Why Gun Control Should Not Be Banned

In America guns are huge deal whether you like them or not. It may be gun violence or just using it for sport, either way gun laws should be set but guns should not be banned. Having stricter gun control laws can keep Americans and their communities more safe, help guns from ending up in the wrong hands, and help reduce the overall deaths in America which are way up there compared to all the other causes of death. If people want their communities to be safe then there needs to be gun control to enforce these laws and for the people who are against this but they want the same thing as the people that are for it, open your eyes and look at what gun control really is. It helps protect communities all around the United States and it helps to protect
Butterfield (2000) discusses President Clinton's proposal on gun control laws which is to go and get a license and register guns with background checks. Although it has been a battle for many years, he continued to fight for these laws to pass (p.1). His proposal was reasonable, in fact so reasonable I do not know why people would even vote against it. It would provide gun control as needed and it would not ban guns whatsoever, so both sides should be genuinely happy with the thought of gun control. There will continue to be a battle between gun control and no gun control, at least right now that is what it seems like. Butterfield (2000) Also said the president's proposal are what every gun buyer should undergo is a background check and pass a gun safety course in order to even obtain a license. this could be a way for them to help weed out the violent or mentally ill people that make cross that path (p.1). Which in this case America becoming more violent with guns would help us out a lot and definitely keep guns out of the wrong hands. Yes, I know that guns could be stolen by these people, but at least the government is not letting them buy guns on their own and physically be theirs and it is up to them if they steal or not, if so it's more charges on them. But that situation would be less likely to happen if you think about it. the main thing is the government is trying its best to keep
a chance for a person to get killed by being shot is higher than natural diseases and even car wrecks these days. Butterfield (2000) said if they were to do the gun law proposal by Clinton, it could limit and help reduce gun crimes and accidental shootings and many different ways (p.1). if people were to look at both sides they will be able to see the pros and cons of everything and not be so biased. gun control would be a number one way to keep gun violence from occurring as much as it has been. anything to keep communities safe to live in and definitely less crimes would appear. LaFollette (2000) describe a way that we have a wide range to choose from what we believe in and does not have to be one or the other, one where you either are for abolition, new abolition or you are moderate, so between those who want to 4 bit access to some cell classes of guns to those who just want to completely ban guns and general. the second scale is for the restrictions of guns and goes the same way as the first scale does (p.1). what will fall it is basically saying is it does not have to be one or the other that you have to choose from, you can agree to disagree. For example you could want stricter gun laws but not want to ban guns completely or you could not want strict gun laws and not ban guns at all, it can be either or. so either way there will be gun violence here or there, that is just what happens in life