Banning guns would be detrimental to American society. Guns are a large part of American heritage, and banning them would upset many people. In addition, the right to bear arms is supported in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. People like James Madison, one of the founding fathers, promoted firearms. Finally, it is impractical and illogical to ban all guns in America. This is a very polarizing topic in the United States, and most people have taken a side in the debate. Despite the atrocities that have occurred due to firearms, banning guns is not the answer that we need.  

One reason that the gun debate is so polarizing is because it is a clash of cultures. On one side, we have the people who live in cities and suburban areas. They have first hand experience of the crimes committed with guns, from robberies, shootings, and suicide (Hanson). To them, guns seem like instruments of evil, meant for nothing more than to hurt their fellow man. On the other side, there are the people who live in rural areas of America. Firearms have a much different meaning to rural Americans. They are used to hunt, to defend the family, and put down sick or dying animals. In a study done by Pew Research, 82% of rural gun owners said that owning guns was essential to their personal sense of freedom (Igielnik). Banning guns would deeply upset almost half of Americans, and cause more social turmoil than we already have.

Not only would a ban on guns divide Americans more deeply, but legal roadblocks exist that make banning guns impractical. The 16th clause of the constitution calls for the establishment of the Militia (US Const. Art.1 sec. 8). The second amendment builds upon this, stating that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (US Const. Amend. 2 sec. 3). In addition, guns are property, property rights are guaranteed in the fifth amendment. (US Const. Amend. 5 sec. 3). Throughout history, changing parts of the constitution has been a slow and rigorous task. In the case of guns, three parts of the constitution would have to be changed in order to even get a glimpse of gun reform. By the time changes to the constitution are made, a solution to the gun problem may already exist.

Finally, banning guns is illogical. James Madison, a founding father and author of The Federalist Papers wrote very highly about “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…” He says that we have the advantage of being armed, it is clear that even then the founding fathers were thinking about how gun ownership is better than not owning guns. Data from a recent study by the Department of Justice backs up James Madison’s claim, as firearm related homicides have decreased 39 percent from 1993 to 2011 (Planty). The number continues to drop. Additionally, Americans own over 393 million guns (Wikipedia). It would be impossible to ban and destroy every single one of these guns. Even if you could ban these guns, if the demand was high enough, they could be smuggled into the United States. Only criminals would have guns, and the actual law abiding citizens would not. That is a scary thought, and not what the founding fathers intended.

All in all, the long term effects of banning guns would be harmful to America. It would be impossible to ban all guns. If guns were banned, only the people who do not obey laws would have them. While banning guns may be a quick solution in the short term, the worst side effect would be deepening the political divides that have been forming in America for generations. It is important to carefully consider the clashing cultures that have taken sides on this issue, and try to come up with a gun control solution that everyone can tolerate.

Works Cited

“Estimated Number of Civilian Guns per Capita by Country.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Sept. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country#References.

Hanson, Jon. “Inner-City Gun Violence.” The Frontier Torts Project, learning.law.harvard.edu/frontiertorts/topics/inner-city-gun-violence/.

Igielnik, Ruth. “Rural and Urban Gun Owners Have Different Experiences, Views on Gun Policy.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 10 July 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/10/rural-and-urban-gun-owners-have-different-experiences-views-on-gun-policy/.

“Inner-City Gun Violence.” The Frontier Torts Project, learning.law.harvard.edu/frontiertorts/topics/inner-city-gun-violence/.

Madison, James. “The Federalist Papers : No. 46.” The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46, 2008, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp.

Planty, Michael G, and Jennifer L Truman. “Firearm Violence, 1993-2011.” Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2013, www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616.

United States Constitution. Amend. 2, Sec. 3

United States Constitution. Amend. 4, Sec. 3

United States Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8

Image From: https://legalcareerpath.com/the-constitutionality-of-gun-control/


image_print
Tags:

CC BY-SA 4.0 A Hot Take on the Gun Debate by William is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

3 Comments
  1. Olivia 4 weeks ago

    Hi!
    I really liked reading this because I happen to be an advocate for gun control, and I felt that this article was opinionated but you had good evidence to back up your claims. My favorite part was when you contrasted rural and urban Americans, and how people who live in different areas have different outlooks on what guns are. However, is there a way to control guns without banning them? I ask this because a lot of studies have come out about other countries and how increasing gun control has reduced gun violence. Here is an article that looks into gun policy in multiple countries: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada. I would love to hear what your take on this argument is!

  2. Thomas 4 weeks ago

    Dearest Will,
    I really liked how you made your point, then had a firm argument for that certain point. Your post’s flow of ideas was really smooth and it was easy to tell what position you stood for and why. All of your claims were clearly justified and you really figured out the nuances of your argument. Each claim that you made was thought thoroughly and defended by a fact or a document that firmly contributed to what your original claim was.

    Gun control is viewed as a slippery slope kind of argument. If the government bans a certain type of gun, then what will they ban next? But if we all are law-abiding citizens, then moderate amounts of gun control will not lead to a slippery slope (Conway III and Katayal). I think that your argument comes down to mostly common sense. Gun control should not be based off political views, but rather on what makes the most sense. It’s hard to argue this because even though some people might think we need something done, they won’t let it happen because it doesn’t fit their political side’s viewpoint or values. The split in politics makes laws too hard to pass, and early I said that if we all just respect the law, we should have no problem.

    Works Cited:
    George T. Conway III, Neal Katyal. “Opinion | It’s Time to Debate Gun Control on Its Merits.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Aug. 2019, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-debate-gun-control-on-its-merits/2019/08/05/d14a4c3c-b7c2-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html.

  3. Ethan 1 month ago

    I really like your post. I agree with most of the points you’ve brought up, especially your final one. I look at this issue and just see prohibition in the 1920’s all over again. In prohibition alcohol was banned completely, but people wouldn’t stop. Since the selling of alcohol was illegal people made it themselves. This made it more dangerous. People were poisoned and seriously hurt because of how unhealthy it was. And because of this Prohibition failed miserably. “ Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant.” (Thorton 1991)

    In the case of Gun Control, I believe the same would happen. By banning guns that would only give people the incentive to buy them illegally. They may buy smuggled guns as you said or go onto the “Dark Web” and purchase them. And with those illegally purchased weapons they can attack people who have no weapon of self defense except for maybe a knife. But let’s be honest, what will that do against a possibly fully automatic rifle.And by purchasing smuggled items, this could lead to people buying fully automatic weapons since it’s already illegal.

    Simply banning guns would be ineffective and would cause more harm than there already is. I do agree there is a problem with gun control. But the way people are going about banning them will only hurt them. And they need to understand this. The problem is even when they do hear this they are so stubborn about their stance that they don’t pay attention to it. Overall your post expresses all the right things and I think it was a great analysis of the gun control problem.

    Work Cited:
    “Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure.” Cato Institute, 12 Apr. 2019, http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Youth Voices is an open publishing platform for youth. The site is organized by teachers with support from the National Writing Project. Opinions expressed by writers are their own.

CC BY-SA 4.0All work on Youth Voices is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

CONTACT US

We welcome new members. You can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Sending
Missions on Youth Voices

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account