Why Gun Control Does Not Work and Why Worldwide There Are Fewer Laws Than the US - Essay Example

There is a widespread perception that committing suicide is a long process that requires planning just like a wedding or something else. Studies have shown that suicide does not require much rational decision but it is something done spontaneously. This means that if a person came across a death-striking murderer is on the verge of life and death. This might sound far-fetched,murdererding to the Boston Globe report, states with high levels of gun ownership have a suicide rate almost twice as high as level states with low ownership levels.

More surprisingly, people who committed suicide were found to level seventeen times more likely to live with guns at home than not. Most criminals who cause a massacre utilize illegal weapons. Between 1982 and 2012, the US heard about an astonishing number of roughly sixty-two mass shootings that were propagated by gun licensing. Mother Jones's research outlines that out of sixty-two shootings; forty-nine were perpetrated using legal weapons. It is worth noting that, half of all mass shooters use assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

A few sensible restrictions could have saved a lot of lives. If a criminal is determined to pull off a massacre, he could do it very easily using a shotgun, handgun, or even a musket. So putting controls on assault firearms is a good thing and should be encouraged. Gun control decreases the number of lives lost through the reckless act of senseless shooting thus it saves lives. Australian parliament supports this action. In fact, in 1996, a mass sAustralianlled thirty-five people in port Arthur in a massacre, two weeks later, the prime minister then, John Howard launched an aggressive clampdown on gun ownership that has never been experienced in the history of Australia.

Within this exercise, around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were destroyed and a whole raft of checks and controls were brought in. As a result, individuals stop aimless killing (Lott 52). The killing rate was reduced to zero. The main aim of guns is to consume the lifestyle of US citizens. The killing rate was reduced to zero.

The main aim of guns is to consume the lifestyle of US citizens. Frankly, very few of those who support gun control measures want an absolute, total ban on weapons. I do not have any problem with a person who buys a gun and use it for a weekend to hunt. Similarly, if a person feels safe when he has a shotgun in the house to defend his kids, I think it is fair.  However, there is no conceivable reason to own an AR-15, a pump action shotgun, an armor-piercing bullet, or even a high-capacity magazine. Some people utilize guns for leisure purposes. Nevertheless, mass shooters and other criminals through irresponsible shootings cause the administration to initiate a collective measure in aid to control firearms invalidating all these purposes of guns.

According to data published in the Guardian, the US has the highest number of gun owners in the world (Lott 125). This makes America more heavily armed than other developed countries such as Russia and Pakistan. There are more than enough gun owners in the US. Individuals in the US feel much more inclined to be armed considering it has a developed system yet they feel more insecure than people who live in a failed nation-state where the average life expectancy is less than fifty years, it is high time to think about slowing down.

In a nutshell, the current effort to control guns is not effective as many fortunate people continue to lose their lives. As argued above, gun control measures can decrease the number of homicides, suicidal cases, and massacres (O'Neill 139). To this effect, banning guns tends to reduce lives lost through irresponsible shootings. With this control, firearms will be used for their lethal purposes and will reduce the number of citizens who already owns guns.