Persuasive Essay On Guns
The United States is in a time of great turmoil and uncertainty. It seems that on any given day, the news has is covering a story of citizens creating a new movement, or even the country’s people turning on each other in riots. Unfortunately, this is sometimes a product of misfortunate events. More specifically, it can be a product of mass shootings. When seeing these tragedies unfold on the news, people are often misinformed because of the lack of information that is available initially. This leads these people to believe that guns are the problem. Moreover, they lobby to irradiate guns from the hands of United States citizens. This concept is becoming an increasingly viable option in the heads of many democrats on Capitol Hill. This thought
…show more content…
may sounds like a good solution at first, however there are many reason why taking away the peoples’ guns might not work. With the escalating number of people that believe that banning guns is the solution to safety, it is necessary for them to become informed on the realisms of the situation.
Amongst firearm restriction advocates, it is widely believed that banning guns will make the United States a better country. The thought is that if people don’t have access to a rifle, the population as a whole will be in far less danger than before. Another popular argument amongst these advocates is that mass murders would be prevented. Most times a mass shooting happens, they blame the gun. Unfortunately, banning firearms might not benefit the United States as much as these people think. Firstly, there are economic benefits to not just gun owners, but the entire nation. Secondly, citizens might just be in more danger without access to a rifle or handgun. Lastly, mass murders may not be prevented, and they could even be worse. The first reason guns shouldn’t be banned is the economic impact the industry has on the United States. What many don’t realize is that the gun industry is a major contributor to the financial success of the country. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the entire industry is worth about fifty billion dollars. Moreover, the gun market provides around three-hundred thousand jobs every single year. The impact doesn’t stop there. This market collects over seven billion dollars a year in taxes for the governments use
(Dunham). To put these facts into perspective, one must look at other real world examples. The computer innovations company, named Intel, is also worth about fifty-billion dollars. Another comparison comes in the jobs department. St. Louis, Missouri is a city the is populated with around three-hundred-thousand people. This is the same number of people that work in the firearm market. The realization comes with the taxpayer money. As aforementioned, the gun industry collects around seven-billion dollars a year in taxes. Moreover, the average teacher in the United States gets paid about sixty-thousand dollars. When doing the math, one can see that seven-billion dollars in taxes can pay the salaries of about one-hundred-seventeen thousand teachers. In conclusion to the economic aspect of the firearm industry, the United States may have to make some substantial financial adjustments if they plan to outlaw guns. The country would have to find a way to make up for a fifty-billion-dollar vacancy. This vacancy is equivalent to a company that creates the processors for most computers in production today. The country would also have to find a way to fill the void of three-hundred-thousand jobs. This is a major problem considering that is the same number of people that are in the entire city of St. Louis. The backlash of banning guns would even spread to areas that don’t have anything to do with firearms. Large numbers of government employees could lose their jobs because of the lack of taxpayer funding. Moving on from the economics of the industry, the peoples’ safety is one of the main concerns of the citizens and our legislators. A widespread belief is that if the United States bans firearms from the people, they will be safer. Unfortunately, this might not be the case. Banning guns from United States citizens might make them even more prone to danger. This is a result of a combination of unlawful people, as well as the general mindset of the everyday criminal. This fact can be backed up by a series of examples and reasons why. Banning guns in the United States might seem like it is a simple, yet worthwhile solution to the issue of firearm misconduct. However, it might not be that simple. For the time being, different cities and states generally have the freedom to make decisions about what should be done about the issue. It allows the legislators on Capitol Hill to take a microscopic look at the success and failures of different policies. Because of the decisions made by different areas, there are a multitude of different outcomes. Chicago, for example, decided that they would carry a policy that drastically increased the restrictions on gun ownership in the city. Rifles are scares, and handguns are even harder to come by. Moreover, the process of obtaining these guns makes the process even more strenuous (Morris). The question must be raised, have these restrictions worked in Chicago? