Should Guns Be Banned?

The Necessity of Gun Control
It has been and always will be debatable, within society, whether certain gun regulations, or perhaps banning the use of guns would be the appropriate solution to a more healthy and safe environment to one’s lifestyle. The right for people to be able to protect and defend themselves with the ability to own a fire arm has been up for discussion. Although, certain points made are valid and considerable, it’d be difficult to trust those who engage themselves in owning a gun if numerous studies show the consequences of allowing this to happen.
Accessibility is one of the many factors that have proven to lead to displeasing actions such as suicide, murder, and even burglary. But how should we respond to these actions to successfully minimize them? According to the Barrack Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, claims that “a complex problem will require a complex solution.” Even though the problem is complex, the solution is “blindly obvious” (Carney). After previous results of tightening the laws within buying weaponry, it has shown people that not much has changed in terms of keeping a safe environment. For the most common crimes, including theft, robbery and suicide, the United States maintains an equal amount and range along with other countries. However, “the category in which the U.S rate magnitudes higher is gun homicides” (Zakaria). With this fact, a great amount of people believe that a “real” ban must be passed. Of course not like the one “we enacted in 1994 with 600-plus exceptions” (Zakaria). The United States takes up 5% of the world’s population. With that said, the United State has 50% of the guns. Rather than completely wiping out the ability to buy weapons, the government needs to simply limit the access to guns. No exceptions should be made because that is exactly what people believe caused the old ban to become a failure. There must be testing done and criminal background checks and other ideas as such to fully allow someone to eligible to own a gun. To sum it up, what these people want is to create rules and regulations to keep the wrong people from being able to own a gun, but avoiding extreme measures such as completely banning them. Less access to guns means less gun homicides.
On the contrary, others argue for the rights they have in owning a gun. Being able to defend yourself when in a life threatening situation is something that some people believe should be “a right.” “Police cannot be everywhere” and for this reason, certain people feel the need to own a weapon to protect themselves (Levy). Cities such as New York, Washington or Chicago are far too populated and busy for everyone to be fully protected and cared for. Since past restrictions have not lessened the incidence of gun related crimes, it’d be difficult for one to believe that gun control would be useful in the first place. In fact, no progress was being made what so ever when a ban was made in 1994. It was a failure; hence the importance in passing gun restrictions isn’t realistically necessary in the eyes of this side of the argument. They believe that gun regulations didn’t address the “deep-rooted causes of violent crime – illegitimacy, drugs, alcohol abuse and dysfunctional school” (Levy). In this case, the real reason behind people killing others with guns should be the issue in need of being fixed. Not a single regulation has reduced the violent crimes suicide or accidents. Overall, “there has been no conclusive evidence that laws reduced gun violence” (Levy). In order to securely provide safety is to allow people to protect themselves, not just by the police but on their own as well.
“There may be some voters who think that the Constitution provides broad latitude to own and carry guns – even if the consequences can sometimes be tragic” (Silver). Those who advocate greater restrictions on the accessibility of gun ownership normally use their most dedicated argument. This would be the facts of the consequences of allowing people to have easy access to weaponry. In all seriousness, these people don’t feel that it’d be necessary to protect yourself with a gun. There are so many other types of shields that people can use to defend themselves from being harmed. This would include less deadly items such as pepper spray, a knife or even your own fists, perhaps! They focus less on the rights the Second Amendment may or may have not conveyed to gun owners. Also, other than being in the military or police department, there is no way that an average Joe would be prepared to use or even hold a gun. Being able to use a gun takes skill and proper training from experienced people. There’s a reason why police officers are allowed to own a gun: they’ve had loads of training, psychological testing and background checks to further predict if they’re mentally stable to own such a deadly device. For opponents of stricter gun laws, “the debate has increasingly become one about Constitutional protections” (Silver). Many adversaries of gun control also argue that restricting the ability to buy and own a gun would only backfire in various ways or “will otherwise fail to reduce violence” (Silver). Passing these regulations would “indisputably hold the freedom, health and happiness of the many hostages to the potentially bad actions for the potentially bad actions of the few” (Goldberg). They would prefer that the debate would be more important if they see it as an issue with Constitutional rights, rather that the consequences of allowing the gun control measures to be passed.
The two different sides of these arguments go hand in hand when discussing their beliefs and their significance in their arguments. The overall purpose of the argument is to ensure safety for the people of the United States. Yes, people do, in fact, have the right to own a gun and feel safe when they’re alone and possibly in danger. Granted, some valid arguments were made that make sense. However, it is those who per say, create massacres at movie theatres and go and shoot innocent elementary school children for no absolute reason that make it difficult to trust people with guns lying around their home. If these people can’t be trusted to properly use a gun and with good intensions, then no one should be allowed to touch one.