If you had to choose one weapon to protect you and your home what would it be? I would assume that most of you chose a gun. Guns have achieved a brute status through years of movie glorification and numerous appearances in great crimes of the century. The commonly found solution to this problem would be the outlawing of firearms in certain areas, the outlawing of certain firearms, and strict regulations on the ownership of firearms. Lets think here for a moment, when people outlawed drugs did that stop criminals? No. People find ways to get what they want and if we disarm the citizens of America we are leaving them unprotected against the very criminals the laws were made for. This is why more stringent gun control and tougher firearms regulations do not lead to a decrease in gun related crimes and fatalities in the United States of America. …show more content…
While some level of restriction and regulation when it comes to firearms is a necessity, having heavy gun related laws is not beneficial to society and teeters dangerously close to infringing on the second amendment to the constitution. The second amendment protects the right of American citizens to bear arms so it would be illegal to outlaw them all together. There are a fair amount of studies and data collections that support the idea that rigorous gun regulations is not beneficial to decreasing gun violence. For example, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. Even if private gun ownership was outlawed it wouldn’t be very beneficial. The nine European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership