Kleck's Argument For Gun Control

way that guns are something instilled in kids from a young age and that weapons are so easily accessible, with a particular example being that you can pick up ammunition in a barbers. Post Collumbine, there were policy calls for more gun controls. However, Kleck (2009) argues that almost always, the guns used are already in the household or are stolen, the perpetrators often use multiple weapons rather than those with high capicity magazines as the killer will have enough time to use semi automatic weapons. As a result, he argues that the proposed restictions on gun purchase, such as closing the gunshop loophole, child access prevention and a ban on assult weapons and high capacity weapons would not help to prevent such incidents or the accociated

This point is substantiated by the fact that having a privatley owned firearm in a household, makes a family member five times more likley to be fatally shot than in a non-armed household. Perez-Pena (2015) articulates that each year around 30,000 preventable deaths are caused by firearms which accounts for 18% of injuryrelated deaths in America. It is also stated that the accociated medical bills cost the taxpayer $100billion a year. Prehaps the most intresting point raised concerns the so called ‘gun show loophole’, in which guns sold at shows or by small scale sellers do not require buyer background checks, in theory allowing the categorically banned demographic - discussed earlier - to purchase firearms. The article argues that if this loophole was closed and more stringent controls and checks were enforced, firearm deaths, injures and the associated cost could be significantly reduced. In essence the argument for stricter gun control laws centres around decreacing firearms deaths and