The theme of gun control may be a sensitive and debatable issue that has been an issue of debate for a long time. Within the wake of recent tragic mass shootings, the problem has polarized people regarding what’s the most effective resolution. In one aspect of the controversy, there are people who favor having restrictions placed over guns. On the opposite hand, there are people who are opposed towards regulating and restricting guns. The people against regulating primarily take into account restricting guns won’t solve the present challenges created by guns like crimes or mass shootings. Having the right to regulate guns is an efficient deterrent.
All law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to own guns, this is so as to defend themselves against people who might have intentions of harming them like in mass shooting cases. The restriction of arms and guns won’t deter criminals from possessing the guns, whether or not there are laws passed so to prohibit the usage of guns by criminals won’t in itself solve incidences of mass shootings. This is often due to criminals have already got an intent of not obeying the law thus whenever they’re given a chance of victimization, they have a tendency to use them no matter the laws that are in place.
It’s for this reason that regulating guns won’t be an efficient mechanism since criminals don’t operate within the laws of demand and supply. Instead the primary reasons that result in them performing wicked acts like mass shooting lies entirely in problems such as their psychotic behavior (McClellan, Chandler and Erdal Tekin.To the present end, there’s a desire of seeking mechanisms to be used to tame these criminals from performing or completing their activities among the general public.
Since past and current laws have been unsuccessful towards enacting rigorous measures of controlling and regulating commerce of firearms to criminals, there’s a necessity of trying to find different views that have led towards this crisis. It ought to be understood that cases of mass shootings that are carried out by criminals are achieved primarily because of having supply of ill-gotten arms in trade. Since there’s heaps of cash that’s made within the black market, there’s a need of having to know that someone can benefit from selling these illegal firearms in the black market and they later settle in the wrong hands.
As a result, criminals are well-known to get these firearms in a simple way as long as they have cash to pay for them. If criminals need a gun, there’s nothing which will stop them from accessing one. It ought to be understood that criminals look for guns since they have already got many enemies who are trailing them. Instead of being caught with no type of security, criminals believe by having a gun to protect themselves will help them from unwanted harm (Cooper, Terry L. ‘Are Unlimited Gun Rights Constitutionally Protected?.’ Public Integrity, vol. 19, no. 2, Mar/Apr2017, pp. 101-103. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/10999922.2016.1254489). Thus, in attempting to restrict guns within the population in the efforts of reducing mass shootings won’t only be detrimental consequences but additionally one which can leave the general public exposed to gangs and criminals who are equipped with largely bootleg firearms that are bought in the black market.
The opposite argument against having more and more laws placed in restricting guns so as to minimize mass shooting is that, within the minds of gangs and criminals, the more and more there are laws that are limiting guns, the more these efforts makes the criminals and gangs happy. This is often because they perceive that the more and more laws are enacted to limit guns within the population, the better it becomes for having bigger probabilities of civilians not defending themselves whenever they’re attacked.
The civilians won’t have the means of defending themselves from people who have intentions of harming them on a grand scale. For the record, states that have allowed more and more citizens to arm themselves with guns are seen as having low rates of crime and mass shooting than in states that have suppressed the right of self-arming of its citizens. People who wish to buy a gun first endure a background check and then have to wait up to a month before being allowed to lawfully carry a gun.
Still on the state of Chicago whereby it’s exhausting to get a gun legally, it’s funny that it’s the state where it’s the simplest to get the gun illicitly. In this state for example, there are thousands of ill-gotten firearms that are in the streets and most of them are unregistered. The trend of the guns funneling into the streets each month is worrying despite measures been put In place to limit as much as possible for people to get guns in a legal manner. In summary, it’s evident from the arguments given above portraying that stricter gun laws don’t necessarily correlate with reducing the incidences of mass shootings and crimes.
There’s an inverse relationship that has been discovered in states that have stricter gun laws with the incidences of crime and robbery being measured of the same in these cities. To this end, effective methods ought to be applied so as to end mass shootings instead of using the strategy of limiting the possession of guns by the general public. Restraining mass shootings needs different interventions beyond limiting gun laws in society