The Impact of Gun Control on Law Enforcement and Crime

Gun control involves laws and policies to regulate the production, sale, possession, transfer, and use of firearms. Gun control laws limit gun ownership and use in a country. Most countries do not allow civilians to own firearms unless under exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, some countries allow citizens to buy and own firearms without restrictions. Unrestricted gun ownership has ignited a debate in countries where civilians are free to possess firearms. Gun control supporters believe the move helps reduce gun violence, while the critics argue that gun ownership is a constitutional right and it helps prevent crimes. Gun control has a positive impact on law enforcement and crime.

Gun control reduces gun violence. Strict gun control policies disqualify many people from buying guns, minimizing the number of firearms in circulation, whether legal or illegal. Unrestricted gun purchases increase the weapons available for criminals. For example, a potential criminal can steal a legal firearm and use it to cause harm. In such an event, a gun bought for security reasons ends up causing death or injuries to an innocent person. Although many people buy guns to protect themselves or enjoy the right to bear arms, legitimate guns can end in the wrong people’s hands, contributing to gun violence. For example, some minors have used their parent’s guns to commit school shootings.

Easy access to firearms fosters gun violence, especially when one is experiencing a mental health episode or breakdown. Gun availability makes mentally unstable persons dangerous because they are prone to committing suicide and killing others or both. Cases of people with mental health issues committing murders and suicides are rampant. Examples include employees going to their places of work and killing colleagues. Restricting gun ownership reduces scenarios where mental health problems turn a sane person into a murderer. Moreover, it curtails school and mass shootings because potential shooters do not have access to guns at home. Although it is uncertain which household will produce a school shooter, gun control minimizes the odds.

Gun control reduces crimes such as kidnapping, armed robbery, murder, and gang activities. A gun is a criminal’s favorite tool because when they point it at a person, the victim is likely to comply and do as ordered. Taking away the right to bear arms helps remove the primary tool criminals use to rob and kill people, minimizing violent crimes. Certain crimes solely rely on a gun; hence inaccessibility to firearms halts such felonies. Gun control critics may argue that arming more people helps reduce crime. However, more guns do not make people safer

Furthermore, strict gun control minimizes officer-involved shootings. Taking guns away from civilians creates a calm environment where the police are not always anticipating the worst-case scenario. Law enforcers have killed many people because they were scared that a person was holding an object or reaching into something. A police officer’s judgment is compromised when scared, causing them to act irrationally and kill citizens who are not a threat. Even a scared dog is dangerous; what about a human being with a gun and qualified immunity? When law enforcers are not paranoid and nervous, incidences of police-involved shootings decline, saving lives. Moreover, it prevents lawsuits, negative public image, and murder charges among the police.

Restricting gun ownership saves law enforcement lives. When some suspects are cornered, they opt to fire at officers to escape an arrest, resulting in casualties among the police. Moreover, some individuals are displeased by law enforcement and manifest their frustration by ambushing and shooting officers. Limiting gun ownership prevents such shootings by denying people access to firearms. Police deaths by suspects and angry citizens are rare or non-existent in countries where firearms are highly restricted.

To support our work