Gun control is considered as how easy it is to obtain guns, (such as: eligibility, sales etc…) how strict the regulation on concealed weapons is, and how much power our government should have in terms of regulating guns. Gun control should not be considered on the levels of military and law enforcement, and it is my position that the United States should not have stricter gun control.
An over exaggerated theme that is often seen about gun control is whether the strictness of gun regulations has any correlation with how much it controls/reduces crime. Stricter gun control laws would include: longer waiting times for the consumer to receive a gun, stricter eligibility for the privilege to conceal arms, as well as tougher requirements for background checks. I contest that stricter gun laws will either have little, to no impact on crime rate.
Statistics and studies on gun control show that a longer waiting period does not impact firearm crime rates at all. Moreover, all commercial gun dealers are required to run a background check; and there aren’t any looser restrictions on purchasing a gun at a gun show, contrary to what many believe. Background checks are essentially a gauge on documented paper of how ‘lawful’ a person is; but it is impossible to gauge everyone’s intentions and what they might do in situations that cause them spur-of-the-moment violence.
However, the real kicker is that gun control laws almost seem to have an opposite effect on what they are set out to actually achieve. In fact, the thirty one states that follow the “shall issue” laws (the law to conceal weapons) “have on average, a twenty four percent lower violent crime rate, a nineteen percent lower murder rate, and a thirty nine percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons.” The nine states with the lowest violent crime rates all have right to carry laws. (http//:www.cato.org)
Gun control laws do not work; it is not a theoretical statement, but a...