Gun Control: Hurt or Help?

"Gun control: Hurt or Help?"

The idea of freedom to bear arms has been around since the creation of this nation but recently the state government has been making laws that limit this possibility. The state think that an increase in gun laws causes a decrease in violent crime, but is that true? In California they banned assault weapons, which are only used in about one fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes. So it will not have a big impact on violent crime rates. Going against the general assumption the limiting of handguns also does not have a large impact on homicide rates.

This ban of assault weapons by the Crime Control Act of 1994 seems to be a waste. A Washington Post editorial from September 15, 1994 comments, " No one should have an illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to border gun control." If this law was known to have little effect on the violent crime rates, then why was it passed? It seems to be a waste of time and money to pass a law that will do little for violent crimes. There are close to four million assault weapons in the United States, which amount to roughly 1.7% of the totally gun stock. This ban on such a small percentage of guns would not have a big impact on the decrease of violent crimes, which is the main reason for gun control.

The increase in handgun ownership should cause a rise in violent crime, right? Wrong. Handgun