Although gun crime is a fraction of what it was in the 1990s, several high profile incidents as of late have brought the topic of gun control back into the public debate. Should the average person have the right to carry a gun with them everywhere they go? In the United States, the Second Amendment has been ruled to guarantee a personal right to own a firearm. Should there be restrictions on the types of firearms that can be owned? Are stricter gun control laws even beneficial? There are some pros and cons to the subject, so let’s take a look at it in some more detail.
What Are the Pros of Stricter Gun Control?
It limits the types of guns and magazines that are readily available to the public. Having a limited supply of weaponry means that the average person is not going to be able to take a massive amount of lives should they decide to use their weapon in a violent way. If someone has to reload their weapon after seven or 10 shots, a give someone a fighting chance to get away from a dangerous situation.
It levels the playing field. The average person is not going to be able to own an assault weapon. The average police officer does not carry an assault weapon. Some people might use assault weapons to go hunting, but on the whole, stricter gun control levels the playing field so that safety officers can better serve and protect.
It creates new forms of revenue. Sometimes stricter gun control laws mean requiring the registration of weapons instead of the taking of weapons. In circumstances like these, the result of the law is a higher level of local revenues that can be used for the public good.
What Are the Cons of Stricter Gun Control?
The laws only affect those who follow them. What is the nature of the criminal? Someone who has no problem breaking the law if it suits their needs. Stricter gun control laws are typically enforced only on law-abiding citizens who are doing their best to make their way through daily life.
It could put homeowners at a distinct disadvantage. If law-abiding citizens are only allowed certain types of weapons, then they are unable to adequately protect themselves should criminals try to break into their homes using weapons that are illegal. In some instances, it would be like bringing a ping-pong ball to a gunfight.
There is no discernible effect on crime. People who are going to commit a crime will do so whether they have access to a gun or not. Crime might be easier with certain guns, but ultimately all it takes for a criminal to find success is to have an easy mark. When legal citizens don’t have the ability to carry certain weapons, it could even be argued that the laws make the average person an easier mark for the criminal element.
People are passionate on both sides of this issue. From background checks to assault weapon bans, there have been numerous attempts to enforced stricter gun control laws. By evaluating the pros and cons of this subject and evaluating what has happened historically, we can all come together to decide the best course of action to take.
