Controversy Over Gun Control Laws

One problem is that the debate has become so emotional now--for good reason, considering so many senseless deaths by firearms, as well as the legitimate fear that gun control laws will become so restrictive that law-abiding citizens will be improperly disallowed from owning guns for sport or self-protection. However, because of such emotional propaganda from both sides of the debate, it is difficult to find reasonable exchanges on the issue.

The argument here will be that while gun control laws have not proved as effective as gun control advocates might have hoped, they have proved effective to some degree, they may have hidden effects in preventing gun ownership by criminals and in stopping some crime, and therefore such laws are good for the country and the safety of its citizens.

Realistically, the nation should expect, at the most, that gun control laws will not have an overwhelming effect on crime and violence related to guns. There are simply too many guns in the nation and it is simply too easy for anybody to have access to guns. In addition, the underlying sociocultural, economic, and psycho-emotional reasons for gun-related violence are simply too deep and too complex f

. . .
do not even try to buy guns because of the laws in place. In the third place, because there is a statistical difference between rejected would-be gun buyers in the case of the more restrictive California laws than in the case of states with less restrictive laws, the argument is thereby made that all states should follow the California example. Certainly some of the rejected would-be gun buyers would have committed crimes had they been able to purchase a gun. Is Sullum saying that such an effect on crime is completely insignificant? In the fourth place, according to Sullum's argument, any law which is not completely effective is an insignificant law which should be done away with, but would he make the same argument with respect to murder in general, or rape, or robbery? These crimes continue to be committed, so, according to Sullum's argument, we should do away with such laws because they are not effective. As with gun control laws, laws against crime in general do prevent some crime and are therefore effective to some degree, and therefore should remain on the books, as should gun control laws. Sullum's argument is that gun control advocates do not really want to restrict gun purchases, but rather want to use gun control law
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Colin Ferguson, , James Wright, Cut Crime, Rifle Association, Christopher Hitchens', Garen Wintemute, Night Specials, NRA NRA, gun control, National Review, control laws, gun control laws, gun owners, gun control advocates, control advocates, would-be gun buyers, would-be gun, gun buyers, buy gun, waiting period, concealed weapons, argument gun control, argument gun, waiting period background,
Approximate Word count = 2366
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Controversy Over Gun Control Laws