Guns have many functions. Some people use them for many
different sports, some use them for protection, and some use them for murder.
The Constitution of the United States of America gives us the right “to keep
and bear arms”. This brings up a very good argument that guns should be
outlawed because of the rise in violent crimes with firearms. Should this
statistic ruin it for the rest of the nation who don’t use guns in violent
crimes. These people use guns for legal reasons. Guns are a very big risk to the
safety to the American population. With guns in the hands of criminals, they are
able to perpetrate serious crimes. If you put a ban on guns there would be a
decrease of violent crimes. With fewer guns on the street, there would be less
of a chance of you being attacked with a gun. Violent crimes wouldn’t
disappear, they would decrease. In his essay Desuka states, “True, even if
handguns are outlawed, some criminals would manage to get them, but surely fewer
petty criminals will have guns.” (423). A ban on guns will hurt the economy
greatly. When the ban is imposed, the government will have to reimburse gun
owners for surrendering their guns. “the number of handguns is estimated to be
between 50 million and 90 million, the cost will be considerable, but it will be
far less than the costs-both in money and sorrow- that result from deaths due to
handguns.” (Desuka 423). This statement totally justifies the ban on guns. The
economy will surely suffer but that is nothing compared to the pain associated
with burying a family member. By putting a ban on guns, it is a violation of the
second amendment. I believe it is more than justified. What would you rather
have? One less constitutional right or one less loved one? In this case, the
violation of the second amendment is the least of our worries. Our most
important worry is getting the guns off the streets.