The general arguments made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns,” and by Shikha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns,” is that there have been numerous issues arising in America due to a national debate about gun control. Both authors state their personal opinions about whether or not guns should be permanently banned, regulated, or even if the problem is not the gun, but the person who pulls the trigger. They each provide various examples and briefly mention a few past mass shootings to support their beliefs on this tragic topic. Beginning with Waldman’s argument, he believes that almost all guns should be banned. Although he knows that this task is impossible, he thinks that America would be a far better society without them.
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.”
amendment is also not granted by the US constitution. To many people, the second amendment is not clear. It confuses a lot in that some people argue that those that have the rights to possess firearms for self-defense are only the military. It does not specify that the citizens have the right to own firearms for self-defense and personal use. A study conducted by a Yale Professor showed that the “shall-issue” laws resulted in a rise in the rates of the violence, crimes, rape, and robbery hence with this it could be concluded that ownership of firearms by citizens lead to an increase in the crime rates.
Closing statement: The debate about gun control is inappropriate, because it does not go far enough. Only a completely ban of privately owned firearms can help drastically reduce the number of firearms related deaths and save countless lives. Without a doubt, the proposition of a complete ban of firearms will be met with fierce opposition. Critics will point at their eagerness to hunt, shoot for recreational purposes, and use guns for self-defense. However, recreational hunting and target practice are hardly basic rights that must be preserved at all costs.
“There have been fewer than 20 terror-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and about 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms.” (Burnett, 2015) Using a second amendment is part of an old rule. We have to start changing this. Nowadays, the police are widely spread, which means people are quite safe and there is no need for keeping guns. If guns were to be banned, criminals would have to buy weapons from black markets and illegal places, which are maybe unreachable due to their lack of knowledge. When your enemy or opponent attacks you with a gun you probably will have absolutely no chance of escaping, so you are dead.
Guns are NOT the problem, People are the problem. Guns also save more lives than they take. Over our recent history, there have been heroes that have stopped mass shootings and other crimes from happening by stopping the situation using a firearm. There have been recent calls for more gun control and even the possibility of banning guns, these propositions have already been tried elsewhere and didn’t work. Finally, it would be totally unconstitutional for gun right to be taken away from the people.
People tend to get tangled in opinions and quotes on rather semi-automatic weapons should be banned or not, such as if they are protected by the second amendment, halting lawmakers from banning them. However, let there be no mistake that these weapons are a life threat to civilians. The amount of semi-automatic guns in the U.S. puts a shockingly large price on the cost the government would pay to buy all the semi-automatic rifles back. A fairly large amount of guns exist in the United States and of that amount, about a third are assault weapons. “A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: ‘114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.’” (Peters).
Guns have been with us for centuries whether it be for hunting or defending, we can all agree it’s something in our life now that most think it’s unnecessary and just causes destruction and that it should be banned, but is that the real answer? If guns were to be taken away it would only cause them to be stashed illegally, so it would barely make a difference. And riots would which is kinda counterintuitive if you think about it. Not only that it would cause more violence around places where hunting was acceptable. It all in would cause more damage than letting people own firearms.
Stated in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control”, “ Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.” This shows the court could waste a lot of money funding gun classes when they could be funding something more important like schools or homes for homeless people.Along with this fact why should mentally unstable citizens own a gun in the first place. Mentally unstable people should not have the right to own a firearm of any kind. With gun control it could lower the rate of suicide with firearms.According to the
The reason why I believe in this is because there has been so many attacks with guns that are just devastating. Families, friends and community’s are getting torn apart because of some of these attacks. With guns we can actually do something about them, we can ban them unlike cars and airplanes. We cannot ban cars or airplanes because they are used millions of times a day but, do people really need to use a gun everyday? With guns people can injure other people in matters of seconds and people can’t do anything about it but with cars people can react in time and move out of the way.
The thought of a society without a militia is sickening with terrorists being able to attack any helpless citizen. Sure, the alternative weapons are useful, yet they don 't have any range upon the enemy and some people can not acquire the physical force or tactical skill needed to fortify. Gun control makes it so only the fittest of the fittest survive, which means even more deaths when terrorists attack. To add, gun laws do not prove any use. Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States.
Where the weapons were obtained in the sandy hook shooting and the Orlando shooting were dramatically different. Lanza took the weapons from his mother who owned them legally, but Lanza was unable to have firearms because of his mental illness. Mateen was cleared by the federal background check even though the FBI did some monitoring on him. His radical beliefs caught the eye of the federal government, but someone 's religion can not be used to stip individuals of their rights. Lastly he explains that, “cultural beliefs are significantly related to people’s opinions about gun control, but the strongest, most consistent predictors of people’s gun control preferences are their political beliefs and affiliations,” (Wozniak 2).
Lapierre implies, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This may be true, but what if neither party had a gun? I’m not saying that all guns in America should be banned, but instead no more of these assault rifles and firearms should be allowed in the average citizen 's hand. All guns sellers should have to provide a background research, psychological test, and a contract of intent on how the buyer will use the product. With these new selling strategies in place Adam Lanza would not have had the chance to commit this horrendous
A common misconception is that guns are only used for hunting and you don’t need and AR15 to hunt. Not only is that false but the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The second amendment is there to protect American citizens from any threats to their livelihood, whether that be a robber, any form of civil unrest, a foreign army invading or even a dangerous animal, the America people have always needed the safety of guns. Almost daily there are stories of guns saving lives that go unnoticed. Today many people are against gun ownership because they have never needed to use them or can afford body guards so that they won’t need to own guns themselves.