Gun ban is not practical - Essay Example

Gun Ban is Not Practical Gun Ban has always been a contentious topic for many years. A great majority of general public consider that by strictly enforcing gun control the threat of crime would immediately decrease. Comparatively many innocent citizens believe that they possess the right to carry guns for defence, security or simply for the leisure of hunting. These citizens are punished for defending their lives, or merely for taking pleasure in a general, harmless sport. To enforce the ban of guns all through the state means going against an individual’s constitutional rights.

Even though some people think that the issue of ban on guns will control crime, this concern is supposed to be nonexistent owing to the truth that guns are essential for safeguarding oneself against crime, and through the implementation of ban on guns  the right of people to bear arms in the second amendment is violated.  Firstly, in order to reduce violent behaviour, the first step is to find out the reason causing it and hence address to that factor. Guns do not bring about the fury; they are merely the way by which the anger is expressed.

Concentrating on the causes of the misery, distress, rage and feeling of defencelessness, that lead individuals to resort to crimes will contribute more than just implementing gun laws that are restrictive. As stated by David Kopel (450) “Making guns illegal will primarily disarm peaceful citizens. That gives a green light for violent criminals to attack everyone – both gun owners and non-owners alike.” Secondly if the guns will be outlawed then only the criminal will possess guns since there will always be a black market for these offenders to get their hands on illegal ammunition.

A gun is just an instrument; they dont murder individuals. People slay people. The issue depends on the person using the gun, and what circumstances he is caught up in. Buying a gun lawfully is a difficult procedure. The purchaser has to wait for a time period of two months and so this process assures the incorruptibility and dependability of the owner of the gun. As stated by Hugh LaFollette (316), the power of non-gun weapons for example knives and clubs are also most of the times used for crimes so there is no point in banning the guns as they leave the innocent people at a disadvantage to protect themselves.

Citizens who are law abiding have the justification to defend themselves against risks and threats. Due to possession of guns, robberies have reduced significantly.Thirdly, Guns just not simply protect lives, but they decrease law-breaking activities as well. As stated by Nathan Hiebert (2) “States that permit citizens to carry concealed guns, on average, reduce murder rates by eight-and-a-half percent, rape by five percent, aggravated assault by seven percent and robbery by three percent.” A person who owns a gun feels safer comparative to an individual who doesn’t.

In the conclusion it is liable to state that rather than attempting to improve the locality by prohibiting a tool, like guns, maybe the government must attempt to improve the state by adding further resources to the society, such as education. As a replacement of pursuing ban and being hopeful that everybody obeys, which is doubtful, the government should present a system out of the civilization of violent behaviour that pervade many of the societies in the country. Works CitedKopel, David B. (450) Guns: Who Should Have Them?

Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 1995. Print.LaFollette, Hugh. (316) Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1997. PrintNathan Heibert (2) “ Gun control is not the answer” published July 17, 2009