Gun control - Research Paper Example

However, in my opinion, I support that we need strict gun control laws in each country. In my country-China only policemen and military can have guns. The citizens can’t have guns. Due to the strict gun control laws, China’s murder rate was nearly the lowest in the world, well below countries such as Japan and Switzerland. China’s homicide rate stands at 0.8 cases per 100,000 people, Japan’s rate is 14. Therefore, strict gun control laws are needed in order to decreasing the murder rate.

There are few ways we can strict gun control laws in the follow. One does not need to look very hard to find evidence that gun control is needed within the current era. The rash of mash shootings, to include the Colorado Theater shooting, Sandy Hook, as well as a great litany of others, underscores the fact that guns legally obtained through the proper channels are oftentimes utilized to commit these brazen acts of terror. As such, the issue that this comes down to is what the government can seek to do with regards to limiting the supply of guns while at the same time seeking to preserve the civil rights of individuals within society.

Accordingly, the following arguments will present a case for why gun control and stricter gun laws are required; while at the same time presenting the case for why stricter gun laws will not necessarily improve the situation that has been thus far evidenced throughout society; relating to gun crimes and/or mass shootings. Firstly, there is he stance that further gun control would help to mimic the actions that have been taken in other nations around the globe. One does not have to delve too deeply into the statistics to realize that developed economies and societies, such as Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain, do not experience anywhere near the same levels of gun crime as does the United States (O’Brien et al. 7). This is of course due to a number of reasons.

The first of these has to do with the fact that the right to bear arms is not unique to the European nations that have thus far been listed. However, this inherent “right” is built into the United States Constitution with regards to the Second Amendment. This particular amendment guarantees that Congress will not impede the right of the citizen to own and bear arms. However, even a cursory analysis reveals the fact that laws such as a minimum age for purchasing firearms and/or the requirement to obtain a legal permit in order to conceal a weapon have already infringed upon this Second Amendment right.

In this way, those who continually assert that the Second Amendment is hallowed ground that the government will never be able to infringe upon are sorely mistaken; as it has already been infringed upon, defined, and hedged by a great many different laws. An argument against further gun control in order to present the atrocities that have thus far been listed has to do with the fact that criminals are, by their very nature, disinterested with the impacts or repercussions of breaking the law. In this manner, seeking to engage further gun laws as a means of reducing the supply of guns available to these individual via legal channels will not necessarily solve the situation.

Instead, it is reasonable to assume that if an individual intends on breaking the law in the first place, then they will equally be willing to purchase a firearm or ammunition on the black market; outside of the channels of supply that the United