Last Name1

Yours Name

Professor’s Name

Subject

Date

Is gun control is effective way to stop the crime

I chose the topic "is gun control is an effective way to stop crime". Gun control is a subtle

and controversial problem that has been discussed for many years. After the last tragic shootings

in the recent years, this problem has led people to find a better solution. The paper shows that

arms control laws increase crime rates and collective blows. The right to control firearms is an

effective deterrent. Citizens who must comply with all laws carry weapons. This is to protect

yourself from people trying to hurt them, like group shooting.

Criminal mostly known as a person who does not obey the law. A simple definition of a

citizen is a person who obeys the law. So what categories of people will be affected by laws that

restrict gun ownership? The simple answer is that gun control laws only affect citizens who

abide by the law. Essentially, criminals will continue to violate these new laws, own guns, and be

more prone to commit crimes when they learn that the victim is not armed. This situation is

similar to that of disarmed blacks a century ago. When new laws make it impossible to fight

back, innocent people will be victims. Unarmed people rarely have the opportunity to confront

armed men.
 Last Name2

Gun control laws cannot prevent criminals from owning firearms. If criminals want to use

the weapons then gun control laws are not able to stop him thus it would not be able to resolve

the same mass shootings. This is because whenever criminals have the opportunity to use the

weapon publicly, they are already willing to comply with the law and tend to use it

independently without any fear of existing laws and regulations. As a result, arms control is not

an effective mechanism because criminals are not familiar with laws or do not follow the rules of

supply and demand or arms. In contrast, the main causes of violent acts such as collective

behavior are simply mental illness and other problems. To this end, it is necessary to find a

solution to prevent these criminals from participating in public activities.

The existing legislation did not take rigorous measures to control and regulate the sale of

firearms to criminals, so we must look for alternative views that led to this crisis. Obviously, the

large-scale executions by criminals were mainly due to the existence of illegal weapons in trade.

It is important to understand that one of these illegal guns on the black market will generate

profits and fall into the wrongdoers.

Criminals always find ways to get guns. In this country, using, owning, selling and

transporting multiple types of narcotics has been criminalized, but it is still easy to find street

vendors and buy your favorite drugs. These black market entrepreneurs provide customers with

guns and ammunition as easily. Today, it is clear that criminals often possess illegal weapons,

such as shotguns, machine guns, self-made zipper guns, etc., regardless of the current laws that

make these items illegal. When they are caught, the court regularly dismisses these lesser arms

allegations as they prosecute more serious arms allegations.

 Last Name3

It is well known that criminals can easily obtain such weapons as long as they have the

money. If criminals need weapons, nothing will prevent them from entering. Since criminals are

already tracking many enemies, you need to understand that they want weapons. Criminals

believe that having their own defensive weapons, rather than being captured without protection,

helps avoid unnecessary damage [ CITATION Ter17 \l 1033 ]. Therefore, attempts to limit the use of

population weapons to reduce the large-scale development of society will not only have harmful

consequences, but also criminals who will bring people to illegal groups and carry illegal guns

on the black market will be exposed. There are other arguments that call for additional gun

control arrangements to reduce mass shootings. Gangs and criminals have weapons restrictions,

and these efforts will satisfy criminals and gangs. The reason is that they know how big the law

restricts the firearms population and are more likely to be unable to defend each time civilians

are attacked. The public cannot protect themselves from those who try to harm them. In states

that allow more citizens to carry firearms, crime rates and collective mass shootings are lower

than those that limit citizenship.

I argued that limiting and regulating public weapons to reduce collective firing will only

affect citizens who comply with the law. However, the law does not apply to criminals or gangs.

