While there is conflicting evidence on the efficiency of gun control, it is evident that the policymakers have to address the increasing number of mass violence in the United States. The main benefit of having gun control laws is a restriction of who can access these weapons, which can potentially decrease the number of shootings. This section will focus on exploring the pros of having gun control laws that limit the availability and capability of an individual to obtain weapons.
Firstly, it is evident that the state should have control and a limitation set for the type and number of guns that people can possess. Otherwise, potentially dangerous weapons such as semi-automatic rifles and large-caliber guns would be in free access to all people, including criminals and those who have a mental illness. Opposition to this idea is the claim that there is a potential effect of having fewer crimes with more guns (Moyer).
The implication is that the mutual understanding of the fact that an individual that is being attacked, robbed, or undergoing other criminal assault may potentially have a weapon. This should stop the criminal from carrying out the act in the first place. However, Moyer argues that this is not true since over 30 studies present a correlation between the increase of gun possession and a number of rapes, murders, and other crimes. Therefore, the pro of having gun control laws is the potential impact on the number of crimes committed using these weapons.
Secondly, it is evident that a number of pro-gun people have fears regarding the laws that aim to control guns, and for them, the benefit discussed above maybe not as obvious. However, Raines explores the possibility of returning to the gun laws that existed in the 1960s, which allowed for possession of firearms and were very liberal towards gun ownership in general. However, the restriction was placed on the type of ammunition and the number of rounds a gun can produce. Raines argues that this restriction is a valid approach to gun control laws because it should appeal to both parties – those concerned with mass shootings and individuals wanting to protect themselves by having a weapon.
Therefore, this strategy implies that the main pro of having gun laws is in limiting the availability and access to very dangerous weapons. Additionally, it allows people who want to have guns for personal or professional use, for example, rangers or hunters. Although such a restriction does not eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting, it targets the prospective number of victims and allows the policy and author authorities to have leverage over the shooter.
Finally, it is evident that the existing policies and practices enforced by the United States government are not effective in preventing mass shootings. While it is unclear why the number of cases has increased over the past years, it is evident that new laws have to be implemented to prevent tragedies in the future. Both Raines and Moyer argue that the state has to have control over the weapons possessed by individuals, although they propose two different approaches to the matter.
This suggests that the primary benefit of gun policies is the ability to either decrease the number of gun violence cases or decrease the number of victims. In general, the main pros of having gun laws are the ability to control the number of weapons possesses by people and the idea of restrictions on the number of rounds that a gun can hold.
Works Cited
Moyer, Melinda. “More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows.” Scientific American, 2017. Web.
Raines, Howell. “To Fix Our Gun Crisis, We Should Revert to ’60s Gun Laws.” The Washington Post, 2019. Web.