The Two Sides of Gun Control

The Two Sides of Gun Control
Freedom and safety are the two main incentives on opposing and supporting gun control. The two groups are divided by the thought of safety through personal intervention and safety through government regulation. Both sides preach safety; one through action of self sufficiency and self defense. The side of gun control is focused on the ideal of safety through the protection of government regulation and protection of law enforcement. Simply put, individuals that follow the ideals of anti-gun control believe that violence will be prevented through the intervention of the general populace with them owning firearms. Meanwhile, those who support gun control believe that gun violence will be reduced by restricting guns from the entire populace.
The evidence for gun control focuses on simple statistics. However, these statistics are rather surprising to one who would be against gun control. In the year 2000, over 10,000 people were killed due to gun violence as well as 49,000 more were injured due to the cause of firearms. Advocates of gun control believe that believe that intervention on a federal level could be a successful remedy to help with this deadly problem that plagues the country. These remedies can vary from a complete gun ban, ranging to only a ban on military grade assault weapons. Advocates also stress that there is no constitutional violation within gun banning laws.
Another alarming thought is that gun owners can and do leave their firearms unattended in the presence of children. In 2002, 60 children ages 14 and under were killed due to unintentional firearm injuries. Also, nearly 8,300 children were injured in 2003 while operating non-powder guns.

Surprisingly, all of these firearm related accidents total up to $675 million in healthcare bills. This averages to be around $28,000 per case. Fortunately, gun related deaths caused by children have decreased by 80% since 1987. Gun control advocates take a note of this trend as a sure sign of firearm regulation having a positive effect.

Some statistics can sway in favor of anti gun control advocates. One interesting fact is that Washington D.C. has the highest crime rate by far compared to any other state; a crime rate of 1,508 per 100,000 people. Ironically, this state has some of the most strict gun laws. These laws only permit owners to keeping a handgun in their home. Both carrying a firearm openly and concealed is prohibited. One would expect after finding this fact that a state with more lenient gun laws would have a lower violent crime rate. This is surprisingly true. The state of Maine has some of the most lenient gun laws. A permit is only required to carry a concealed weapon. Registration or permits are not required to own firearms for any other means. The state of Maine has a crime rate of only 116 per 100,000. This rate is the lowest in the nation (cesus.gov).

On the other side of the fence, the individuals who are against gun control preach that there is safety amongst an armed populous. They argue that any laws prohibiting citizens owning firearms would just be a burden on law abiding citizens, while criminals will go about their ways to obtain a weapon. Anti gun control advocates also stress that laws banning firearm ownership could be an infringement on their constitutional rights.
Some consider this an overly discusses topic. However, with more thought one can see that this is a very important issue. Firearms are some of the biggest tools for crime in the United States. Our decisions on passing or not passing certain laws could change crime rates completely in this country, for better or for worse. It depends on if the country is going to follow the ideals of gun control.

The Two Sides of Gun Control 7.2 of 10 on the basis of 3197 Review.