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no. The widely-known fact is that Chicago continuously maintains a reputation for one of the worst cities in the United States regarding firearm misconduct. Year after year, the Chicago reports significantly more shootings than most cities throughout the country. According to an article published on ABC News, there was a total of 3,550 firearm inclusive incidents in 2016 alone. Comparatively, the entire state of Texas only reports around 3,200 every single year (Gallagher). Although the topic of guns is popular in the United States, it isn’t the only country that is actively trying to find a solution to the issue. Therefore, another example of the failure of gun restrictions comes from the United Kingdom. Moreover, the example comes from the major issues of crime in their major cities. They have a complete ban of handguns, as well as major restrictions on the ownership of rifles. The belief is that firearm infractions will occur less, and the people will be safer. The question is raised, once again, if this policy works. The answer to the first belief is yes. Gun related issues have fallen throughout the major cities. Unfortunately, the crime has only gotten worse. All sorts of different categories of misconduct have risen dramatically. An example of this comes from the knife realm. Someone is stabbed in England every four minutes. With the failures of the policies in the previous two examples, one may ask why restricting guns didn’t prevent the people from being harmed. The answer is fairly simple actually. With seven-billion people in the world, there are always going to be good guys and bad guys. More specifically, there will be law abiding citizens, and there will be citizens who couldn’t care less about the law. People who don’t care about the law are usually going to get what they want. It is why most everyone knows at least one person who uses marijuana. People that want to use the drug are going to get it one way or another. Similarly, people that want guns are going to get them at any cost. When these black-market guns begin to circulate, the law-abiding citizens might just be in more danger because they have nothing to protect themselves with. This idea was displayed during Michael Newbern’s interview with Christina Lyons where he talked about how banning guns would endanger the lives of people that live in unsafe areas. He expressed the idea that these people need a way to protect themselves, and guns might just be the best way to do just that. The next argument advocates for banning firearms make is possibly the most notorious. The argument is that if the United States revokes the guns from the hands of its people, there may not be as many mass shootings. Citizens like Abas Raza, who created an article on banning guns, use examples like the shooting in San Bernardino as proof that guns should be taken from the people. They say that although banning guns will upset many people, it is necessary to prevent said mass shootings (Raza). All in all, this idea seems like it could prevent mass murders. The legislators should take the facts into consideration. The Colorado Movie theatre shooting killed a total of 12 people, the San Bernardino attack killed 14, and the Pulse Nightclub massacre killed 49 (Knox). The fact of the matter is that each of these events were the product of someone with a gun. This causes people to begin to claim that guns are the issue, and it means that all guns should be banned. Contrary to this belief, mass murders could actually be worse. There are many other tragic events throughout United States that cannot go unnoticed. The Happy Land Social Club fire attack killed 87 people, the terror attacks on September 11th killed 2,977 people, and the bombings in Oklahoma City killed 168 people (Knox). These numbers are substantially greater than those in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, these events were not a product of firearm misconduct. They were a product of other channels of mass murder. The average gun restrictions advocate might make the argument that these forms of mass murder aren’t nearly as common as shootings. They would be correct. However, this argument can be combatted with a simple fact. Each of the mass murders aforementioned that involved a gun occurred in a gun free zone. This means that guns were not allowed in any of the areas that the shootings occurred. This fact is very similar to the idea that law abiding citizens can be in even more danger if guns are banned. With all of these facts in place, many citizens maintain the opinion that guns should be banned. They will come up with a multitude of reasons why it is necessary to abolish the second amendment. People like John Talmadge will even suggest ideas like the one that the people just get rid of handguns altogether (Talmadge). However, there will almost always be facts to disprove these arguments like the statistics from England. Many gun rights advocates wonder why these people are so determined to revoke a right that has been in place since the United States was founded. At the end of the day, it all comes down to some peoples’ peace of mind. Knowing that guns aren’t for sale in the public market may comfort some. Unfortunately, these people don’t like to account for the actual will being of the country. In closing, many people will ask what the actual solution to gun control is. The truth is that the problem realistically may never be solved. The evidence shows that there will always be people that disobey the law, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve whatever they want. Although there is no clear solution, it isn’t banning the very items that law abiding citizens use to protect themselves. It all comes down to accountability. The people cannot rely on the government to solve all of their problems. They must rely on each other. If the citizens want to irradiate the issue, they must come together and watch out for each other. If something doesn’t seem right, report it. If a situation spirals out of control, someone needs to stop it. The government cannot achieve these things alone. Consequently, this is why I believe that the second amendment should not be revoked.
may sounds like a good solution at first, however there are many reason why taking away the peoples’ guns might not work. With the escalating number of people that believe that banning guns is the solution to safety, it is necessary for them to become informed on the realisms of the situation.
