Gun Control: Killer Or Savior?
In Lee Nisbet’s book, The Gun Control Debate: You Decide (?,?) he concludes that “guns in the homes of law abiding citizens are themselves tempting targets for burglars.” A burglar, instead of being frightened of the homeowner having possession of a weapon, he or she may be looking to steal the firearm. Guns in homes do not only pose (as?) a threat to the homeowner, but are a threat to children. Accidental shootings are prevalent among young children because they do not realize the lethality of guns and think of them as toys. Furthermore, most parents do not store their guns properly. They do not install trigger locks and they put them in places easily accessible to children. These mistakes create a situation in which children are at (a?) serious risk. “More than 500 children die each year and more than 3,500 are injured in unintentional shootings,” according to Jack Anderson’s book Inside the NRA: Armed and Dangerous: An Exposé. In order to keep children safe as well as other Americans, many are pushing for an almost outright ban on firearms. They proclaim it is the only way for American society to become less violent. Their solution is simple: only allow police officers and other law enforcement personnel to own firearms. (Transition?) A version of this solution has been tried before. In 1997, the District of Columbia Firearms Control Act of Washington D.C. prohibited handgun ownership by virtually everyone except police officers, security guards and previous gun owners. In the years following, there were reduced rates of gun robbery, assault and homicide (Nisbet). Therefore, an almost total ban of firearms can reduce violence in the United States because it reduces the risk of unintentional shootings as well as keeping firearms out of the hands of those who use them in harmful