You hear it every once in a while. You may turn on the news one day, and learn that another kid has shot himself or one of his friends by mistake. Most of the time the kid gets the gun from the parent. The gun, that the parent probably intended to use to protect his family, has ended up causing deadly damage.
             Not everyone that owns a gun is a parent trying to protect the family from burglars. There are people out there using guns to do bad things. Diane Glass argues that only the people that use guns to commit crimes should be punished. Everyone else's gun privileges should remain intact. After all, it's people that kill people. The guns are innocent. When somebody gets shot dead, it's the person whose hand holding the gun that gets put in prison, the gun doesn't get put away. This is the way it should be. There is a citizen problem, not a gun control problem (par. 3).
             I agree that the people are the criminals, not the guns. However, it's the guns that allow the people to be more efficient criminals. If it wasn't for guns, then kids wouldn't be shooting themselves by mistake. "There are about 3,000 deaths a year, 10 funerals a day, it's a disgusting amount" ("Father").
             A world without guns would not be a perfect one. People will still find ways to commit crimes. The problem with guns is that they are efficient killing machines. That is the whole purpose of their existence. They are designed to kill. Stricter gun control would make it harder for a person with a criminal record to get hold of a gun. It would discourage people with bad intentions to try to get one. Honest people living in rural areas would still be able to acquire firearms to protect their families. Do we really put enough value on human lives? If human lives mean that much to us, then I see no reason why there shouldn't be stricter gun control.
             ...