Pros And Cons Of Banning Handguns Essay

Banning Handguns is not the Answer Handguns can be easily concealed, so they are the weapon of choice for people who choose to use them for self-defense. Unfortunately, they are also the weapon of choice for criminals. Since handguns are easy for criminals to steal, handguns are readily available on the black market; this makes handguns an attractive choice for criminals. The majority of crimes involving firearms are committed with the use of a handgun; this is a serious problem in America today. Although most would agree that something must be done, no one seems to have the answer at this point. Some gun control supporters believe that completely banning handguns is the best way to protect citizens. However, banning handguns fails to protect

When an individual is responsible and trained properly, handguns are easily the most effective form of self-defense, and a handgun ban takes this option away from them. John Stossel (2008), who is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, as well as a journalist and reporter for Fox News Channel, explains that laws against guns are really laws against self-defense, and mandatory gun-free zones are in actuality free crime zones. Handgun bans will not stop criminals from acquiring guns; they will, however, prevent a law abiding citizen from buying a gun for self-defense. While he may be a little extreme in stating that laws against guns are laws against self-defense, he does make a good point. Banning handguns leaves citizens with less self-defense options. When people are stripped of the most effective form of self-defense, they are vulnerable, and this is a serious problem. Stossel (2008) is right about gun bans preventing law abiding citizens from using guns in self-defense, and this gives the advantage to the criminal. A law abiding citizen will not break the law and own a handgun if they are banned, but a criminal will. If an individual desires to rob a bank or murder someone, he or she is not going to be worried about breaking a gun ordinance. Handgun bans remove an extremely valuable self-defense

The real issue behind handgun crimes and violence is not the handgun itself, but rather the owner of the gun. According to surveys, as of 2010, there were roughly 300 million firearms owned by citizens in the United States. Of those 300 million, approximately 100 million were handguns, and 67% of those gun owners said they had guns for self- defense, 66% said they used their guns for hunting, and 41% for target shooting (Agresti & Smith, 2010). During the year 2008, approximately 436,000 violent crimes were committed by an assailant who was visibly carrying a gun (Agresti & Smith, 2010). A study conducted during the year 2000 showed that U.S. citizens use guns to defend themselves roughly 989,983 times a year (Agresti & Smith, 2010). These statistics show several different uses for guns, and that guns can be used for negative or positive reasons. It is the operator of the handgun who determines whether it will be used as recreation, such as target shooting and hunting or as a murder weapon or as self-defense. It is sad to see the way society views handguns as an awful epidemic, but laws banning handguns are missing the point. Laws cannot make the decision of how the handgun will be used for the owner of a handgun. It still comes down to the person holding the gun, and that is something a ban cannot