Thus, n trying to restrict guns in the population in the efforts of reducing mass shootings in the public will not only be detrimental consequences but also one which will leave the public exposed to gangs and criminals who are equipped with mostly illegal firearms that have been bought in the black market.
The other argument against having more and more regulations placed in controlling guns so as to minimize mass shooting is that, in the minds of gangs and criminals, the more and more there are regulations that are restricting guns, the more these efforts makes the criminals and gangs be happy.
This law does not, however, apply to the criminals and gangs.
Rather, if there is or not a ban or regulation of guns, criminals have ways of accessing these firearms and use them for their own sinister purposes.
Gun control can only have meant a change in the use of weapons used to carry out certain crimes.
This can mean that there has been no improvement in crime rate due to gun control.
Most governments have clearly not found the perfect way of controlling guns.
Should citizens be allowed to have guns for their protection purposes or will they end up using the guns for the wrong reasons? Guns control thesis opens up a variety of potential discussion.
The vice versa can also be true Despite your findings, you will defiantly have a very powerful thesis statement.
In case you find that they are the highly used weapons, then use of gun control measures can be an effective solution, though if you find they are the least used, then gun control may not have a significant change This will depend on research done on appropriate platforms. use of FBI documentations This will mean gun control has no significant impact on crime rates.