Pros And Cons Of Banning Firearms

1488 Words 6 Pages
Banning Firearms
“As of December 23, a total of 12,942 people had been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide” (Mascia, “15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year”). “There were, on average, 16.4 such [mass] shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006” (Schmidt, “F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000”). These statistics prove that within the past couple of years, gun violence has been a rising epidemic. America is in need of drastic change in order to stop this epidemic from growing larger. “Last year alone, there were more mass shootings - in which four or more people were killed or injured
…show more content…
For instance, “of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of the victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm” (“Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?”). This statistic is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Banning firearms would prevent a substantial amount of crimes from being committed than those currently being prevented by innocent civilians using them as a defense. In fact, in nearly all cases the presence of a gun establishes a highly violent environment. An article about the pro and con arguments of gun control stated, “gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns” (“Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?”). These are everyday people that have now killed or been killed in situations that could have easily been averted. In a country where guns are so accessible and are frequently talked about and depicted on television, people tend to not take them as seriously as they are. However, these are weapons that can kill in a matter of seconds, yet we allow people without any bit training to own and carry them. A ban on firearms would prevent these two-thirds’ conflicts from consequently ending in death, by not having access to the guns, there will be no killings by the guns. Ordinarily, occurrences of …show more content…
Susan Milligan, a writer for US News, stated, “Opponents of any kind of gun restrictions argue that they are meaningless, since criminals by definition don 't follow the law, and therefore won 't allow gun laws to hamstring their criminal behavior. That 's true. But gun violence isn 't only committed by classic criminals, as recent gun-related tragedies show” (Milligan, “We Need Gun Control to Stop More Than Criminals”). Although it is irrational to believe we can stop all the criminals from committing acts of gun violence, it is realistic to believe that by banning firearms we can stop everyday people from acting alike. In practically all circumstances of mass murder, the perpetrator is a seemingly average person who snaps and has firearms accessible, by banning guns we 'd be preventing these type of cases from occurring. For example, a gunman opened fire in an Indiana grocery store, killing two people with a semi-automatic weapon before police shot and killed the gunman. He had no criminal record even though his behavior may have suggested he had. (Milligan, “We Need Gun Control to Stop More Than Criminals”). No one could have guessed this man was going to carry out what he did, however, this man and the two people he killed could with a doubt still be alive, if he simply had not been able to get a gun. There is no exact

Related Documents

Related Topics