Amongst firearm restriction advocates, it is widely believed that banning guns will make the United States a better country. The thought is that if people don’t have access to a rifle, the population as a whole will be in far less danger than before. Another popular argument amongst these advocates is that mass murders would be prevented. Most times a mass shooting happens, they blame the gun. Unfortunately, banning firearms might not benefit the United States as much as these people think. Firstly, there are economic benefits to not just gun owners, but the entire nation. Secondly, citizens might just be in more danger without access to a rifle or handgun. Lastly, mass murders may not be prevented, and they could even be worse. The first reason guns shouldn’t be banned is the economic impact the industry has on the United States. What many don’t realize is that the gun industry is a major contributor to the financial success of the country. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the entire industry is worth about fifty billion dollars. Moreover, the gun market provides around three-hundred thousand jobs every single year. The impact doesn’t stop there. This market collects over seven billion dollars a year in taxes for the governments use
(Dunham). To put these facts into perspective, one must look at other real world examples. The computer innovations company, named Intel, is also worth about fifty-billion dollars. Another comparison comes in the jobs department. St. Louis, Missouri is a city the is populated with around three-hundred-thousand people. This is the same number of people that work in the firearm market. The realization comes with the taxpayer money. As aforementioned, the gun industry collects around seven-billion dollars a year in taxes. Moreover, the average teacher in the United States gets paid about sixty-thousand dollars. When doing the math, one can see that seven-billion dollars in taxes can pay the salaries of about one-hundred-seventeen thousand teachers. In conclusion to the economic aspect of the firearm industry, the United States may have to make some substantial financial adjustments if they plan to outlaw guns. The country would have to find a way to make up for a fifty-billion-dollar vacancy. This vacancy is equivalent to a company that creates the processors for most computers in production today. The country would also have to find a way to fill the void of three-hundred-thousand jobs. This is a major problem considering that is the same number of people that are in the entire city of St. Louis. The backlash of banning guns would even spread to areas that don’t have anything to do with firearms. Large numbers of government employees could lose their jobs because of the lack of taxpayer funding. Moving on from the economics of the industry, the peoples’ safety is one of the main concerns of the citizens and our legislators. A widespread belief is that if the United States bans firearms from the people, they will be safer. Unfortunately, this might not be the case. Banning guns from United States citizens might make them even more prone to danger. This is a result of a combination of unlawful people, as well as the general mindset of the everyday criminal. This fact can be backed up by a series of examples and reasons why. Banning guns in the United States might seem like it is a simple, yet worthwhile solution to the issue of firearm misconduct. However, it might not be that simple. For the time being, different cities and states generally have the freedom to make decisions about what should be done about the issue. It allows the legislators on Capitol Hill to take a microscopic look at the success and failures of different policies. Because of the decisions made by different areas, there are a multitude of different outcomes. Chicago, for example, decided that they would carry a policy that drastically increased the restrictions on gun ownership in the city. Rifles are scares, and handguns are even harder to come by. Moreover, the process of obtaining these guns makes the process even more strenuous (Morris). The question must be raised, have these restrictions worked in Chicago? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no. The widely-known fact is that Chicago continuously maintains a reputation for one of the worst cities in the United States regarding firearm misconduct. Year after year, the Chicago reports significantly more shootings than most cities throughout the country. According to an article published on ABC News, there was a total of 3,550 firearm inclusive incidents in 2016 alone. Comparatively, the entire state of Texas only reports around 3,200 every single year (Gallagher). Although the topic of guns is popular in the United States, it isn’t the only country that is actively trying to find a solution to the issue. Therefore, another example of the failure of gun restrictions comes from the United Kingdom. Moreover, the example comes from the major issues of crime in their major cities. They have a complete ban of handguns, as well as major restrictions on the ownership of rifles. The belief is that firearm infractions will occur less, and the people will be safer. The