For More Gun Control
Advocates argue that gun control laws reduce the incidence of violent crimes by reducing the regularity of firearms. Gun laws control the types of firearms that may be purchased, designate the qualifications of those who may purchase and own a firearm, and restrict the safe storage and use of firearms (Moorhouse). Activists for gun control pretty much are saying fewer guns means less crime. The regulation on guns will make it harder for criminals to obtain guns as well keep them out of the hands of unstable individuals. Supporters in more gun control believe that gun control will impact the availability and accessibility of firearms. Also backers of more gun control are against semiautomatic guns. Semiautomatic weapons and large magazine clips are not necessary for any legitimate purpose, whether hunting, self-defense, or sport. These weapons were the type used in the mass shootings in Newtown, Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora (Record). While the strength of a state’s gun laws is just one factor in the commonness of gun-related violence in that state and cannot alone account for gun violence, there is a clear link between weak gun laws and high levels of gun violence across the United States.
Against Gun Control
Then there are groups of people who believe fewer gun control laws will actually lower gun violence. Over the past 30 years, the more gun control policies America implements, the following years gun violence increases. As gun violence increases, we implement more gun policies then gun violence increases. It is argued that stricter gun policies cause more gun violence (Moorhouse). Those against gun control believe that criminals will get their hands on guns regardless of the gun laws. With more lenient gun control laws, civilians can protect themselves against those criminals with guns. These supporters believe the right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime rates. The reductions are greater in counties with proportionally higher urban populations, and the laws afford relatively greater protection to minorities and women. These two groups are those that are excessively victimized by violent crimes. Criminals substitute non-confrontational crimes such as burglary, auto theft, and larceny for robbery and assault. Under concealed weapons laws, the latter crimes involve an increased chance of facing an armed citizen. Thus, right-to-carry laws increase the risk to criminals of being injured or killed during a crime and thus generate a deterrent effect (Moorhouse). It might be that gun control simply does not influence the behavior of criminals in their efforts to obtain and use firearms. Law abiding citizens can be expected to conform to the law and obtain permits, register guns, and enroll in firearm safety courses. By contrast, there would be no surprise if it were found that criminals regularly violate the law by purchasing guns on illegal black markets or by stealing them. Two, contemporary gun control measures typically attempt to influence the process of purchasing firearms at the point of sale between licensed dealers and their customers. Federal background checks, and often state background checks, waiting periods, and registration, are part of the process. Gun control, while politically attractive because it appears to “deal directly with the problem,” may in fact be a blunt instrument for reducing crime. Effective gun control may entail significant unintended consequences. Government extensive and intrusive enough to regulate all private transfers of firearms would raise significant civil liberties issues (Moorhouse).
Gun Control and Violence 