The Issue of Gun Control

Will stricter gun control of guns really reduce crime? Gun control laws are designed to restrict, control, and license gun ownership to the general public. It has been a controversial topic for many years with two extreme sides. The side for stricter gun laws would argue that guns are the biggest threat to people and directly result in increased crime. They blame guns for increased crime and they believe the easiest way to solve that problem is to enforce more restrictive gun laws to cut down on murders, robberies, and other crimes. The other side which supports the right to own guns would argue that guns are a normal and important part of American life, and that people must be held personally responsible for crimes and not the tools they use to commit them. The only role that government should play in gun control is who should be allowed to own them. Only citizens who contribute to the community, those who have jobs, and are legal citizens should be allowed to own guns. It is not those people that are responsible for gun crime and should not be restricted because of it. We shouldn't have stricter gun laws because they will only result in more crime, not less. Everyone's heard the expression “Fight fire with fire”; the same is true when considering guns and the issue of gun control. Imagine the following event for example. Late at night, a couple that just finished dinner in a downtown urban area is on their way home. A man approaches them and pulls a gun on the couple, demanding their personal belongings such as a purse, wallet, cell phone, etc. This is a life threatening situation where the only thing they can do is surrender their belongings. Unless one of the couple has a gun of their own that they are capable of using. If this was the case they could ward off the assailant prevent them from robbing them. In this situation everyone gets out alive and no one loses anything of value which is the best possible outcome. This is because a law abiding citizen had a firearm to defend themselves from their attacker. This is only one of countless examples where everyday people defend themselves using guns because they are an effective means of self-defense. Citizens that can show proof of citizenship and employment and that are willing to go through a background check should be allowed to purchase firearms and to acquire concealed carry permits for them. Stricter gun control laws could lengthen this process or prevent people from purchasing a gun to defend themselves with. Supporters of gun control would argue that people guns are not needed because of today’s police forces and abilities. Even with today's technology, however, police cannot always be there when the trouble starts and in the moment the trouble starts you won't be able to call the police while the criminal waits for you to do so. Someone’s best bet is to have their own form of protection and ward of the criminal or subdue them and wait for the police to arrive. In some cases the weapon may not even need to be drawn because of a physiological effect it causes on people. For example is a bank robber knew that half the people in the bank could have a gun ,besides the security guard, that may cause him to rethink his decision to rob that bank. If some school teachers were allowed to carry a concealed weapon it might prevent the deadly occurrences of school shootings just by causing the gunman to rethink his attack because he knows there will be someone to fight back. Allowing some teachers to carry guns could also be a way by which a shooting could be ended early if it was necessary. Signs displayed outside of schools and other buildings stating that “This is a weapons free area” may only invite someone who plans to cause harm to others because they know that no one in that area has a weapon to fight against them. When you examine a situation such as these the only way to prevent them is to be prepared for them. Stricter gun control