Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The restriction or ban of non-hunting guns has both pros and cons. It can be argued that since most violent crimes are committed with guns then restrictions or bans would reduce the number of those crimes, but at the same time it can be argued that criminals would still find ways to get guns and that only those people that follow laws would be hurt. We often hear in the news about mass shootings and banning many non-hunting guns such as assault rifles would mean there would be fewer victims when crazies decide to do mass shootings because their firepower would be limited. However, it is possible that normal people having guns means that those crazies would be less likely to commit mass shootings if people carried weapons with them for protection because those perpetrators would have the potential to be shot. With more guns out there in the general population there can be higher chances of guns getting into the hands of children, which means accidents can happen more frequency. However, the black market for guns would likely become enlarged with guns banned and it would be a loss of some liberty our citizens have. The police cannot protect everyone and people can protect themselves from the government. Gun ownership also has protection from the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, but it was aimed towards the militia rather than individuals. Furthermore, crimes that would have been less harmful can be a lot more dangerous if guns are allowed. Essentially, both sides can argue their point to approximately the same extent.