Gun control is a hot topic in America. Yet, we rarely hear of discussion on this issue. Throughout these articles, both authors have a good example of why gun-control should be the answer or not. The first article, Gun control isn’t the answer, the author argues, regardless, of strict gun laws in America people will still have access to guns. He states that getting rid of guns wouldn’t prevent criminals from buying illegal weapons. For instance, Europe had declared gun free but the murder rate in Europe was still higher than of America. One good example the author state is, having access to gun can prevent you from danger, protect your loved ones and your personal belongs. In contrast, the second article, Gun control pro-gun control, focuses on why gun laws should be stricter than they are now. The former mayor is an advocate of stricter of gun laws and supports the movement. However, second amendments fanatics such as Rand Paul is against gun-control. The author argues, if the people that have access to guns are responsible and using the gun for …show more content…
What they don't talk about is that fact that you can't walk into an elementary school and kill 20 children with a knife nearly as easily as you can with a gun. Yes criminals will commit crimes regardless but it's about damage control. As the author James Wilson mentions, “You can declare a place gun free zone but people will still bring guns”. If you believe the gun free zone that gun supporters like to throw around then we should make sure people are free to bring guns onto airplanes because hijackings are simply a result of passengers not having the guns they need to protect themselves. More guns is not the solution to a high gun murder rate, you need to prevent citizens from obtaining weapons that can kill 10 or 20 people with minimal effort. This is completely