In Zakaria’s article, he states how stricter gun laws in other countries result in less gun homicides, “In 2008, Japan had just 11 gun homicides,” (Zakaria, 2015). While this statement demonstrates how little gun homicides Japan had, it is unfair to compare these rates with the United States. The generalization that implementing stricter gun laws alone would prevent crimes and gun homicides overall creates an inaccurate claim. When making this claim, Zakaria does not mention any of the other factors that may also prevent gun homicides in Japan, such as their harsh prisons and their disciplined society. Another invalid claim is also made when it is stated, “it makes little sense to focus on mental health,” (Zakaria, 2015). A person’s mental health is extremely important when it comes to deciding whether they are fit enough to own a gun. Someone who is not mentally healthy may not feel good about themselves and take it out on others by attacking them. If this same person was not properly evaluated, they would be able to purchase a gun and attack someone with more extreme measures. In addition, “someone who is mentally ill may not be able to handle different emotions properly,” (Levine,1994, p.12). This overwhelming feeling would cause them to act out in violence. The people that own these guns, are the ones that truly have the effect on gun …show more content…
Since society has these many different opinions, it is important that we understand the consequences that come with these laws. Zakaria argues there should be changes made to the gun laws; however, he does not mention how the gun laws in some areas have had no effect on gun homicide rates or how some rates have actually increased. With multiple gun laws already in place, and some areas wanting to make more changes, it is important that people understand whether the existing laws have contributed to the problems we have