Gun control isn't the answer.
-Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn't be tightening firearm laws.



I felt that with the recent incident that occurred in the US,regarding the shooting in Virginia Tech,there should still be stricter control over gun control.If the gun control was in place,the Korean student will have no access to his fatal weapon that took so many lives away.Thus this mishap could have been prevented.

Some might argue that a gun is not dangerous,but danger is caused by the man holding it,so they disagree to the concept of gun control.Morever,they argued that guns are in actual fact,use as a weapon for self-defense,thus guns should be allowed in a country.

However,i beg to differ.

Firstly,how could one man be sure of the motive of the other man holding the gun.If the gun does falls into the hands of a murderer,such as the Virginia Tech incident,lives will be lost at a instance and thousands other suffered due to their deaths.So,does it worth to allow even a respectable and trust-worthy man to hold on onto a gun,not even knowing if he has any other agenda?

Secondly,weapons like knives and swords can also be used for self defense.However it's illegial to carry them about.So i'll like to question why would people argued for guns to be allowed to carry around for self defense?The impact bought by a loose man shooting around is definitely greater than that of a losse man running and chopping people,as many will witness the act and have more time to run away,unlike that of a gun,as the victims have not much time to react,if there's even time for them to react in the first place.Morever,if gun control is practised,there will not even be a case of anyone using guns for self-defense,thus the need for Gun control is voided.