An argument that has lasted for decades but has received more traction in the twenty-first century. People have been debating the topic of gun control for ages, especially in the United States. I will explain both sides as well as I can for you to formulate your own opinion.

Firstly, why should guns be banned? The apparent reason is that the U.S. leads the world in gun violence. And it’s not close. In the U.S., most gun violence is executed by a handgun. An estimated nearly 70 percent of firearm suicides and 80 percent of actual firearm homicides are done with handguns.

The U.S. in 2017 experienced a total of 427 mass shootings, with 15,000 people being killed in firearm-related incidents(Remember the handgun percentage). An argument that many pro-gun people try to make is that you NEED guns to protect yourself. However, how much would a gun help in a mass shooting situation? How many mass shootings have been stopped due to a civilian with a firearm? Ironically, gun owners are more likely to shoot a house/family member than an intruder accidentally.

Now, what about things other than fatalities? For example, so much gun violence has resulted in, obviously, medical care. Gunshot wounds have resulted in over $4 billion. The opportunity cost is furthered when also looking at the fact that the economic loss is over $20 billion.

Many American cities have also banned assault weapons and high-capacity weapons. In these cities, during 2004, they reported a decrease in assault weapons found on crime scenes. The declined range is estimated from 17 percent to 72 percent. Mass shootings are mainly done through assault weapons. Researchers have determined that public mass shootings between 1982 to 2011 found that federal and state bans on assault weapons have lowered the rate at which mass shootings happened and the fatalities in those that did.

A reason people believe guns shouldn’t be banned is the fact that gun ownership doubled while the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of more guns, less crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, “States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes… The effect of ‘shall-issue’ [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.”

Another reason would be that guns are already too far widespread to be reversed in the first place. And the people who’d give in their weapons would be law-abiding citizens, which will not eliminate gun crime in the first place. Now, let’s say guns are ultimately ruled illegal, and all citizens must turn in their weapons. Where would the guns be placed?

Also, the reasoning of. “If criminals are breaking the law by killing someone, what would stop them from accessing a gun even if guns are outlawed.” This perpetuates the idea that criminals will still be criminals. As the cliche goes, guns don’t kill people; people do. A counterargument to this is usually, “True, but at least there will be fewer mass shootings. People will always be cruel, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try.”

But that takes into a single category. As said earlier, what about law-abiding citizens whose home gets invaded by someone with a gun? Out of 19 mass shootings, six were acquired illegally. That accounts for roughly 30 percent of said mass shootings. Now, whether this argument is better argued for either side? Well, that’s debatable. And another short statement regards prohibition. Sure, guns and alcohol are not the same, but is the criminal market regarding the two not similar regarding how it would operate when banned? Banning alcohol led to anarchy as criminal organizations profited enormously off it. Although in modern days, it would probably make more sense to say the black market is what would be in control.

You should now

be able to come to your conclusion as to whether or not the U.S. should ban guns. Guns are a problem that is only worsening, meaning we should do what we can before it’s too late. Or is it already too late? Or should guns not be banned so citizens can protect themselves? But why would they need guns to defend themselves without guns? Or should only select guns, such as high-capacity weapons, be ruled out? Then again, are hunters going to hunt with handguns? Perhaps leave it t

o the government to handle food like that? Would that mean hunters to be robbed of their freedom and individualism? Maybe, but is a hunter’s lifestyle more important than innocent lives, like schoolkids? The counterarguments go on and on for both sides, so you should do your research as to what standpoint you’re on. Fortunately, there is one thing that both sides could agree about. Mental health. Maybe that is the root cause of it all.