Firearms have been utilized since the beginning of the war. They have been a piece of American culture from its underlying foundations. One article explains, “The origin of firearms began with gunpowder and its invention, mostly likely in China, more than 1,000 years ago”. It took many years before firearms would grow and expand throughout the globe. However, as time passed a new design of firearms was introduced by American inventor, Samuel Colt.” His new design was a handheld pistol that featured a multi-firing system with multiple chambers that could fire bullets through a lock and spring design” (History.com Editors). In fact, later on, his name would be used for a common revolver called the Colt .45. Although this was one of the first firearms new ones and better ones came. The AR-15 was introduced to the civilian world and many people loved it. This firearm would become popular among the U.S. military, gun sports enthusiasts, as well as mass shooters (History.com Editors). A mass shooting is described as an incident where at minimum four people are shot not including the shooter. According to an article,” The number of mass shootings have outpaced this puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day. These mass shootings have occurred in public places such as schools, shopping areas, and outdoor environments. Many people question if they should ban firearms because of this situation. Well honestly if you take into consideration that it's not the gun itself that is doing the killing it is the person behind the gun that does the damage. Therefore firearms should not be banned.
First, Banning firearms won't stop mass shootings. Why are there mass killings now? Why not generations ago when the U.S. had more than enough weapons, impoverished teenagers, dysfunctional families, poor and rural neighborhoods, racism, and nearly any other cause typically blamed for this kind of tragedy? Mass killings seem to be a social plague, basically an issue of behavior. This trend reflects other social phenomena, for example, suicides sometimes rise after high-profile figures kill themselves. Pretty much mass killers are motivated by older killers. They could have witnessed a coverage of older massacres, but they seem to catch the ill idea of committing their own massacre. And well if that person wants to commit an act of harm they will find a way to do it regardless of having a firearm or not. It's all in the person's intention and thoughts that drive them to do what they do. Another topic related to killings is suicide. A restriction on firearms won't do anything to deaths from suicide. The vast majority of gun accidents is suicide, and there is no legitimate argument that the greatest impact on suicide is a ban on firearms. Modern society's problem isn't guns, it's people. Many individuals believe that guns are inherently evil. No, they're not. They are inanimate objects that can be used for both good and harmful purposes. To build a house, you could use a hammer but you could also beat someone to death with it. The hammer is the device alone. The real problem is the one behind it who swings it. Guns are not wicked, the people are. As one article approaches the problem they explain, “getting rid of guns won't stop or get rid of murder”(karanswiki 1). This is a very forward approach and a very true statement. One problem is that people fear the idea of guns mainly because they don't really understand them. In fact, instead of banning firearms, they could find new approaches like doing background research on a person before they are able to buy a firearm. They could also expand efforts to guarantee that individuals who act fiercely and misuse guns are immediately prosecuted and deprived of their weapons. Without these efforts, most mass shooters will simply have all the earmarks of being 'well-behaved residents' and are allowed to purchase and have their weapons lawfully until they slaughter somebody. The result of banning firearms might even have a negative impact if people really want one they will find a way to obtain one. If they are not available they could turn to the black market and purchase one causing a fall in the economy.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Another reason to not ban firearms is that it takes an individual's ability to protect themselves. Firearms are a source of protection every year. It may appear very obvious to ensure an individual's protection by forbidding firearms in different areas. But the well-behaved residents, not those who commit violent acts, comply with these bans. Rather than making places more secure, incapacitating decent residents leaves them as exposed targets. Protesting against semi-automatic firearms based on their appearance and not the way they function doesn't make much sense. If you want semi-automatic firearms to be restricted, the government might as well ban all firearms. However, the idea is not that of banning them, it's to protect individuals and save their lives by owning a semi-automatic firearm. Small caliber handguns in which you have to refill the weapon manually might not do a great deal of good for civilians. Firearms are used as a defense tool against criminals. For example, a gun's presence could scare off a suspect, potentially reducing the risk of property loss, damage, or death. The police cannot protect everyone all the time and banning firearms would limit the defense of an individual. It would make it hard for people to protect their homes and loved ones. In fact, the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, banning them would be taking one's right away. As the NRA quotes, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”(“Think Progress”). Also, a national survey explains,” that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection” (“Why Own A Gun ?”). This proves that firearms should not be banned since it will limit citizens to protect themselves from criminals and home invaders. All states have some sort of defense policies that determine when you could use deadly force such as a weapon to protect yourself or someone else. If you are one of the few who like to carry or keep a gun for defensive purposes, you should follow the gun laws of your state all the time to make sure you break the law.
Next, the act of banning firearms won't stop crime as many people think it would. While pepper spray can be used in minor cases, when an armed criminal comes after you or the people you love, a person needs to be able to protect himself. Even if you don't kill the enemy, you're going to have time to flee and find help. Passing a ban on guns and magazines will not prevent criminals from accessing and misusing them. The Law prevents anybody under the age of 21 from buying a firearm, although young people can acquire and fire at others with a firearm. The cops find criminals usually after a crime is committed. The 'normal' people are the ones who have to face the crime first on their own and without backup. Sure, a police officer may pull someone over and eventually catch a dangerous criminal. However, the only reason an officer would know they have stumbled across a dangerous individual is because the certain individual is running away from the crime and doesn't want to get caught. The most popular firearms sold in this country today are modern semi-automatic sports rifles. Millions of modern sporting rifles have been sold across the country to individuals since 1994, with in fact no increase in crime. It wouldn’t be smart at all to allow the government to take away firearms it’s just not a logical approach. As one article approaches the topic they explain, “Criminals are the source of crime. Proscribing things simply does not work”(James 1). Criminals will find a way to commit their crimes regardless of having a firearm or not. In fact, a website explains that “more crimes are prevented by lawful citizens lawfully protecting themselves with firearms than are prevented by the police” (Shiller 1 ). This statement proves logically that banning them would even make things easier for criminals. Why do you think mass shootings are most common in “gun-free zones” because criminals prefer to be in a place where individuals are unarmed? Criminals would still have easy access to firearms while an individual would be selfless and unable to protect their valuables.
In conclusion, firearms are very important in today's society. The act of banning them won't be very beneficial or effective. The ban on them would not decrease mass shootings because mass killers always find a way to kill regardless if they have a gun or not. They give individuals a way of protecting themselves or loved ones without them they are limited to their safety. The invisible magnet that attracts people to our borders is the freedom to bear arms. If you Take away or limit guns what it's basically doing is taking away personal freedom and restricting it. Finally, logically speaking, firearms won't reduce deaths or crime rates. Criminals will continue to pursue what they do. Everyone is more safe and protected with firearms available: it might just be the difference between you being cozy in your home and being shot to you being the one with a gun and defending yourself.
Stuck on your essay?
