Should Guns MUST Be Banned

Columbine, Newtown, San Bernardino, and Charleston are all examples of the horrors of mankind and the actions they carried out. People pointed to guns as the culprit of those horrors, however the truth remains that people don’t take guns to court, but the person who shot the gun. And there is a reason for that. Although banning guns would make it more difficult to get ahold of them, guns shouldn’t be banned because it may not lower the crime rate and because of our Constitutional right to keep them. The statement heard all of the time now is that guns kill people, that guns are the leading cause of death in the US, and that guns MUST be banned in order to decrease the murder rate. Guns don 't kill people, people kill people. Evidence has shown that doing this will not help decrease the murder rate. In fact, the murder rate has actually been going down without a gun control plan in place. According to …show more content…
We here this in every anti-firearm argument and after every mass shooting. We hear things like,”Assault weapons provide a clear and present danger to society which far outweighs the threat of a black market” (For Lives). So many people are asking for the ban of Assault Rifles because they are “so much more dangerous” than normal guns. However the REAL truth is that these “assault weapons” are no different than normal firearms. Little do people understand, “Assault weapons are not more powerful, they do not shoot more bullets, and they do not shoot faster. We would not be a safer society if we could eliminate all of the assault weapons because people could substitute for them non-assault weapons that are exactly the same” (A Criminologists). The fact is that the only reason these weapons gain their name is not because they are more dangerous, but that they have been given physical features to make it look