Banning Handguns The Wrong Decision Essay

Improved Essays
Is banning handguns the wrong decision? Would background checks lower crime rates? Should we be able to have conceal carry? Gun control has been a controversial topic for decades. Gun control supporters are lobbying for a mandatory waiting period for purchases of handguns. The states seek to reduce violence, murders, and crimes with the new gun laws. Advocates of gun control want restrictions on sales of all guns, but citizen groups and arms manufactures are trying to prevent this from happening. Polls from the states show public support for having background checks, banning larger round magazines and sale of assault weapons, and stricter gun trafficking laws. However, government should not limit private ownership of firearms due to statistics …show more content…
Yes, the banning of handguns is the wrong decision because banning them prevents people from defending themselves properly. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association claims that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”(Mantel 2). If bad guys knew that other people had firearms then criminals would be more worried about getting shot while the criminals committed a crime.Therefore, if the criminal was more worried about getting shot instead of committing the crime, the crime ratings would decrease. If a good guy did not have a firearm, then the criminals would run free and not have to worry about citizens returning the fire back at them. Allowing the option to its law-abiding citizens, personal safety should be one of the top priorities in the United States. As crime rates have increased and violent crimes are reported more and more in the press, people need handguns so they can keep themselves and their families safe. On September 24, 1976, Washington, D.C. placed a ban that no one but police officers could have a handgun. The Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was before the ban. Therefore, banning the handguns did not work in decreasing the crime rate. Instead, the ban raised the crime rate colloquialism. Guns are a necessity to life especially in the corrupted society people live in. “Also a Department of Justice study of a 1994 gun law that …show more content…
Yes, being able to carry guns will allow protection for oneself and others. “Gun control and gun rights regulations share a long history in the United States. Adult white men in the American colonies had the right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense and, in fact, were required to use them in the service of local militias.” (Mantel 10). People have used guns for centuries for self-defense purposes. Why should the government take away people 's guns rights when they use them for self-defense LaPierre and others argue, “that not only gun-carrying individuals ward off attackers, but criminals are deterred because they do not know who does or does not carry a concealed weapon.”(Mantel 9). If criminals are scared that good people are carrying guns also, they will be less likely to commit a crime. If criminals do try and shoot others, there will be good people there to protect themselves with their guns. The streets will be safer and allow society to become better however others believe otherwise. Allowing people to carry guns on the street will increase the crime rate many believe. “Carrying guns in public puts American families and communities at risk of more gun deaths and injuries as opposed to providing greater protection, says Knox of the Brady Campaign, which opposes shall-issue permit laws.” (Mantel 9). Criminals who walk around with guns are more likely to use them to commit crimes with a permit.

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    That when you buy a gun, you’re either going to be hurting yourself or another person. The Board also makes note of how officials try to distract the public with “arguments about the word terrorism,” (End the Gun Epidemic in America), but aren’t calling the shooting sprees and other gun shootings terrorism. Pathos was used well here because terrorism is always going to be an emotional and frightening topic to think or talk about. Especially since it’s happening in your own country but no one wants to shed light to the idea that mass shootings are related to terrorism. Pathos was effective because the argument to stricter gun laws provoked fear and emotions by shedding light on the real reason to buy a…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The law to take away guns would not affect criminals, because criminals do not follow the law. Without guns for protection, the law-abiding citizens would be helpless to defend themselves against the criminals who would now be the only citizens with guns. The law that was meant to protect would actually lead to the victimization and possible death of law-abiding citizens. This victimization of the defenseless is even prevalent if the criminal does not have a gun. The government of the United Kingdom banned handguns, and over the following years, not only did murder go up, but more people were being killed by knives and strangulation…

    • 1808 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    When people feel like someone has taken something from them they don 't think straight they start act careless and can even start do criminal activity. If the right to bear arms was taken away it would make people like they no longer have any rights at all and it would make citizens feel like it is a dictatorship. Which is one thing that Americans hate is being told what to do. Also if guns become banned this will not stop criminals or reduce the crime rate. The criminals would just want to get the hands on the guns even more so they can sell it at a high rate for profit.…

    • 1350 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    That not only will not decrease the number of criminals have guns, but also decrease the number of law-abiding citizens have guns, which make law-abiding citizens lose ability of self – protection. The more important thing is that sources of crime is the people’s thoughts and desires. Each of the shootings the killers was the person who shot, not the gun itself. The Government cannot simply rudely to solve this problem by the way of the gun ban. In the article “Just Take Away Their Guns”, James Q. Wilson wrote that “Our goal should not be the disarming of law-abiding citizens.…

    • 1289 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why Guns Are Bad

    • 750 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Your normal citizen doesn't have drugs, but bad people do. If guns are taken away, only the good people won't have them. ( Ronald Cruise). The gun control law is not being followed by some citizens, therefore more rules are being added to the law towards gun control a good background check will keep the guns out of people who should not have them to prevent criminal, drug dealers, domestic abusers, and mentally ill people from carrying the gun. therefore, people who do not follow this law should face consequences, for example, time in jail or police taking gun licene from guns holder.…

    • 750 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Activist in favor of gun control believe that with gun control being enacted that the United States would not only be better off but safer as well. The other party who disbelieve in the need for gun control believe that with it the country will only grow more corrupt considering the facts that the states that have had gun constraints have grown more violent prove their point. Gun control would keep guns out of the United States for a short period after it would be enacted, but as soon as they are smuggled into the United States all of the citizens who had previously given up their arms now have no guns to defend themselves against robbers, muggers, or whoever it might be that threatens their lives. In order to keep guns better under control without taking away guns from citizens is by enforcing security in places like schools and for the government to keep track of who is mentally unstable and to make sure that there is no chance what so ever for them to get in reach of a…

    • 1803 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Increasing gun control will negatively affect normal law abiding citizens. According to many people they think guns should be banned, but that will not work. Gun control affects normal law abiding citizens not only by limiting firearms & ammunition that can be purchased, it takes away our 2nd amendment right, and demotes organizations such as the NRA & Gun owners of America.Without guns we would not be the free country we are today (Pros & Cons : Gun legislation). Having a gun does not make you a bad person, a lot of people just need to realize it. Pushing for more gun control also comes with try to get rid of certain guns & ammunition.…

    • 941 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Gun Control Debate

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Gun advocates believe the new legislation will separate them from their rights because putting laws on their firearms will be against Amendment II. The Senate turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in other states, according to the article “Gun Control” (New Times). But there have been laws signed in their favor. Obama signed a law allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons. Obama should not have signed the law provision because that could be a…

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The reason why we should not have stricter gun control law is because the problem is not adding more gun laws that will not solve the solution to why we have deaths or guns falling to the wrong people. With or without gun control law; criminals will still get a hold of one. Instead of trying to enforce more gun control laws, we should focus on educating the people about the safety of gun usage and by owning a gun does have the advantages of protect not only oneself, but your…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If more people are encouraged to possess concealed firearms, then more criminals would be deterred from committing crimes. Lott argues that “the expected penalty of the crime affects the prospective criminal’s desire to commit a crime”(6). However, Kleck argues the opposite. He says that by restricting the supply of firearms within the country and tightening security at the Mexico border, less violence will happen. Making sure there are essentially no firearms are in circulation would lead to dramatically less gun violence, as it would make it increasingly difficult for a criminal or a mentally ill person to possess a firearm.…

    • 1331 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays

Related Topics