This post was written with the help of the author: Stefanie Scott is a bachelor in English philology and sociology at California University. She is currently working as one of the best writers at the https://superessay.org She also studies feminine psychology.

More than 30,000 people in United States of America die from gunshot wound each year. Gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature mortality rate in the U.S, since most of the victims are disproportionately young. In addition to these facts, in 20011 a number of non-fatal crimes numbering to 300,000 were committed using guns (Daniel, 2000). Gun violence in the United States has taken a high toll rate. For a country of high wealth income rate and prestige, it is a sad factor if one compares it to the corresponding number in developing countries. Recently schools have experienced shooting that have inflicted fear and suffering among parents, teachers and students as well. The safety of our children in schools has raised concerns as a result of these accidents. Minors are increasingly involved in shootings in schools, such as the case of Tuesday, February 29th 2000 at Mount Morris Township, where a six year old boy accidentally shot his classmate to death. The question rising is who is to blame for these cases: is it the government, parents, school or teachers? This paper seeks to make a persuasive judgment on the pros and cons of the gun control policy. Should the policy be revoked or should it be encouraged and facilitated? (Daniel, 2000)

For many people guns are part of their daily culture. For some it is a means of survival while others use them for sporting activities and leisure. Many hunters have family guns passed down over generations. Most of them are well educated on the safety of guns. The question raising is why should their rights to own guns be revoked, while they pose no harm to anybody? In this case guns should not be taken from them. The big issue to deal with in regards to the gun control policy is where should the guidelines be drawn from? If one category of people should own guns, why shouldn’t others be allowed to do so as well? According to the second amendment, just because the government put regulations on people to own guns does not mean they should not own them.

The gun control law is meant to restrict the purchase of guns and any possession of fire arms. The gun control laws are implemented to reduce the possession of guns to just authorize government officials. In America, each state has its own gun control law. However, it is important to note that California has the toughest restrictions of them all. Gun control laws are necessary in states as they reduce the rate of crime, violence, and increase the government’s protection over the particular state, against death and other gun-related crimes (John, 2011).

Gun control can reduce crimes and violence. The majority of the crimes committed in the United States were done using firearms. 67% of the crimes done in the States between 2010 and 2011 were committed using these firearms. This means that if firearms were prohibited in the States, crime rate would go down by 67%. Since guns do take away life, having the gun control law would mean that the mortality rate of individuals is increased, as less lives would be lost through firearm incidences. Significantly, firearms suicidal related cases and homicides drop drastically with the reduction of rights to own guns (John, 2011).

Currently the federal law prohibits a certain group or individuals from owning firearms. These people include fugitives, minors, felons, or people convicted for crimes that involve domestic violence. Individuals with restraining orders, substance abusers, or people judged to have mental incompetence are also not allowed to own guns. This is due to the reason that the same individuals if possession of a firearm can cause harm to themselves and to others, either voluntarily or involuntarily (James & Jacob, 2002). People who have been dishonorably discharged from the military or legal enforcement groups are not allowed to possess a firearm too. In the United States people who have renounced their citizenship, or are illegal aliens in the country have been banned by the gun control policy. The law also sets the age of 21 as the minimum age an individual should reach to legally purchase a gun from a federal licensed guns dealer. The law, however, sets an age of 18 for the possession of a handgun from a dealer who is not licensed by the federal government (Cook & Ludwig, 2000).

However, the gun control policy has its own cons. Some people argue that law abiding citizens have a right to own guns. This is for the sole purpose of possessing some kind of protection against danger. Due to the ownership of firearms, particularly handguns, burglary incidences have reduced drastically (Halbrook, 1999). For some individuals a gun is just a tool. It does not kill people by itself. People kill people. The fact of matter is on whose hand the gun is. In this situation some argue that enhancing gun control laws will not have an effect on crime rate. This is because this law does not mean that criminals will not have access to guns. In short, these laws are only restrictions to law abiding citizens, who use firearms in a legal manner and not the criminals. People should not forget that guns do not kill people, it is the people who kill other people. We should work together towards reducing crime rate in America (Halbrook, 1999)

In conclusion, parents should watch and monitor their children closely, control what they watch on televisions, help them manage their anger issues and counter the gun issues in schools. The government should also ensure that the gun control policy does get implemented relevantly in all states through check ups on firearms dealers licenses and setting laws to imprison those caught breaching the policy.