Recent mass killings in various regions across the globe have prompted the elected leaders, legislatures, researchers, scientists and the ordinary citizens to rethink about the gun control laws and individual means of protection.

Gun Control
Recent mass killings in various regions across the globe have prompted the elected leaders, legislatures, researchers, scientists and the ordinary citizens to rethink about the gun control laws and individual means of protection. In the USA, for example, Gun Policy was used as a campaign tool where the citizens expected the political aspirants to highlight how they will control gun use. In most parts of the world, gun control policies have succeeded in protecting the citizens from unnecessary shootings. Availability of privately owned guns has enhanced personal security in few scenarios. Possession of firearms does not offer complete protection against attacks. Emotionally weak and mentally ill individuals may also cause harm to innocent citizens using their guns. Crime rates, therefore, escalate due to inappropriate regulations and control of the weapons. This paper aims to support the benefits of gun control policies and discuss the challenges due to improper management of firearm ownership.
Without a doubt, the establishment of gun-free zones has orchestrated the safety of residents living in such areas. In these regions, only the police and military personnel have access to firearms for law enforcement. Following a series of increasingly violent crimes, the Congress passed a law (“Gun Free School Act”) with a primary intention of protecting those within the school environs from any violence related to firearms. Reducing the number of privately owned firearms in a country is a method that can be used to reduce criminal acts. Restricting firearms availability is a means that most governments employ to weaken opposition from specific population to enhance its control and implement its duties (Lenn 1). Presence of firearms in these regions may deter the government from enforcing its policies. Loss of life may also be consequential when there is fire exchange between residents and the security officers.
Undoubtedly, possession of guns by mentally impaired and emotionally unstable individuals places the lives of innocent people around them at risk. Stronger rules should be put in place to ensure convicted, and the mentally impaired persons do not possess a gun. The relationship between rifle violence and mental problems is a crucial step considered in policy development for the appropriate and effective prevention of gun brutality. Epidemiological analysis has outlined that compulsive disorder alone has minimal contributions to the overall prospect of systematic violence but is strongly linked to suicide. Lawmakers should come up with strategies to identify those who are highly risky of harming others or themselves. These laws aim at preventing attacks carried out by the mentally ill leading to numerous loss of lives. According to (Valle 2), it is evident that theatres, schools, malls, and churches have recently suffered life-threatening gun attacks. Mentally ill individuals who aim at mass killing the innocent citizens sometimes cause the assaults. On 16th April 2007, a mentally disabled student used a legally acquired gun to massacre 31 students and later kills himself at Virginia Tech University.
Without a doubt, the possession of firearms is not a guarantee for self-defense due to inadequate training systems for civilians. The National Gun Victims Action Council reported that many causalities who are in legal possession of firearms have a low level of training. The report shows that out of 160 attacks carried out between 2000 and 2013, only one was controlled and stopped by an armed citizen. However, unarmed civilians stopped twenty-one of the cases: Two by off-duty police officers, and four by armed watch person (DeFilippis and Hughes 46). Rules should be established to control the ownership of guns to control the number of lives lost in gun assaults. The rise in the availability of firearms to the public is proportional to the increase in the number of homicides. German Lopez argues that a percentage increase in ownership of guns leads to about 0.9 percent rise in murder. This argument indicates that the presence of firearms hinders the security of a state.
Lack of proper gun control promotes violence among individuals who are in ownership. Firearm homicides are higher in the United States compared to Canada and Germany. The higher rates of shootings are attributed to easy access to the firearms. There is more than one shooting instance on a daily basis in America. The presence of weapons increases the brutalities and conflicts. Gun use escalates violence, increasing mortality rate. The presence of these guns during quarrels is a considerable risk to the lives of people involved. Statistics show that violence between people in Australia and New Zealand has significantly been reduced with the introduction of gun control measures. In Australia, homicides are 1.4 people in a million. In the United States, murders due to firearms are 29.7 people out of a million.
The research study by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes vividly substantiates that less strict rules towards gun control have had minimal impact on reducing the rate of crime as ‘Shooters target free zones”. In support of this, DeFilippis and Hughes gave an example of 2016 Orlando shooting, a ‘gun free area.’ The police only arrived at the scene after the gunfire. Just about one percent of mass shootings occur where the public is in a position to defend themselves. The shooters have a clear understanding of their target (DeFilippis and Hughes 43). The two argues, “The only way to counter a harmful person possessing a rifle will be a good guy with a gun.” Hence, the presence of gun-holders could have been of great importance in preventing the tragedy.
From the research, it is clear that Gun Control policies should be adopted for peaceful coexistence in the society. Through the regulations, gun free zones have escalated safety of individuals. Mentally impaired gun owners have jeopardized well-being in public places due to increased gun ownership. Possession of firearms is not a guarantee of protection for poorly trained citizens. Private gun holders should undergo rigorous training on the proper ways to use and handle the guns. Guidelines and rules on gun possession should be followed to avert tragic attacks in various parts of the world. Citizens granted permission to own firearms legally should follow the constitutional guidelines for acquiring the gun.

Works Cited

DeFilippis, Evan and Devin Hughes. “Los Angeles Times.” (2017).
Duggan, Mark. More Guns, More Crime. University of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic Research, n.d.
Lenn, Leslie E. “What are gun free zones and are they safe?” Journal of Legal Issues and Cases in Business (2014): 1.
Martelle, Scott. “Guns used in self-defense.” Gun and self-defense statistics that might surprise you — and the NRA (2015).
Valle, James M. La. ““Gun Control” vs. “Self-Protection” : A Case against the Ideological Devide.” Justice Policy Journal (2013): 2.