question is raised, once again, if this policy works. The answer to the first belief is yes. Gun related issues have fallen throughout the major cities. Unfortunately, the crime has only gotten worse. All sorts of different categories of misconduct have risen dramatically. An example of this comes from the knife realm. Someone is stabbed in England every four minutes. With the failures of the policies in the previous two examples, one may ask why restricting guns didn’t prevent the people from being harmed. The answer is fairly simple actually. With seven-billion people in the world, there are always going to be good guys and bad guys. More specifically, there will be law abiding citizens, and there will be citizens who couldn’t care less about the law. People who don’t care about the law are usually going to get what they want. It is why most everyone knows at least one person who uses marijuana. People that want to use the drug are going to get it one way or another. Similarly, people that want guns are going to get them at any cost. When these black-market guns begin to circulate, the law-abiding citizens might just be in more danger because they have nothing to protect themselves with. This idea was displayed during Michael Newbern’s interview with Christina Lyons where he talked about how banning guns would endanger the lives of people that live in unsafe areas. He expressed the idea that these people need a way to protect themselves, and guns might just be the best way to do just that. The next argument advocates for banning firearms make is possibly the most notorious. The argument is that if the United States revokes the guns from the hands of its people, there may not be as many mass shootings. Citizens like Abas Raza, who created an article on banning guns, use examples like the shooting in San Bernardino as proof that guns should be taken from the people. They say that although banning guns will upset many people, it is necessary to prevent said mass shootings (Raza). All in all, this idea seems like it could prevent mass murders. The legislators should take the facts into consideration. The Colorado Movie theatre shooting killed a total of 12 people, the San Bernardino attack killed 14, and the Pulse Nightclub massacre killed 49 (Knox). The fact of the matter is that each of these events were the product of someone with a gun. This causes people to begin to claim that guns are the issue, and it means that all guns should be banned. Contrary to this belief, mass murders could actually be worse. There are many other tragic events throughout United States that cannot go unnoticed. The Happy Land Social Club fire attack killed 87 people, the terror attacks on September 11th killed 2,977 people, and the bombings in Oklahoma City killed 168 people (Knox). These numbers are substantially greater than those in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, these events were not a product of firearm misconduct. They were a product of other channels of mass murder. The average gun restrictions advocate might make the argument that these forms of mass murder aren’t nearly as common as shootings. They would be correct. However, this argument can be combatted with a simple fact. Each of the mass murders aforementioned that involved a gun occurred in a gun free zone. This means that guns were not allowed in any of the areas that the shootings occurred. This fact is very similar to the idea that law abiding citizens can be in even more danger if guns are banned. With all of these facts in place, many citizens maintain the opinion that guns should be banned. They will come up with a multitude of reasons why it is necessary to abolish the second amendment. People like John Talmadge will even suggest ideas like the one that the people just get rid of handguns altogether (Talmadge). However, there will almost always be facts to disprove these arguments like the statistics from England. Many gun rights advocates wonder why these people are so determined to revoke a right that has been in place since the United States was founded. At the end of the day, it all comes down to some peoples’ peace of mind. Knowing that guns aren’t for sale in the public market may comfort some. Unfortunately, these people don’t like to account for the actual will being of the country. In closing, many people will ask what the actual solution to gun control is. The truth is that the problem realistically may never be solved. The evidence shows that there will always be people that disobey the law, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve whatever they want. Although there is no clear solution, it isn’t banning the very items that law abiding citizens use to protect themselves. It all comes down to accountability. The people cannot rely on the government to solve all of their problems. They must rely on each other. If the citizens want to irradiate the issue, they must come together and watch out for each other. If something doesn’t seem right, report it. If a situation spirals out of control, someone needs to stop it. The government cannot achieve these things alone. Consequently, this is why I believe that the second amendment should not be revoked.