According to Shikha Dalmia in The Case Against Banning Guns, nothing can be done to help the growing gun issue. There is not a single law, bill, or restriction that could be put in place to save any lives. Any form of monitoring such as monthly psychological tests or rigorous aim evaluations would be expected from a dictator- anything keeping dangerous individuals from obtaining and using guns is unconstitutional and pointless according to him. He makes it seem like all gun owners would irresponsibly avoid the law if stricter regulations were put in place- a very unfair idea to be pushing. If there were reasonable laws added, most people would follow them. Apparently to him, guns are so necessary in the United States that children’s lives
…show more content…
That being said, “banning guns” itself is not realistic in any way at all- most of the time gun regulation is the topic at hand. Everyone knows that banning all guns is impossible at this point. The objective is not to make every gun illegal. Most people in favor of gun laws are simply pushing for guns to be less accessible. Responsible gun owners have no reason to give their firearms up. I feel that there is a fatal miscommunication about the kind of restrictions being endorsed and the reasoning behind it. The fact that not all crime will be stopped is very clear; it is my opinion, however, that any amount of lives saved by sensible restrictions is more than enough reason to put them in place. The task at hand is not ending all crimes- most deaths caused by guns are suicides. The task at hand is saving lives by making extremely dangerous objects harder to obtain and possess. There is a very clear lack of understanding from both sides of the argument: guns can be decorative or hold importance beyond being a weapon; not every pro-regulation individual wants to steal all guns. The fact of the matter is that guns kill- they were created to kill and it is their main purpose. That is a non-negotiable fact. If guns did not kill, they would have stopped being made centuries ago. There would have been no need for them. Right now, guns are killing
That being said, “banning guns” itself is not realistic in any way at all- most of the time gun regulation is the topic at hand. Everyone knows that banning all guns is impossible at this point. The objective is not to make every gun illegal. Most people in favor of gun laws are simply pushing for guns to be less accessible. Responsible gun owners have no reason to give their firearms up. I feel that there is a fatal miscommunication about the kind of restrictions being endorsed and the reasoning behind it. The fact that not all crime will be stopped is very clear; it is my opinion, however, that any amount of lives saved by sensible restrictions is more than enough reason to put them in place. The task at hand is not ending all crimes- most deaths caused by guns are suicides. The task at hand is saving lives by making extremely dangerous objects harder to obtain and possess. There is a very clear lack of understanding from both sides of the argument: guns can be decorative or hold importance beyond being a weapon; not every pro-regulation individual wants to steal all guns. The fact of the matter is that guns kill- they were created to kill and it is their main purpose. That is a non-negotiable fact. If guns did not kill, they would have stopped being made centuries ago. There would have been no need for them. Right now, guns are killing