On the pro side of gun control, the belief is that if more laws are added that restricts law abiding citizens from getting guns, there will be less crime. On the con side of gun control the belief is, if more people are armed with weapons it will prevent them from being victimized because they will have the ability to defend themselves. Author of More Guns, Less Crime: John R.

Lott stated, “States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. In  May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun.” As of today guns are 100% banned In Japan. The result of this law has been very effective resulting in a maximum of ten gun deaths per year! But on the other side of this country with very few gun deaths, there are many mass killings that involve knives and other small handheld weapons, like when a, “knife-wielding man killed 19 and injured dozens at a center for people with mental disabilities in Japan (July 26 2016).”  More than half of the gun related deaths in america are merely from people commiting suicide. More people kill themselves with gun than they kill other people! maybe the only problem that we have is the mental health of americans. But how can we prevent people from harming themselves? If all guns are taken away, those people will still harm themselves, they just won’t be able to use a gun.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Another belief that comes from the pro side of gun control is that, ” high capacity magazines should be banned because it easily turns murder in to mass murder.” In the state of california gun owners are not allowed to possess any “High Capacity Magazines” which is basically any magazine that has the capability of holding more than ten rounds at once. This still allows the gun owner to have a bullet in the chamber as well as a ten round magazine resulting in a total of eleven rounds. In reality, one well placed bullet is all it takes to kill a human, as well as an animal. Considering that  California Fish and Game requires upland game bird hunters to have a “plug” in their shotgun at all times while hunting, which only allows a maximum of three rounds in the gun. With that being said what is the need of a gun owner in the state of California to have the ability to fire eleven rounds as fast as they can pull the trigger out of a high caliber rifle other than causing harm? On the con side of this argument it states that, “Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety.

” this means that strict gun laws basically victimizes people who can’t get a gun because they cannot defend themselves against violent criminals. But, how much does the “victim” having a gun change the output of the situation? Well, “According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year.” The third pro id like to talk about is that, “Civilians, including hunters, should not own military-grade firearms or firearm accessories.” This includes the notorious “AR-15 military grade Assault Weapon that was used in six mass shootings from 2015 to 2016 resulting in a total of two hundred and forty eight deaths.” This weapon was made to be used in war and has been used in every war since vietnam.

so why should a weapon that was specifically crafted to be used against people be able to be used in everyday civilian life? On the con side of this argument the belief is that, ” Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States.” But unlike the United States Mexico doesn’t have a government that protects its people as well as the United States, so maybe them being allowed to carry guns and protect themselves is better than the mexican government banning guns, cause the bad guys would still have guns and it would leave the victims ultimately defenseless. On the pro side of this topic gun owners believe that,” More gun control leads to fewer suicides.

” and according to a, “study published in the International Review of Law and Economics, when gun ownership went down in the United States, overall suicide rates went down.” This is because guns are very common, very easy to use, and highly effective to use in suicide. But when you take guns out of the picture, a person that has a mental problem and wants to harm themselves fatally will find a way to do so regardless what the gun laws are.

Which brings me to the con side of the argument where “Gun control laws and lower gun ownership rates do not prevent suicides.” Remember when I was talking about effective japan was at preventing gun deaths due to their law that banned all guns? Well, “Japan has a low gun ownership rate at 0.6 guns per 100 people and a high suicide rate of 18.41 suicides per 100,000 people in 1997.” Meaning that even though japan has very few deaths from guns, it’s suicide rates are still high and that shows that stricter gun laws clearly do not prevent suicides.

Many people have been pushing for the same laws that come with owning a car should be just like owning a gun. For example, to own a car you must have insurance, you must pass tests and prove you know how to drive, and this should be the same for owning a gun. If you want to own a gun there should be tests you have to pass proving that you know how to use it and can be responsible and safe while using it.