While they do raise a reasonable point, the NRA unintentionally create the question, if criminals can find a way to get anything, then why should we make anything illegal? For instance, the making and distribution of bombs and other explosives is regulated. People who make or distribute explosives must have special licenses and be screened, and the same goes for anyone who buys explosive materials. Not only that but certain explosive materials are carefully and anyone buying large or suspicious amounts are immediately flagged. Should the monitoring and restriction of explosive materials be done away with entirely because criminals and terrorists can and do find ways to get them? No, by restricting the access and monitoring the traffic of explosive materials law enforcement are not only able to more quickly catch criminals; the constant alert also discourages other would-be criminals from trying to create bombs in effect stopping crimes before they even begin. While applying the same reform would not stop all criminals from getting assault weapons, it is important to recognize and not discount the fact that the practice would still reduce crime and save many …show more content…
An argument used many times against gun is that bans on assault weapons and large magazines simply don't work 2). However for many countries around the world this statement is entirely false. In the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, not only do all of these countries have strict gun laws but they also have the lowest death by gun rates, violent and accidental. In Australia during the 1980's the Prime Minister at the time initiated wide sweep of gun control. Since the 1970s Australia had had thirteen "mass shootings”; in the almost thirty years since the enactment of their gun control reform laws Australia has not had a single mass