The Case Against Banning Guns

Sam Brownback once said, “I don't think there should be more gun control. I think there should be more education.” There are many different views on gun control because it is a subject that is not always just for or against, it is more complex than that. Some think guns should be slightly restricted and harder to obtain, while others feel the government should have no say. In the following, the articles, “The Case For Banning Guns” written by Paul Waldman and “The Case Against Banning Guns” by Shikha Dalmia. The articles previously stated are both from the website TheWeek.com. First, the article,”The Case For Banning Guns” illustrated by Paul Waldman supports gun control. The article states, “Imagine if police didn’t kill 1,000 or so

In the “The Case Against Banning Guns,” it states “There are about 300 million guns in this country- nearly one for every man, woman, and child.” This sentence can be interpreted two different ways. It could mean that there are almost as many guns as people and that is too many guns. Also, it could mean that with 300 million guns in circulation people will always find a way to get a gun no matter if it is outlawed or not. In the same article, Shiha states “Paddock took 59 lives- including his own. But look at the worst mass murders in modern American history: 9/11, in which thousands were killed by hijacked airplanes crashing into buildings; the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people with a homemade bomb and a truck. Meanwhile, the Nice attacker in France managed to kill 87 people- and injure 434- by simply mowing them down with his truck.” She includes this information because there were more deaths and injured people in these attacks than Paddocks shooting. Each example was as simple as next whether it was a homemade bomb or a truck running people over it is just as easy as obtaining a gun and shoot people as it is to just run people