They point to a correlation between gun ownership and crimes, and they believe that if laws were stricter or guns were taken away then crime would decrease. This argument, however, couldn’t be further from the truth. Banning guns or making more gun laws would just infuriate the general public. A 2009 Gallup Opinion Poll showed that an all time low of 44% of people believe that there need to be newer, stricter laws applying to gun control (Gallup.com). This number in 1990 was 78%, so as time goes on people are leaning more and more away from stricter gun laws.
The reason is the perceived view that it is the lack of gun control that has resulted in the number of firearms-related deaths in the country. In fact, this is one of the most stated, but wrong, arguments for gun control. The fact of the matter is that if gun control is put into place there are more chances that law-abiding citizens will be victims. Gun control laws to a large extent can have no effect on criminals, as there will always be a thriving black market for trade of guns and firearms. (Nair,
Some individuals are for gun control and some think that gun control does not make a difference. These are some pros for gun control. Knowing that people who cannot easily obtain a firearm allows people to feel safer. Most violent crimes are committed with firearms and restricting gun ownership will most likely reduce a tremendous amount of crimes. Legalized gun ownership gives a greater chance of being in the wrong hands such as a child, giving it a better chance of resulting in a deadly accident.
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." (James Earl Jones, Online). Banning all or some weapons is not the solution to decreasing the increased gun related violence in the United States.
Gun control is the efforts to regulate or control the sales of guns which basically means that the limiting the sale of guns. The government should have this law because loose gun laws can lead to higher rate of violent crimes, lack of restricting gun ownership have opportunities to get into the wrong hands and preventing ownership of semi- automatic assault weapons would reduce severe harm on the public. Loose gun laws can lead to higher rate of violent crimes. It is believed that most grueling crimes are committed with guns. In the states with stricter laws on gun control there is a lot less violence but in the states that have lose gun laws there is a higher rate of violent crimes.
Even if it did while it may reduce murder from gun crime criminals would still have the option of other deadly weapons. These new laws would not stop criminals from obtaining a fire arm as most criminals don’t own a their guns as legal weapons anyway, they get them through the black market. Further restrictions would only make it harder for the citizens who would have a proper use for it but not for criminals. This is why many believe that gun control laws in our state do not need to be changed as they would make no difference to those who get them illegally. Putting down more restrictions would only serve to make law-abiding citizens who would have a purpose with it harder to obtain, and it go against our right to bear fire arms.
People against gun control that want tougher laws on gun related violence will most likely see those added laws overlooked because the tougher laws will most likely be an add-on to current laws. Those add-on laws can be easily bargained away in plea deals. The tougher laws are also less likely to be imposed swiftly. A judge would not want to impose the tougher laws without absolute solid proof the person being prosecuted is guilty. That would be hard to do in cases where there is a chance, no matter how small, the defendant is not guilty.
Rather Jonathan Stray thinks it is possible to address gun use instead of availability. Some public health and firearms experts have argued that solving mental issues will not help stop gun violence because they think that focusing on mental illness may not achieve much results because the vast majority of shootings are committed by people who do not fit the profile of those deemed dangerous. Moreover, by shifting the debate away from gun
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
The activists believe people will have gun fights over things as simple as parking spaces. Basically anti-gun activists believe that normal people can not be trusted with weapons to protect themselves or their families. Americans can be trustworthy with concealed weapons, gun laws do not affect the criminals of the country, and guns are not only used for bad to hurt innocent people. Americans have the constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.