Paul Waldman Banning Guns Analysis

748 Words3 Pages

There has always been an uproar on whether we should ban guns or not. Paul Waldman wrote a passage on how he is for banning guns. Even with multiple pros on banning guns, there is also numerous cons with banning guns, that is why Shiha Dalmia wrote an article against banning guns. Paul Waldman explains in his passage that he wants to at least put a ban on guns in private hands. Unfortunately, Paul knows that there is no possible way to ban all guns in private hands even if the state tried to ban them. Waldman writes, “I’d suggest that if we were able to do that, we’d be much better off if we abandoned the absurd fetishism around guns that leaves us awash in so much blood and gore.” I do agree with him that putting a ban on guns would America tremendously safer, but there is no possible way to get all guns out of private hands. Paul also says, “ Over 30,000 Americans die every year, and ten tens of thousands more maimed and paralyzed.” …show more content…

Paul writes, “ But the fact is that the easier it is to get guns, the easier it is to kill many, many people.” In this passage, Paul Waldman is suggesting that with it being easy to have a gun under your possession, the easier it is to take people’s lives. In my view, Paul Waldman is wrong, because most people only own a gun to either hunt or only use it for self defense. People also own one if it was passed down to them from past generations making it meaningful thing to posses. More specifically, I believe that guns should not be banned, I could see more stricter rules on them but they should not be banned. As stated above, most people only own one to hunt or own one because it was passed down from generation to generation. Then there is that select few who totally misuse the gun and ruin it for the other people who mean no harm with owning

Open Document