Instead, criminals can use these guns regardless of whether there are gun bans or regulations and

there are ways to use them for their own ominous purposes. Current gun laws and regulations do

not have the ability to control or reduce the sale of illegal guns to gangs and criminals. Chicago

state for incident not allowed to sell handguns [ CITATION Mic17 \l 1033 ]. Individuals with gun

ownership license can purchase such gaze rifles, shot rifles and ammunition. As a result, the

Chicago area is one of the hardest places to get a gun. This is the epicenter of mass shootings,
 Last Name4

crimes and violence in the area, unlike areas where no stringent measures have been taken, such

as Chicago.

In the United Kingdom, another case was observed, which showed objections to the

regulation and banning of firearms to prevent mass shooting. The change in 1997 banned all

firearms and barred individuals from owning them, which made the situation even worse. Since

the law was passed, an increase in crime rates on the streets of London has been observed, which

not the same, when there was personal allowances for legal possession and use of firearms

[ CITATION Dav06 \l 1033 ]. Although Britain has proven to be the country with the most stringent

regulations on the control of firearms in the population, the law not only makes individuals feel

safe, but also in the hands of criminals whenever encounter these false criminal groups, the

streets are very disadvantaged. This is mainly because citizens are not prepared and armed each

time they encounter a gang.

More surprising evidence is that two years after the passage of the law in the UK, crime

rates have increased by 40% and the incidence of armed robbery has increased by 53%. From

1997 to 2001, crime and morbidity in the UK more than doubled. People in London are six times

more likely to be robbed and deceived than New York. A closer look at the 13% incidence of

thieves in the United States reveals that thieves are more afraid of armed homeowners than fear

of the law itself. In England, robberies are five times more common than in New York. In the

UK, gun restrictions and the application of restrictions not only assess unexpected consequences

such as road violations, but have also led to an increase in crime rates on the road[ CITATION

Dav06 \l 1033 ]. British criminals are encouraged by the law to openly engage in illegal and

criminal activities without having to worry about the public carrying the same level of guns back

and forth.
 Last Name5

The British case has played a role in U.S. states that have passed such laws in the past. In

states that have passed more gun control laws, these gun laws have been observed to be less

effective in limiting the incidence of criminal activities and mass shootings. For example, of the

15 states with the highest murder rates, 10 have the highest murder rates. Despite tighter gun

controls, it is believed that the total number of street robberies in New York State has exceeded

20% [ CITATION Cha17 \l 1033 ]. Another example to show is Washington, D.C. in which gun bans

indicate that the state has consistently had high murder, crime and burglary rates compared to

states where the state has not imposed stricter gun control on its citizens.

In summary, it is clear from the discussion above that having more powerful firearms is

not necessarily related to reducing mass shooting and crime rates. In these cities, in states with

stricter gun laws, the opposite relationship exists between states with the same crime rate and

armed robbery rate. For this reason, it is necessary to adopt effective strategies to end large-scale

shooting, instead of using methods that restrict the masses' possession of firearms. Suppressing

group shooting requires other interventions in addition to restricting social gun control. It has

been observed that more firearms cannot effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the illegal

possession of firearms does not help prevent criminals from acquiring them. These laws restrict

only those who comply with the law and use firearms only for legal purposes. When you

empower people to protect themselves, criminals start looking for other victims without having

to worry about becoming a victim. Efforts must be made to reduce crime, but the issues should

be realistic and effective plans should be in place. Obviously, gun control laws are neither

practical nor effective in reducing crime. Therefore, we must focus on managing crime, not

managing the legal ownership of firearms.

 Last Name6

Works Cited

Chandler McClellan, Erdal Tekin. "Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries." The

Journal of Human Resources (2017): 621-653.

Cooper, Terry L. "Are Unlimited Gun Rights Constitutionally Protected? ." Public Integrit

(2017): 19:2, 101-103.

Sharp, David. "Gun Control in the UK—Still a Matter for Debate." J Urban Health (2006):

83(5): 773–774.

Siegel, Michael. "Firearm-Related Laws in All 50 US States, 1991–2016." American Journal of

Public Health (2017): 1122-1129.