The recent mass shootings these past few years has caused a great debate among government officials as well as the public. Most liberal people are trying to pass gun laws that limit what people can and cannot have. They are also trying to enforce mandatory background checks when customers purchase a gun. They are taking away our second amendment rights which we have had since the creation of the bill of rights. We have had this amendment pretty much since we gained independence from Britain. However, ideas about limiting guns and taking away guns are not the right answers to fixing the problem of these mass shootings. Instead, we should be promoting guns. If the majority of people were to be properly educated on guns and all carried guns, we
…show more content…
Republicmagazine.com had a great analogy with this point. “Criminals are still going to be able to get their hands on weapons even if they are illegal. Gun control is not going to stop this. Prohibition did not stop criminals from making and selling liquor, so how will gun control laws stop violence?” This is a very valid point. During prohibition, criminals were not going to give into the law. They found ways to manufacture and sell liquor. For example, moonshining really started during this time and has still been a problem in the Appalachian mountains. If prohibition led to more problems, what will happen if gun control laws are heightened and put into place? If guns were taken away from citizens, how would they be able to protect themselves from criminals who do have guns? In the United Kingdom, personal handguns were banned from the general public. Before this ban on handguns, the murder rate with firearms was 1.12 per 100,000. After the ban, the peak murder rate was 2.1 for every 100,000 (listverse.com). This is a substantial increase in murders related with firearms. The only way they were able to get the murder rate down was by bringing more cops to control the public. However, this could be avoided if handguns were allowed for the public to protect
Republicmagazine.com had a great analogy with this point. “Criminals are still going to be able to get their hands on weapons even if they are illegal. Gun control is not going to stop this. Prohibition did not stop criminals from making and selling liquor, so how will gun control laws stop violence?” This is a very valid point. During prohibition, criminals were not going to give into the law. They found ways to manufacture and sell liquor. For example, moonshining really started during this time and has still been a problem in the Appalachian mountains. If prohibition led to more problems, what will happen if gun control laws are heightened and put into place? If guns were taken away from citizens, how would they be able to protect themselves from criminals who do have guns? In the United Kingdom, personal handguns were banned from the general public. Before this ban on handguns, the murder rate with firearms was 1.12 per 100,000. After the ban, the peak murder rate was 2.1 for every 100,000 (listverse.com). This is a substantial increase in murders related with firearms. The only way they were able to get the murder rate down was by bringing more cops to control the public. However, this could be avoided if handguns were allowed for the public to protect