mentally ill access to adequate treatment in communities. In light of recent tragedies, a better solution rather than taking away guns is to offer community programs and preventative training that includes offering treatment plans, as well as early sign detection in education and workplace environments, that essentially will get people the help they need.
An example of where gun laws have failed are in England. Crime has dramatically increased since they imposed a ban on guns. England passed a law in 1997 banning all citizens from carrying guns. Since then, the law only established an illusion to a safer country. Since the laws were passed, instead of a reduction in crime, there was actually a major increase in crime. Two years after the ban on guns was enacted, gun related crimes increased 40% and armed robberies increased over 50%. In a stretch of four years, violent crimes nearly doubled.

Post Author: admin