Although gun control seems positive and morally attractive at first glance, I assure you that when you look at the facts and solid evidence, you'll see why it is logical not to implement US arms control laws. There are many reliable studies and real-world examples that show why arms control is not a much better alternative to strict weapon control. Strict rules on arms control take more people than they save, which is why it is so important. If you go beyond popular beliefs and prejudices and take the time to thoroughly examine gun control and find facts and evidence, you'll see why gun control is not a good solution.
According to the New York Times, around 23% of people living in cities in the United States own a gun and about 56% of those living in rural areas. The actual number is estimated to be much higher because many states do not require the possession of a specific type of weapon. Which means there are many unregistered weapons. In fact, around 270 to 300 million cannons are in circulation in the United States. It's almost a weapon for every American citizen. From this, we can conclude that arms control affects many people.
One of the main mistakes of gun control is the fact that criminals always find a way to get weapons. 'The results of the murder suggest that when weapons are scarce, other weapons are replaced by killing,' quotes a Harvard study. If a person is motivated enough, he will find a way, and we have already found that there are about 300 million weapons in the United States, so finding a way is not too difficult.
Removing weapons would only disarm law-abiding citizens and expose them to criminal attacks. 'Weapons control laws ensure that thieves and bad people who want to defeat them are defenseless,' said Earl Bumpkin, author of the pentagram. People may argue that we have police who protect us. The problem is that the police can't be everywhere at the same time. In fact, they may be quite far from the crime scene. The average police response time is about ten minutes, but it is known to take more than 20 minutes in some areas. A lot can happen between 10 and 20 minutes. People can die, businesses can be robbed, cars can be stolen, and many other events can take place. Therefore, citizens should be armed.
FBI reports show that the number of violent crimes has fallen since 2007. Despite the ongoing debate on arms control. Interestingly, gun ownership increased at the same time. The growing number of weapons can actually lead to a lower crime rate. For example, if you look at a place like Russia, a country that has very strict weapons regulations for its citizens. Despite the laws on weapons, they have a very high crime rate, perhaps even because of them. The more citizens have guns, the less likely they are to commit a crime. An armed population is much more dangerous to criminals than unarmed.
Another reason for the lack of control over weapons is the second change. 'You cannot violate a well-regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state and the right of citizens to hold and carry weapons.' Let's sum it up. When the founding fathers spoke of 'well-regulated militia,' they meant that US citizens should be armed and 'necessary for the security of a free state.' They should be armed to protect themselves against criminals and potential government tyrants. 'The founders warned [people that the government does not limit the possession of weapons] ... they knew that governments could turn against their people,' said Glenn Beck. As a nation that has just separated from a government that has opposed its people, it makes sense to incorporate this amendment into the constitution and it is prudent to keep it now. It may seem absurd to think that the US government may be corrupt, but many governments in the past, so it's better to be safe than sorry.
Some argue that weapons regulations such as 'Stand Your Ground' encourage people to shoot first and ask questions that lead to unnecessary murders. However, the lack of regulations such as 'Stand your Ground' would cause far more deaths. When people fall into life or death, they shouldn't worry about breaking the law. 'Citizens must be able to protect themselves without fear that self-defense is a legal issue.' says Rich Morthland, a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. It would hesitate in a situation where nobody would allow it and do bad things. Even the police are learning not to hesitate in such situations.
It is also argued that loose weapon legislation makes it easier for criminals to obtain weapons. Although it's true, this can't be avoided. An alternative to 'loose weapon control' is strict weapon control, which means that only criminals have weapons (it is not known if the criminals follow the rules)
Having only criminals who have guns is a much worse alternative than criminals and citizens who have guns.