James Q Wilson has a view on the issue that opposes the views of the two other stakeholders mentioned on this website. In his article “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer,” Wilson explains why putting stronger gun control laws in place will not do anything to help protect the citizens of this country. Although he does not agree with increased gun control, he does admit that the high number of guns in this country directly causes the death rates in this country to rise. But he then goes into detail on why we should not put more gun laws into effect even with the higher death count due to guns. One of his fist points is that with the extremely high number of guns in this country today, it will be virtually impossible to get rid of all of them. And even if we were able to stop the legal sale of guns, many people could illegally hide them, or borrow a friend’s weapon. Also for many reasons, Wilson believes that Americans are more violent that other countries even without the presence of a gun, so if we were to enact more gun laws, there is a good chance that death rates wouldn’t drop (Wilson). Another point that Wilson makes is that these guns serve a very effective roll in self-defense. There have been many cases where a person has had intentions to become a mass shooter, and another armed citizen takes action to prevent the massacre. For example, in a Mississippi high school, an armed man came into the building with intentions to shoot innocent school goers, but fortunately an armed administrator was able to diffuse the situation (Wilson). This same scenario has occurred many other times throughout our countries history, and thus the allowance of guns in this country was able to save lives. Wilson argues that with stronger gun laws, criminals will be able to accomplish mass shootings more often because no one will have the tools necessary to take action against an armed shooter. An example of an attack that was not able to be stopped because there were no armed civilians on the scene was the Virginia Tech shooting. Wilson suggests that if another armed man was at the Virginia Tech shooting that the attack may have been stopped sooner. Wilson urges his audiences to avoid further gun control laws so that the citizens of this country will have a means of protecting themselves against armed criminals.
Wilson is not alone in his argument to fight for gun rights. Studies have been conducted that show that there may no need for the gun bans that are suggested on Phelan's page. In these studies, it has been shown that the average shooter only shoots 4 rounds during an attack (Kropper and Jeffery 40). This number is far below the 10 round limit that con control supporters suggest. Due to this retivley small amount of shots fired, Wilson and other supporters of gun rights argue that there is no need for the gun bans suggested by Phelan. They believe that it is more important to have weapons to protect ourselves then it is to begin putting limits on weapons because studies show that these limits might not even help lower the amount of deaths in a shooting.
Wilson is not alone in his argument to fight for gun rights. Studies have been conducted that show that there may no need for the gun bans that are suggested on Phelan's page. In these studies, it has been shown that the average shooter only shoots 4 rounds during an attack (Kropper and Jeffery 40). This number is far below the 10 round limit that con control supporters suggest. Due to this retivley small amount of shots fired, Wilson and other supporters of gun rights argue that there is no need for the gun bans suggested by Phelan. They believe that it is more important to have weapons to protect ourselves then it is to begin putting limits on weapons because studies show that these limits might not even help lower the amount of deaths in a shooting.