Free Essay: Should Handguns be banned?
According to the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, a handgun is an equipment that is used for self-defense and defense of valuable resources and properties. This definition by the department does not consider handguns as weapons that are used in facilitating the killing of innocent individuals.
Diverse and different responses have been elicited by heated debates on the control of handguns in the United States by different lobby groups, administrative offices, organizations, and also individuals. Criminals versus the citizens who abide by the law are engaged in interactive contests on who should have an upper hand on the issue of the ban of handguns.
More than 30,000 deaths that are reported in the United States were attributed to handguns during the 1990s. The deaths occurred due to accidents, self-defense, suicide, murder, and other reasons. Currently, police officers are using handguns. Certified and also uncertified holders of handguns are using them to commit murder, to facilitate the hunt for the owners who like this activity, during celebrations that involve pleasurable and unnecessary shooting sprees and gang activities.
On the basis of the safety measures by the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, some of the uses of handguns are violations of the practices and firearms’ ownership rights. Therefore, this essay aims at evaluating and analyzing whether the handguns’ ban is necessary for the United States (CDJ 5).
There are ten reasons for banning handguns highlighted by Bruce Gold. First, although handguns are acquired for self-defense, Bruce notes that crimes are currently being committed and also reported on a ‘self-defense’ basis. This complicates investigations by the police. The reason for employing police officers is to maintain order.
Therefore, handguns that are acquired for self-defense purposes ought to be banned. The public should be encouraged to depend on police officers to ensure their safety. The police are highly trained and equipped to handle handguns than the civilians who own handguns (Bruce 1).
Out of a thousand handguns owned by civilians, four of them are used in committing crimes. For those under the citizens’ ownership, only 2% are used in self-defense. Therefore, it is clear that handguns are unnecessary because they increase the rates of crime in the country because they are owned by the criminals illegally.
According to Gun Owners Foundation, more lives are saved by handguns than the ones taken because criminals fear attacking the armed citizens. Nevertheless, there is a higher possibility of homicides and suicides being recorded among homes where there are handguns than in residents that do not have handguns. As such, handguns ought to be banned because they pose danger to owners, citizens, and neighbors regardless of their use especially when the holders are not trained on how to handle them.
Additionally, households that have handguns but lack safety lock yet have children residing in them can report many cases of accidental shootings, teen suicides, and murders as well as gun wounds. Handguns should therefore be banned on the basis of the fact that these guns are not safe for their holder and the people around them (Bruce 1).
Maitreesh Ghatak is a model that comprises a law-abiding citizen and a criminal both of whom are handgun holders in a contest where both want to be successful. The translation of this is that a criminal is determined to use the handgun illegally on the victim because their belief is that the handgun owner can harm them.
Therefore, both parties will opt to use their handgun on the basis of their assumption that the other person has decided to use their handgun to cause harm, steal or damage their properties, valuables, and tangible resources. Consequently, criminal activities continue to increase as well as accidental shootings, murders, and homicides (Maitreesh 2).
The constitution of the United States does not require any citizen to take the law into his/her hands unless if he/she is a criminal who does not respect the constitution. Citizens are required to depend on the police to protect them against rape, murder, assault, and burglary among other activities that may encourage the use of handguns by civilians.
This and the fact that most owners of handguns do not respect the authorities because they have an over-dependence attitude on handguns, they clearly should be banned to enhance and to improve reliance and trust of the authorities as well as the government in performing constitutional duties and respecting the constitution of the United States (Bruce 1).
According to Brian Micklethwait, laws that are against handguns’ ownership are not a guarantee that the criminals will surrender handguns that they possess illegally. Contrary to this, anti-ownership laws facilitate the committing of unlawful activities by criminals to innocent civilians. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that if the law is upheld by everybody in the world and civilians perform their duties while at the same time ensuring the safety of their neighbors, handguns would be banned since they would be of no use.
