Gun Control Laws
A ban on guns will be expensive, hard and will generate a black market for guns. We do not need another black market for firearms. Usually when something is banned, criminals start to capitalise on the demand and try make gangs to ship guns everywhere and it is these times when the mortality rate is higher (the drug wars). We may need to try other ways to dissuade criminals such as improvements in the health system.
Police cannot protect citizens, and even if they could, they do not have an obligation to do so.
To deny a human the right to defend him- or herself from any threat is the most grievous crime against humanity that I can think of. Human enslavement (e.g.) Genocide? Well, that kind of thing can't happen to an armed populace. So …show more content…
(What will someone use as defense against an intruder if guns are banned? A knife? Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.). So banning guns would be ridiculous as one must accept responsibility for one's own security. Personally, I believe there should be no gun ban as the law can still be broken. If guns were to be banned, people who already own guns could still use them for killing. Also even if they are banned, there would be no significant drop on crime rates as there are still other ways that crimes can be committed, such as with knifes or vehicles. Also, as previously stated, people would still find a way around the ban to use guns to commit future crimes.
If criminals know that people don't have guns, then it would be too easy for them. And with a gun free America, the cops would not be used to major shootings. The Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings were at gun free zones. The police didn't expect those shootings because they thought a no guns allowed zone would save the people. Someone that wants to commit a crime will find any weapon they can to commit it. People who are too poor to purchase guns in Somalla use knives. Violence has been with mankind long before guns were invented but yet we still had crime, how can that be? It's the person not the
Police cannot protect citizens, and even if they could, they do not have an obligation to do so.
To deny a human the right to defend him- or herself from any threat is the most grievous crime against humanity that I can think of. Human enslavement (e.g.) Genocide? Well, that kind of thing can't happen to an armed populace. So …show more content…
(What will someone use as defense against an intruder if guns are banned? A knife? Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.). So banning guns would be ridiculous as one must accept responsibility for one's own security. Personally, I believe there should be no gun ban as the law can still be broken. If guns were to be banned, people who already own guns could still use them for killing. Also even if they are banned, there would be no significant drop on crime rates as there are still other ways that crimes can be committed, such as with knifes or vehicles. Also, as previously stated, people would still find a way around the ban to use guns to commit future crimes.
If criminals know that people don't have guns, then it would be too easy for them. And with a gun free America, the cops would not be used to major shootings. The Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings were at gun free zones. The police didn't expect those shootings because they thought a no guns allowed zone would save the people. Someone that wants to commit a crime will find any weapon they can to commit it. People who are too poor to purchase guns in Somalla use knives. Violence has been with mankind long before guns were invented but yet we still had crime, how can that be? It's the person not the