The Case Against Banning Guns Analysis

The general argument made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns,” is that gun control should be put into effect and certain firearms should be banned. More specifically, Waldman argues that abandoning these guns could decrease mass shootings and make America a much safer environment. He writes, “Yes, I’d like to ban guns. Almost all of them, at least the ones in private hands.” In this passage, Paul is suggesting that the United States would be much better off abandoning these weapons that leave communities with so much blood and gore. He believes private gun ownership should be rare and strictly regulated, just like the gun laws in Europe and Asia. In conclusion, Waldman’s belief is that guns are not used properly

A stronger focus on gun control in the United States involving restriction or even an outright ban of guns could serve to help the problem greatly. In 2015, 13,286 people were killed by firearms in the United States, with 26,819 suffering from non-lethal injuries (qtd. in “Guns in the US”). Taking away guns, the means that many urban criminals have to commit their crimes, would be very beneficial to cities. Recent studies found that the most effective way of reducing gun crime is to lower the amount of guns available in circulation. In the US specifically, studies show that the stricter gun laws are in a state, the lower the amount of deaths related to guns occur (Graham). While many believe that further restrictions on guns would not be feasible, both Australia and the United Kingdom managed to highly restrict or ban guns from their nations in order to reduce gun-related deaths and crime (Graham). Australia was able to rid the country of around 650,000 guns and their rate of robberies per 100,000 people sank from about 100 to 60 (cite later 1). This program of complete gun confiscation costed Australia $230 million. If a program of the same relative scale were to be done in the States, it would cost the government around $4 billion (Rieck). The alternative to a complete gun ban would be simply to restrict gun laws to make it much more difficult for a dangerous individual to purchase a gun. Background checks for all purchases of guns would become a requirement and

Between 2000 and 2015, over 150,000 Americans were killed in gun related homicides (Zakaria). It has been estimated that there are over 310 million guns in the hands of United States citizens (Krouse). These statistics have rallied many gun-control opponents and proponents to action. Gun control opponents believe that the answer to this problem is to loosen gun control laws to dissuade potential shooters. Gun control proponents believe that the answer is to tighten gun control laws so that a gun is never put into a potential shooter’s hands. The best way to find an answer to this predicament is compare the United States’ current gun control legislation to that of other countries to see where and how the countries have succeeded and failed

Now is the time to pull the trigger on limiting gun control. With the events that have happened in recent years, many look at gun control as the answer. The problem is just as these events polarize the public, and provide an outcry for preventing them; guns have helped stop violence from occurring in schools and shops from Mississippi to Pennsylvania (Wilson). Heading the main argument for not advancing gun control is self-defense, which gins being used for self-defense occurs between 100,000 and two million times a year. As Wilson states in his article, even outright bans and incredibly tough rules do not stop these events from occurring, such as in England, France, and Germany. The only comparable country to us in terms of gun culture is

from obtaining weapons that they could use irresponsibly may help to prevent the loss of innocent lives. The anti-gun control side states that gun control infringes on our second amendment rights thus threatening our freedom. I didn’t understand this defense too well, so I decided to investigate myself. To understand the other side better, I decided to interview a fellow acquaintance who is a gun supporter and who is quite dedicated to the cause, as he is the president of a pro-gun club. I wanted to know how the other side could believe and justify more guns as a way to actually prevent deaths, as more people die from weapon injuries in the United States than any other civilized country in the world. When the second amendment was implemented by our founding fathers, they had very little to no knowledge of the brain, therefore they were unaware that medical stability played a key role in a person’s ability to use a gun responsibly. Additionally, the guns the founding fathers had possessed were not anywhere near the lethal capacity of today’s guns. Back then the guns were not as powerful and took longer to

Today, America is dealing with an epidemic. Our society has allowed guns to be an easily accessible item. While deaths associated with guns are becoming a normality in the United States, far too many innocent lives are being taken away at the speed of a bullet. Although many oppose gun control due to the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has shown its support. Since Australia and Japan have enforced strict gun control, they show how well-regulated gun laws lessen the amount of deaths related to firearms. There are many occasions where Americans have seen how lenient laws affect our everyday lives.

Gun control is a major argument in today’s society. When discussing guns, most are highly against them. Not only are they used for a defense mechanism but are also used to provide a source of food to the public. Whether being a complete ban or people being forced to get a background check in order to purchase an armed weapon. While guns are banned, people will look for anyway they can to use guns, which leads to stealing and more possible deaths or injuries. Guns are important not only for self-defense or sport but to keep our country under control.