The United States is among the countries with most handgun owners civilians because the citizens can acquire them at affordable costs. Nevertheless, there are no strict measures for minimizing illegal ownership of handguns among criminals. This weakness can be curbed by banning handguns and allowing the police to be the only holders of handguns. This will facilitate the maintenance of order and law which is the duty of the police (Brian 1).
Nevertheless, Nan Desuka notes that it is not handguns that kill innocent civilians. Rather, it is the criminals who use them in committing illegal activities that cause the loss of innocent lives. Therefore, it is clear that cases of increasing suicides, homicides, and murders are not caused by handgun ownership. They are caused by criminal activities.
The writer uses the slogan “Guns do not kill people…criminals do” to support the claims. Outlawing handguns is not a guarantee for the end of criminal activities and therefore they ought not to be banned. If a criminal desires and is determined and willing to kill, he/she will do so even without using a handgun because there are many ways of executing their activity (Nan 1).
There was an article written by several Wall Street Journal writers. They noted that murders were committed under diverse and different circumstances in the United States from 2000 to 2010 and they involved different genders and races. In these years, more than 165,000 homicides and murders were reported in the states of America apart from Florida.
They were caused by arguments, robbery, police killings, narcotic drugs, and influence from arson, gangs, alcohol, and murders committed by babysitters, motor vehicle robberies, abortion, gambling, and sexual offenses among others. Among the weapons that were listed as having been used to commit these killings to include knives, strangulation, poison, asphyxiation, firearms, blunt objects, fire, explosives, drugs, fire, and pushing through windows. Therefore, it is clear that handguns should not be blamed for the killings as this will not serve as the ultimate solution for murders, suicides, and homicides. Although handguns contribute to criminal activities, they are not the sole cause (Rob, Madeline, Jon, and Palani 1).
As noted by Bruce Gold, handgun ownership for self-defense purposes was witnessed more than 2 million years and more civilians were committing ‘non-event’ offenses. It is, therefore, ethical to ban handguns in contemporary societal settings. Handguns should be banned in different states as a way of preventing criminal migration. This should be done on the basis of Bruce’s observation that criminals were migrating to the states that have less strict firearm laws. When handguns are banned, firearms havens that include Virginia will report reduced criminal activities.
It is also important to consider the fact that not every citizen can afford to purchase a handgun. If individuals buy and own handguns for self-defense, it means that unarmed civilians will be the victims of accidental shootings and crime from those with handguns. The constitution of the United States aims at achieving equality for all.
Owning handguns by some civilians widens the economic gap between the poor and the rich because most handguns are owned by the rich and the poor become the victims. On the basis of this fact, handguns complicate police investigations when they come on the way to investigating cases that involve criminals and civilians. Therefore, it is legally and ethically right to propose a ban on handguns.
Individuals who believe that handguns provide self-defense for lives and property own them. Nevertheless, the government employs police officers to provide security to every citizen in the country. Therefore, citizens should depend on the security authorities and not acquire handguns. Security forces’ work should be emphasized to ensure equality, reduce crimes such as motor vehicle theft and robbery as well as prevent compromises during investigations by the police.
Brian, Micklethwait. Why Guns Should Not be Illegal, Political Notes; Libertarian alliance, 1995. Print.
Bruce, Gold. Gun Control-Simple Solutions for Simple Minds: Ten Good Reasons to Ban Guns, Web, 2002. Print.
California Department of Justice (CDJ). Handgun Safety Certificate, California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, 2012. Web
Maitreesh, Ghatak. Gun Control and the Self-Defense Argument, University of Chicago, Department of Economics, 2001. Print.
Nan, Desuka. Why Handguns must be Outlawed, Mountain View, Mayfield Publishing Company, 1993. Print.
Rob, Barry, Madeline Farbman, Jon Keegan, and Palani Kumanan. Murder in America, The Wall Street Journal, 2013, Web.
The above argumentative essay is one of the many you will find on this website. there are many other samples of academic papers you can find on our website and some of them can be found here.