Gun control causes more crime than without it. In examining how gun control would affect crime, advocates of gun control argue that restrictions on the accessibility of firearms would reduce the rate of firearm related crimes. Opponents of gun control argue that it would not reduce crime and criminals would still manage to secure firearms and attack citizens whom they believe to be unarmed. In debating whether or not gun ownership is an effective means of self-defense, opponents of gun control cite instances where gun ownership prevented a crime; advocates of gun-control like to cite statistics that show a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. .
For decades, gun control and gun violence have been hot topics in America as citizens weigh pros and cons of limiting the freedom of the second amendment. Gun control advocates have been pushing to take firearms away from citizens. However, is that the right choice to make? In a narrow minded person, guns are known and only known for killing people, but what about protecting? Gun control should not be enforced. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns protect citizens, and without it, the overpopulation of animals would be worse than it is today.
First of all, it is typical for the ordinary person to argue that guns kill citizens. The important question to ask is, is it the gun or the person? People are fast to assume that taking guns away from citizens will reduce crime rate. However, why take guns away from law abiding citizens who use those to protect themselves? Those who are willing to murder already demonstrate a disregard for human life and the laws associated with a balanced society. Although proponents of more gun control quickly advocate that guns are the reason behind increased mass killings, other connections must be considered. Laws cannot regulate responses to emotions, mental illnesses, or past events that foster the concepts and motivations of a killer.
