Pros And Cons Of Banning Handguns

Good Essays
Banning Handguns is not right Handguns can be easily concealed, so they are usually the weapon of choice for for people to protect themselves. But, they are also the weapon of choice for criminals. Since handguns are easy for criminals to steal, handguns are almost always available on the black market; this makes handguns a solid good choice for criminals. The majority of crimes involving firearms are stuck on the fact of using a handgun; this is a serious problem in America today. Although most would agree that something must be done, no one seems to have the answer at this point. Some gun control supporters believe that completely banning handguns is the best way to protect citizens. However, banning handguns fails to protect people because…show more content…
There are several cities that have employed handgun bans in the past, and the results were not promising. On September 24, 1976, Washington, D.C. placed a ban on all handguns; the ban was later overturned on June 26, 2008. Under the regulations of this law, no one other than a police officer was permitted to own a handgun. Authors Agresti and Smith (2010) state that “during the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.” Clearly, banning handguns in D.C. did not reduce the amount of murders and crimes that were committed, and the number of murders actually increased drastically. Gun control supporters would argue this information by saying that the statistics are misleading , and that it is necessary to consider other factors such as the changing of times as well as the rise of drug and gang violence. They may have a point, but as Washington, D.C.’s murder rate increased by 73%, the rest of the United States as a whole experienced an 11% decrease in murders (Agresti & Smith, 2010). This is difficult for them to explain. A second illustration of the ineffectiveness of banning handguns is that of Chicago, Illinois. In 1982, Chicago passed a ban on all…show more content…
When an individual is responsible and trained properly, handguns are easily the most effective form of self-defense, and a handgun ban takes this option away from them. John Stossel (2008), who is a nationally well known newspaper columnist, as well as a journalist and reporter for Fox News Channel, explains that laws against guns are really laws against self-defense, and mandatory gun-free zones are in actuality free crime zones. Handgun bans will not stop criminals from acquiring guns; they will, however, prevent a law abiding citizen from buying a gun for self-defense. While he may be a little extreme in stating that laws against guns are laws against self-defense, he does have a good point. Banning handguns leaves citizens with less self-defense options. When people are stripped of the most effective form of self-defense, they are vulnerable, and this is a serious problem. Stossel (2008) is right about gun bans preventing law abiding citizens from using guns in self-defense, and this gives the advantage to the criminal. A law abiding citizen will not break the law and own a handgun if they are banned, but a criminal will. If an individual desires to rob a bank or murder someone, he or she is not going to be worried about breaking a gun ordinance. Handgun bans remove an extremely valuable self-defense
Get Access