The subject of regulating firearm ownership has been a cause for debate between gun control proponents and their opponents. Rising rates of crime or occasional gun-related incidents always act as a match to light up this discussion. The issue mentioned above is a serious one and deserving of serious consideration. Each side has valid points to prove their case. However, gun control does not reduce crime, in most cases. Better ways of solving such issues are being sought as opposed to the much-accustomed way of law making. The debate on gun control will continue well into the future as long as guns are manufactured and used.
The most prevalent argument by proponents of gun control is that countries with lower rates of gun ownership have lower rates of crimes. The above is simply not true and has been statistically disproven. The opposite is, in fact, true. Research has clearly shown that countries with higher rates of gun ownership have lower crime rates than countries with low gun ownership rates.
The most probable cause for the above is that criminals are less likely to attack a citizen if there is a higher chance of the latter retaliating. In the second case, offenders with firearms have a higher chance of success if they know they will encounter victims who are unarmed. Citizens with firearms tend to be more empowered than their unarmed counterparts. Criminals in areas with low gun ownership rates have more power over their victims, and a higher success rate is an incentive to continue the practice. Therefore, reducing the rates of gun ownership would not have the desired effect of reducing crime.
The argument by gun control proponents that firearms are involved in many human deaths is unsubstantiated. According to certain publications, there are about seventy million privately owned firearms in the USA. Their primary uses are hunting, target practice, household, and business premise protection. Of all the homicides committed in the country in a single year, less than one percent involve the use of guns. The abovementioned statement shows that ninety-nine percent of guns do not participate in any loss of human life.
The opponents of gun control are clearly right in this respect. Many firearm owners have a gun for self-defense purposes, and many of them have no criminal or violent intention of using the gun. In fact, many handguns are rarely fired and are only kept as a security contingency. Deaths from firearms are quite the rarity. Many more people die from illnesses, home, and vehicle accidents than from gun violence. The above fact involves children too who gun control proponents usually use to strengthen their argument.
With already so many gun laws in place, how do criminals manage to access firearms and ammunition? The above question goes to prove that gun control laws do not deter criminals with a desire to acquire and utilize guns. There exists a very extensive black market for guns that may be bigger and more developed than the legal guns and ammunition market.
Constructing tougher and additional legislation to restrict gun ownership will have no effect on criminal individuals and organizations with no regard to already existing laws. If anything, more gun control would discourage citizens from making the effort to own firearms which, as been shown above, would lead to even higher crime rates. Laws also have loopholes that can be exploited by knowledgeable lawyers, who more often than not, represent powerful and dangerous criminals. More laws could open up more leeway to be exploited by those who are capable.
As can be vividly seen above, proponents of gun control do not have a compelling case. It is clear that more gun ownership leads to more citizenry safety. Certain structures can be put in place to reduce the access criminals have to guns, but the reasons provided by gun control proponents are irrational and unsubstantiated. Gun control would eventually do citizens more harm than good. Using firearms to reduce crime rates is an insurmountable task with no prior proof of success anywhere. Until better measures are found, it would be better to let citizens exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.