In these troubling times, there is a cry to be heard. A cry for more gun control, for more severe punishments of violators of gun control laws. This cry however, is misguided and misheard. Nobody will dispute that gun violence is out of hand anytime there’s a mass shooting, or when police shoot an innocent unarmed person. That is irresponsible use of a deadly weapon. Instead of crying for more control over these weapons, I believe a better solution is to attack the root of the problem. Using a peer reviewed paper from the CATO Journal titled “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?”, an article from TIME magazine titled “THE NEW POLITICS OF GUN CONTROL”, and a spoof article from theonion.com titled “Rahm Emanuel Concerned Gun Violence Could Spread To Parts Of City He Gives Shit About” I will compare the information and determine …show more content…
So as for the truthiness of the data contained within, it is verified as true. The question this article answers can very well be derived from the title itself. Does gun control reduce crime, or does crime increase gun control? The answer to this question is similar to the scales of justice, increase crime on one end and that side weighs down, thus raising more gun control. On the other side, if we increase gun control then it’s scale weighs down and crime is on the rise. While I used a more philosophical way to answer the question in the title, the article itself is filled with data tables that provide similar answers. Gun control has a negligible effect on gun crime itself. If you make obtaining a weapon difficult, people will turn to illegal methods to obtain a weapon when living in an area plagued by crime. Thereby increasing gun crime to a point where more gun control is being issued. The data in this article proves that gun control laws do relatively nothing in solving this