can be reloaded much faster. A criminal can do a lot more damage with one of these than he could with a basic rifle or revolver. (11) There is no reason why anyone would ever need to own an assault weapon or even most handguns. People should be restricted to basic guns such as rifles, shotgun, and revolvers. This would eliminate the more dangerous guns, but still give hunters and people who use a gun for protection what they need. Any other types of really guns aren't.Finally, there are a couple of new, high tech solutions to the problem. According to an article in U.S. News and World Report, many gun companies are starting to develop smart weapons. Among them, a personalized shotgun that can only be fired when the user wears a special ring that activated a computer in side the gun (Cannon 26). This is a good idea. It would stop anyone but the owner of the gun from using it. Unlike a locked gun, it could easily be used for protection if needed. This would please both sides. The only problem with this is that it is expensive, but like any new technology, the price will likely drop once it becomes more popular. In Geoffrey Canadas essay Peace in the Streets, he throws out another interesting idea, ...make all handun ammunition identifyable. Gun owners should have to sign for specially coded ammunition, the purchase of which would be logged into a computer (527). This would discourage people from using guns to commit violent crimes because the bullets could be traced back to the person who purchased them. It would help to catch criminals and get them off the streets. It would have no negative consequences for gun entusiasts either. They could still have guns and buy ammo. This wouldnt effect them unless they commit a crime. People on both sides of the issue would benefit form these laws. The crime rate would most likely drop, which is exactly what the gun control advocates want. On the other hand, none of these laws wou...
