Pros And Cons Of Banning Handguns Essay

There have been no studies of the effectiveness of gun laws that have shown any positive effect, yet some studies have shown a negative effect of gun control laws. The obvious effect of gun bans is to deny the law-abiding citizens access to firearms for their defense. Many people argue that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens doesn’t prevent the possessions of guns by criminals, because if criminals really want to get guns, their going to get them. If guns were eliminated from the scene, more knives, clubs, axes, pieces of pipe, baseball bats, brass knuckles, or, for that matter even fists would be used to kill people. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.

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

However, expensive guns will do little to aid in the safety of Americans. Rather, criminals will be able to easily obtain weapons illegally, and the innocent civilians will be... ... middle of paper ... ... businesses as well. If guns were enforced or banned it would be the same thing, and profits would go through the roof for gangs and other criminals. Instead of trying to enforce gun control laws, the government should team with police and educate people on how to use gun properly and always call police for help. Never try to handle a situation yourself if you know someone will get hurt.

True, gun control can lessen the amount of guns on the streets, but it also takes the guns out of the hands of responsible owners, not the criminals. Illegally purchased firearms can hardly be regulated and these are the guns that are used by the people doing most of the killing. By inserting a block on legal purchases, the government is refusing the common citizen the ability to protect themselves. It seems such a disgrace that one would have to die because the government wouldn 't let them have a gun. The emphasis of gun control should be placed on educating gun safety to those who haven 't had any experience and licensing those wanting to use their firearms.

Don’t change the laws, just enforce them better. Gun control is a very large and very controversial issue in our country today. Disarming civilians, though, is not the way to deal with armed criminals. The government should let us keep our rifles, shotguns, and handguns, because we have proven ourselves by means of a background check to be responsible citizens. If we ban guns, we lose our best chance at defending ourselves from criminals who get guns illegally.

Homicidal behavior is influenced by drugs, alcohol, socioeconomic factors, and mental state rather than the availability of a firearm. Criminals obtain guns illegally and will not follow gun control laws since they are criminals. Gun ownership does not increase aggression in a law-abiding citizen. The ability to open carry and conceal carry should be allowed with permits. Background checks should be a necessity.

There have been no studies of the effectiveness of gun laws that have shown any positive effect, though some studies have shown a negative effect of gun control laws. The obvious effect of gun bans is to deny the law-abiding citizens access to firearms for their defense. Many people argue that taking guns away from law-obeying citizens doesn’t prevent the possessions of guns by criminals, because if criminals really want to get guns, they 're going to get them. If guns were eliminated from the scene, more knives, clubs, axes, pieces of pipe, baseball bats, brass knuckles, or, for that matter even fists would be used to kill people. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.

A large portion of the pro-gun circuit is dead set that putting regulations on firearms will just make it harder for the ‘simple man’ to defend themselves. This is partially true depending on exactly how the legal parameters are made. Pro-gun organizations claim that if firearms are banned that the criminals will still procure their firearms from illegal arms vendors because they believe that is where a majority of the criminal populace get their ordinance. According to Gary Kleck “Some criminals acquire guns legally from licensed dealers through legal purchases (because the criminals are not convicted felons, and do not show up as hits in background checks), while others may use straw purchasers to illegally buy guns from licensed retailers who have no way of recognizing the Gun Control being Overly Complicated 4 putative buyers as straws” (Kleck, 2009, sec. 1241) This analysis disproves the former, granted however if a criminal is intent on procuring a weapon they will find a way hence the fact that they are a criminal so there is a degree of merit to the pro-gun

They should do background checks for any mental illnesses, past criminal activity including petty crime, and whether or not they contribute to the community. Government should not be able to dictate that a normal law abiding citizen who owns a gun for personal protection of home and property is responsible for all of the crime. What the law makers do not understand is that criminals are going to get guns no matter what. It does not matter how strict the laws are. They could ban gun sales all together and it would not stop criminals from obtaining guns.

No amount of laws, will change that. Indeed, murder and assault are crimes, but these events still occur. Some naively assert that just one more law, one more regulation, will change that.” No gun control laws will change the amount of killing being done by people with guns in the U.S. People are good and bad, and that is life. If gun control laws are being