According to Carquinez Review " A gun in the home increases the probability by 300 percent that a household member will be killed, and by 500 percent that a family member will commit suicide." How many more deaths will it take to realize guns should be restricted? In Article after article you read the pros and cons of handguns. Now the question is which one out weighs the other, the statistics of deaths or the right to be able to protect yourself? If you were to ask me a month ago where I stood on gun control, I would have told you it is the right of every American to bear arms. Now after looking at six different articles in Texts and Contexts on gun control and searching the web, my view on gun control supports banning guns, because too many lives are taken from this deadly weapon.
With guns there is more crime and with concealed weapons there are more homicide rates. In the article "Tale of Two Cities" by Drs. J. H. Sloan, A. L. Kellermann, D. T. Reay, J. A. Ferris, T. Koepsell, F. P. Rivara, C. Rice, L. Gray, and J. LoGerfo, you see an example of two cities Seattle and Vancouver, which have common a geography, climate, history, similar schooling and unemployment rate. A big difference between the two cities is their handgun laws. Seattle handguns can be purchased for self defense and after a waiting period you can attain a permit to carry a handgun as a concealed weapon. In Vancouver it is the complete opposite, handguns are not permitted as a concealed weapon. J. H. Sloan etc. all state, "Over the seven-year study period, 388 homicides occurred in Seattle (11.3 per 100,000 persons-years). In Vancouver, 204 homicides occurred during the same period (6.9 per 100,000 persons-years) (252)," Looking at these two cities you can see that with concealed weapons there are 184 more deaths. Reinforcing the fact that concealed weapons are the problem is that the rate of homicides by knives and other weapons besides firearms in Seattle and Vancouver were almost the same.