In today’s society, one of the most alienating issues in American politics is gun control. More specifically, the issue is whether or not guns should be banned in the United States. Some people would say that guns should be banned because it would reduce crime as a whole and keep citizens safer. These people, enthusiasts of stricter gun laws, fear being safe in their country where there are so many people who have access to guns. Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety. They fear that they will not be able to protect themselves on a daily basis, or in a worse case scenario, protect themselves if the government happened to turn on citizens of the country. They would also argue that people, especially criminals, can still find ways to gain access to guns. Guns should not be banned in the United States due to them being able

A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems. One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.

"’Make no mistake -- they 're coming for our guns. And we freedom-loving gun lovers are totally defenseless! Other than, you know, the guns’ -Stephen Colbert” (Kurtzman 1). There are as many people who advocate for pro gun laws as the people who are opposed, which is the reason why gun control has become one of the most controversial topics as of right now. America is truly split between those who advocate for gun control and those who are opposed. In this controversial debate, background checks are another point to consider. Background checks are defined as “checks on any private transfers of guns” (West Coast Publishing 11). This similarly debated topic is a large part of the gun control debate. The second amendment argument is a favorite topic for both sides of this argument. It can be used to help aid both sides of the gun control debate. Loopholes are another part of this grand argument, used by the side opposed to gun control, saying that loopholes are impossible to close, while the pro gun control side argues that stricter gun control and background checks make these loopholes not an issue. Both sides can be easily argued, but there is only one side that can save countless lives. Stricter gun control will work to pr otect citizens by limiting gun violence, keeping Second Amendment rights, and closing gun loopholes.

The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes. Gun control also limits our constitutionally derived right to own firearms. If gun control is enforced, law-abiding citizens will be forced to give up their guns and their right to own guns, while many criminals who own guns may illegally keep theirs. As the saying goes “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are an important aspect of our society in many ways. They allow for protection, recreation, and hunting. They also do not have as many negative effects as some claim. The right to own firearms is a constitutional right that is important and needs to be upheld.

The number of incidents of gun violence last year in the United States was about 60,000. In recent years, the number of mass shooting has risen to about one mass shooting per day in the United States. The country is divided with some wanting to reevaluate our gun control laws and either ban or add additional regulations to the purchase of guns. Others say it is our right for Americans to own guns and something the founding fathers considered important to put in the Bill of Rights. The number of firearm sales has risen with the number of mass shooting many Americans question if banning guns or certain guns could help decrease the number of gun violence deaths. Before researching more in depth, I believe bad people do bad things and banning guns will not be effective in stopping it.

Are handguns necessary for the average citizen or should handguns be banned? In the article “Why Handguns Must Be Outlawed” by the author Nan Desuka, she argues on the matter and issues of handguns. Throughout the entire essay Ms. Desuka gives her point of view on why guns should be outlawed for everyone. Everyone, except for the police officers. Explaining how and why it would make this country less crime filled and safer for all citizens. All of the examples and facts that Desuka gives her audience demonstrates that she wants the audience to take into consideration the ownership of handguns. This paper will analyze the article that Desuka wrote on the use of statistics, responses from people that disagree, her use of pathos and her logic.

The general argument made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns”, is that Paul Waldman believes that guns should be banned. More specifically, Paul Waldman believes that we should ban items that make guns more dangerous like bump stocks or devices that turn your semi-automatic gun into an automatic weapon. Paul Waldman writes, “No matter what legislation we might pass, even in liberal states that have increased restrictions in recent years, we won 't get anywhere near banning guns. In particular, we won 't address the biggest gun problem we have, which is not mass shootings but the daily carnage that claims around 90 Americans lives every day — and that means handguns, not military-style rifles or accessories like bump stocks. Precisely because we can 't start from scratch, all we can do is trim around the edges, try to find ways to reduce the unending slaughter a little bit here and a little bit there.” What Paul Waldman suggests in this passage is that we need to start getting rid of all the items that are used to make guns more dangerous to trim down on these problems. In conclusion, Paul Waldman believes that cutting down all these extra gun parts will lead to a less awful death rate in the United States.

"In 1990, handguns were used to kill approximately 48 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 58 in Israel, 42 in West Germany and 10,728 in the United States”. For many years, America has been regarded as one of the world’s most perilous and ferocious countries in the world. The death rate caused by active gun shooters in the US is extraordinary: “since 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country 's history”. Hence why public ownership of guns should be abolished in the USA. Can you imagine to what extent the death rate in America has increased by now?