Is Gun Control Really Necessary?

The debate about Gun control has been a hot topic in the United States, especially thanks to the massive shootings that have recently taken place within the world superpower, some calling for control in a country where there are a huge number of weapons, others calling for the laws to be kept intact as they have been since the United States has been the United States, defending the Second Amendment, the question is this: Is Gun control really necessary?

_Source

_{Click here to see more statistics}

Before I review the statistics and begin to speak more fully on the subject, it is necessary to know what the Second Amendment of the United States says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." With that in mind, we know that the United States is a country where you can buy weapons without many restrictions, which means that more than 40% of the population has at least one weapon in their possession. And they also represent the majority of murders in the vast majority of countries around the world, whether they have gun control or not, because a criminal who is willing to kill or harm will always get a gun, whether it's a gun or a knife to commit the crime. Trying to implement gun control in a country with as many guns as the United States would be the equivalent of cutting off your leg and using a band-aid to stop the bleeding, it would be futile and would not prevent further crime, just as banning the carrying of knives in England is absurd and requiring a driver's license does not prevent tragedy. Some will say, ok, but there is a "control" yes, but the worst thing about that control is that, as I said before, it would not prevent anything at all, quite the contrary, we know by common sense that a criminal will always be armed, gun control will only disarm good people who are law-abiding and who only carry them for self-defence. And there are a lot of cases and statistics that support what I'm saying.

"While it is true that gun-free zones can keep law-abiding citizens from overreacting and turning simple altercations into lethal shootouts, a person bent on committing a mass shooting can be counted on to seek out soft targets – i.e., places where guns aren't allowed. For that reason, gun control in the form of gun-free zones can facilitate gun violence by leaving law-abiding citizens exposed." _Source

_{Click here to see more statistics}

In the United States there is less and less crime but more and more weapons, this is a lapidary argument for those who say that more weapons translate into more crime, it is false, and the statistics show it, in fact, in many other countries of the world, the rates of crime by firearms do not vary much regardless of whether there is gun control or not, in the case of the United States these assaults are falling for decades and here the Bureau of Justice Statistics This is demonstrated, in short, by 2011:

• Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
• Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
• Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
• From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.
• Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.
• About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.

"No nation is free of murder and assault. Granted, guns do make the job easier, but in places like the UK, knives and blunt objects are still regularly used for acts of assault. It is true that victims of assault are more likely to survive, but the raw rate of assaults in gun-banning nations isn't much lower than it is in America." _Source