Press "Enter" to skip to content

Why Should We Ban Handguns In The United States

Why Should We Ban Handguns in the United States Recently in Michigan a six-year-old brought a handgun to school and shot a classmate and killed her. In 1990 there were 23,438 homicides in the United States, 9,923 due to handguns (418). This was one of the points that Nicholas Dixon brings up in his article, “Why Should We Ban Handguns in the United States”. Dixons argues for the ban of handguns in the United States, with the complete ban outweighing the negative effects. He does not argue for the outright ban of all guns, that is questioning the Second Amendments right to bear arms.

Arguing the complete ban of all guns would be impossible which is why he stays to strictly handguns. Dixons line of reason is that if we reduce the handgun population, we will reduce the handgun violence, which will lower the number of violent crimes (418). Handguns were chosen to be the gun of choice to be banned because of its easiness to be concealed. The handguns were also chosen because they were seen to be the primary cause of the violent crimes in America. In an International comparison the U.S.

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

Get your price

had a significantly higher rate of homicide, than all countries included (419). This was attributed to the more lenient laws that are in the U.S. more than anywhere else. The comparison of Seattle to Vancouver is used to present this point more efficiently. The two cities are similar in almost all aspects, the only difference being that Canada has stricter gun laws (421).

In short Dixons argument is in order to reduce the number of violent crimes in the U.S., we need to decrease the number of handgun owners, which will lower handgun violence. Even though criminal offenders would still have guns, the amount available would be significantly decreased. The idea behind the ban is to lower the ” overall pool of guns” (422). Lowering the “pool” of guns I feel that this will not lead to a decrease in the amount of violent crimes in America. The violent crimes that were limited to handguns will then be transferred to crimes using other kinds of guns. The issue of other guns that are not “long guns” (418) is not taken into consideration.

There are guns that are not considered handguns or “long guns”, that can still be concealed. The semi-automatic guns that are on the street today are more violent than the handguns that are being discussed. That exclusion can represent a large percentage of the violent crimes that take place. Also taking into consideration the fact that criminals own guns illegally through theft is left out. If the law abiding citizens were able to still buy guns than who is to say that they would not buy them and sell them to the criminals? Dixon argues for a ban For those with prior convictions leaving the law-abiding gun owner undisturbed (422).

This point also goes back to the idea of theft, which might create more household break-ins, increasing violence. The issue of gun control in America is a very strong issue for many different reasons. Dixons hypothetical argument for the ban of handguns presents solutions to lower the amount of violent crimes. Although that lowering the population of handguns might decrease the number of violent crimes there is no way to know for certain that it will.


I'm Lily

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out