Pop. Pop. Pop. The sound that resonated through the hallway, at a little elementary school in Pennsylvania as a boy went on a shooting spree and killed many people. This shooting along with countless others across the country brings a question to the table, “Does increased gun control actually protect people?” For many years, this question has been asked again and again, but with mass shootings on the rise, it is a question that has been brought up yet another time. This is a hot topic amongst politicians, presidential candidates, and even the general public, but is increased gun control actually the best thing for the people?
In Australia, gun control has been tried in the past, with surprising results, the opposite of what the government …show more content…
In D.C. most guns were temporarily banned to increase safety and decrease homicides in the nation’s capital. Although there was an active gun ban, the homicide rate failed to decrease. “We know the D.C. handgun ban didn’t reduce homicide,” (Liptak, The New York Times) this continues to prove that increased gun control has no effect on the safety of people and in the reduction of the homicide rate. If it did have an active effect, then as a result of the ban, the homicide rate would have decreased, and most likely been increased to a longer period of time. But unfortunately, this is not the case. Proved yet another time by the research of two others, it was also concluded that there is little to none correlation between guns and reduced homicide and suicide rates, it is written, “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.” (Annear, Boston Magazine) he continues on to say that unfortunately these are conclusions based on incorrect facts, statements, and unrepresentative comparisons from discussions. Thus said, many people still believe the mantra but yet fail to research the topic on their own to try and prove their own