Why Gun Control Is Not Enough Analysis

New York Times writer Jeff McMahan argues in his 2012 article, “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough”, that the United States should ban gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely. (McMahan, 1) McMahan creates his main argument around the idea that when more and more citizens become armed, “criminals work to be better armed and more efficient in their use of guns.” (McMahan, 1) Ultimately, he argues that although some with guns may be safer than if they were without the guns, but the without guns become much more vulnerable. So why not just arm everyone with guns as gun activists would say, then wouldn't everyone be safer? No. As McMahan points out, “When more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would have once have got in a fistfight
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes into play, either everyone has guns, including criminals, or nobody has guns. “Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them” McMahan remarks, but ultimately that will just leave the country open to more violence and tragedies. “As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes a matter of self help, and the unarmed have an incentive to get guns.” (McMahan, 2) Now everyone is armed, and everyone has the ability to kill anyone in an instant, making everyone less secure. Just as all the states would be safer if nobody were to possess the nuclear weapons, our country would be safer if guns were banned from private individuals and criminals. McMahan backs up his premises by showing that in other “Western Countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States.” (McMahan, 4) After reading this statement, we are to assume that those countries have more gun regulations, and ultimately our limited gun regulations and access to firearms are what is driving so much violence within our country. Gun advocates deny this claim,
The analogies he places within the article make for a descriptive persuasive argument, yet McMahan lacks statistics and factual information to back up his claims. He uses many assumptions and “what if” scenarios, but doesn’t give numbers or facts to back up any of those claims, which could have made his argument much stronger. McMahan’s ideas are smart and somewhat convincing, but not fully. His strong claim that private individuals rights to gun ownership should be banned fully was a strong claim, and his smart analogies and ideas helped carry it out, but if he had shown actual statistics of real life situations and the reduction rates of homicides I believe readers would have been much more