Argumentative Essay: Should Handguns Be Banned?

As Benjamin Franklin once said, “they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Seeing that I agree with Franklin, I stand in firm negation of the resolution which states Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. For simplicity in the debate today, I would like to give the following definitions: The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary offers that a handgun is “a small gun that you can hold and fire with one hand.” I view the phrase ‘private ownership’ as ownership by people who are not officially associated with the state. The negative will support the value of civil liberties which is defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as “individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.” The value of civil liberties will be defended by the criterion of pragmatism, an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

My first contention goes on the basis that people are using guns for self defense. The U.S. Justice Department released data that says “83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime.” When almost every American will fall victim of

Putting a ban on the private ownership of handguns will only hurt those who follow the law while helping criminals to commit more violent crimes. When you look into the pragmatics of prohibiting guns, it is revealed that this would not be a reasonable solution. While the affirmative lacked reasoning and examples, the negative has provided evidence and ethical reasoning to why citizens ought to have the right to own handguns and I have even offered multiple other solutions to help with gun violence. For this reason, I see no other option than a negative referendum in the debate