The Case Against Banning Guns

710 Words3 Pages
The general argument made by Shiha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns” is that guns should not be banned in the United States. Banning guns is not going to stop people from killing other people. There is no possible way to collect every single gun in the U.S. and even if there was, people have other ways and items to hurt others. When something gets banned, everyone seems like they want to do that thing more. Guns should only be used for appropriate activities like hunting, for example, but there is no one to stop people from harming others. She writes, “There are about 300 million guns in this country - nearly one for every man, woman, and child.” and “I am highly skeptical that reducing the number of guns will actually result in fewer mass killings.” In this passage, Dalmia is suggesting that even if there were to be a ban on guns, it would not help the fact that people are still going to use them for the wrong reasons. She states, “The grim lesson is this: There is nothing we can do to completely stop all killers at all times. The possibilities for mayhem are infinite. A society’s means to stop them are finite. Psychotics and terrorists will always find ways to exploit the cracks. No…show more content…
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned. There will always be bad people in the world and that is just the way it is going to be. No one can change who they are so there will always be
Open Document