Anotherday, another mass shooting in the United States is reported,rekindling the debate on gun control. The more someone think aboutit, the more the issue becomes complex. Initially, I was convincedthat gun control will result into fewer guns held by civilians andthus less incidence of violence. The argument that “guns do notkill people, people kill people” was invalid and based onmisinformation. It was easy to believe the argument that if thecriminal involved in the shooting did not have a gun, he could not beable to injure or kill as many people. However, the big question iswhat will be the implication of gun control laws. How will guncontrol limit the accessibility of guns to criminals? A closer lookat the topic has influenced my initial view on the issue. I stronglysupported gun control in America. However, has earlier noted, theside of the debate individuals have taken is largely influenced bythe sources of their information and facts. While the gun menace isan important challenge to the American society, approaching theproblem with a sober mind, rather than emotions will effectively dealwith the challenge. For example, gun control will not havesignificant impact on the accessibility of guns by criminals. Thismeans that if a criminal want to use a weapon of assault, gun controlwill not have a significant impact on the black market. In fact,experience with other controlled commodities targeted by criminalssuggests that strict rules make the black market vibrant.Additionally, the framers of the second amendment argued that “awell regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freestate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not beinfringed”. For example, if a criminal goes on shooting spree in ahighly populated residential area, legal gun owners in theneighborhood can be able to incapacitate and stop the criminal.Denying the public gun ownership makes them more venerable to attacksby criminals. Thus, although I have some reservations, I am persuadedby the counterarguments.