Gun control entails the policies and laws that are aim at restricting the acquisition and use of a gun by citizens of a given country without a justified cause. Gun control has been a contentious subject in the United States for a long time. Different people have diverse views concerning gun control. As a result, numerous studies have been conducted to determine the kind of relationship that exists between gun procession and crimes that are gun related. Gun control advocacy law is one of the most effective way of reducing gun related criminal activities, arguing from both the side of the offender, and the offended seeking protection. This paper represents the views and perceptions of people regarding the gun control policies.
A significant number of people argue that gun control policy is one of the most effective crime prevention policies. Restricting gun procession plays a significant role in reducing the number of guns that might land in the wrong hands, as a result, reducing crime. Most people contest to the fact that they are safer if they have ways of protecting themselves. Self-protection means that there should be minimal restrictions concerning gun control policies. It is widely evident that different people have dissimilar views regarding the effectiveness of gun control policies in mitigating crimes associated with gun procession. Proponents of the gun control policy argue that self-defense is one of the key reasons for implementing gun ownership. With the diverse perspectives, it is important to analyze both views in order to infer a strong conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the gun control policy.
It is arguably evident that crime related with the use of gun because of gun procession. This means that regulating the ownership of guns plays an important role in reducing gun related crimes such as robbery and homicides. The basis is that having an easy access to guns increases the rates of criminal violence. A reduction in violent crimes implies that few individuals will have the need to possess the guns for the purposes of self- defense or protection.
Advocacy for gun control should not base on the need for self-defense; rather it should aim towards reducing gun related violence crime. The argument for gun procession on grounds of self-defense is therefore not justified. In addition, there is no evidence that individuals who use guns for self-defense have not been subject to violent gun crimes. The gun control advocates for public safety, through restricting gun possession rather than promoting public defense by allowing gun ownership.
There is strong evidence that associates increasing gun procession with increasing death rates and injury at the domestic set up. Homicides in the domestic set up accounted for about five million deaths in the past five-year period, with most of the reported homicides being because of the presence of a gun in the house. There is high risk for the occurrence of fatal injuries in cases where there is a gun within the domestic set up. The increases in the mortality rates and homicide crimes do not warrant the need for the procession of a gun. Definitely, restricting gun procession is one of the most effective strategies in controlling domestic violence and other domestic related crime such as crime of passion.
In conclusion, gun control is one of the most ways in ensuring public safety. Self-defense is not a justified cause to warrant gun ownership, since the individuals cannot be trusted with guns at their disposal. Implementing the gun control policies serves as an effective approach to fostering self-defense. This means that the state has the responsibility of ensuring effective implementation of gun control policies.