The controversial debate over gun control laws at the national and state levels is exacerbated each time another public shooting tragedy occurs. The question is whether such violence and such debate has resulted in any real change in those laws and, if so, what the effects of such change are.
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 for any gun control law or laws to ever affect. While the writer is an advocate of gun control laws, the literature demonstrates all too clearly that creating, passing and enforcing such laws is difficult, and even if passed and enforced, they may do very little to stop the gun violence that everybody says they want stopped.
Still, the little good that they do is evidence that such laws themselves are good and should be maintained and strengthened.
T...