In the United States of America, millions of citizens own guns – lawfully and unlawfully.
Guns are a highly controversial topic that fuel debate by politicians and working class citizens
alike. The debate is not unwarranted; the leading cause of violent death in the United States is as
a result of gun violence. As many as 60% of violent deaths are gun fatalities. One would argue
and question: Are guns more likely to protect or are they more likely to hurt? The answer is
convoluted, but the guns are far more likely to be used in a safe and a responsible manner,
therefore they are more likely to be used for protection instead of crime. In fact, an
overwhelming majority of gun usage and ownership is for the sole reason to protect oneself and
one’s property.…show more content…
The chapter states that assaults without the intent to steal has a positive benefit when
guns are involved. This is because of the reduncancy effect. The goal of assaults is usually to
terrify and humiliate the victim. Without guns, the usual manner to assault someone is though
beatings. The same can be achieved by the assaulter by threatening someone with a gun. This
creates a moral irony because assaults became safer when guns are involved. I myself feel
disgusted that assaults even occur and I wish that they were less common in society, but it does
give me a little peace knowing that someone is less likely to get hurt if there is a gun involved.
It is suprising that guns actually provide a net benefit to American society. Many people
believe that because of America’s high violent crime rate and the high gun rate that there exists a
correlation between these two. Gun ownership has a tremendous use for only self-defense among
American citizens. I am thoroughly pleased knowing these facts because guns can affect me in a
positive and negative way, but because of the statistics, I know that I am more likely to
experience guns on the basis of self-defense and not on the basis of
Guns are a highly controversial topic that fuel debate by politicians and working class citizens
alike. The debate is not unwarranted; the leading cause of violent death in the United States is as
a result of gun violence. As many as 60% of violent deaths are gun fatalities. One would argue
and question: Are guns more likely to protect or are they more likely to hurt? The answer is
convoluted, but the guns are far more likely to be used in a safe and a responsible manner,
therefore they are more likely to be used for protection instead of crime. In fact, an
overwhelming majority of gun usage and ownership is for the sole reason to protect oneself and
one’s property.…show more content…
The chapter states that assaults without the intent to steal has a positive benefit when
guns are involved. This is because of the reduncancy effect. The goal of assaults is usually to
terrify and humiliate the victim. Without guns, the usual manner to assault someone is though
beatings. The same can be achieved by the assaulter by threatening someone with a gun. This
creates a moral irony because assaults became safer when guns are involved. I myself feel
disgusted that assaults even occur and I wish that they were less common in society, but it does
give me a little peace knowing that someone is less likely to get hurt if there is a gun involved.
It is suprising that guns actually provide a net benefit to American society. Many people
believe that because of America’s high violent crime rate and the high gun rate that there exists a
correlation between these two. Gun ownership has a tremendous use for only self-defense among
American citizens. I am thoroughly pleased knowing these facts because guns can affect me in a
positive and negative way, but because of the statistics, I know that I am more likely to
experience guns on the basis of self-defense and not on the basis of