The general argument made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns,” is that gun control should be put into effect and certain firearms should be banned. More specifically, Waldman argues that abandoning these guns could decrease mass shootings and make America a much safer environment. He writes, “Yes, I’d like to ban guns. Almost all of them, at least the ones in private hands.” In this passage, Paul is suggesting that the United States would be much better off abandoning these weapons that leave communities with so much blood and gore. He believes private gun ownership should be rare and strictly regulated, just like the gun laws in Europe and Asia. In conclusion, Waldman’s belief is that guns are not used properly …show more content…
Not having guns may give a sense of security to those paranoid of being harmed by a firearm. Someone should not have to go around worrying about shot. Another benefit of no guns may also provide security to parents who have curious adolescents. They will not need to worry about their child getting into or even maybe injured by the weapon. Yes not allowing guns has its positives, but personally I believe they could be very useful if they are used correctly. To every positive there is also bound to be a few negatives to follow. Disadvantages of not having concealed weapons could result in bad situations to an extent of maybe even death. The author writes, “But no matter how trustworthy you might be, you have to reckon with the price we all pay for the thing you enjoy.” Sometimes people just happen to open up the wrong can of worms and get themselves into trouble with dangerous weapons like guns. Without guns, the deer population will increase enormously and rapidly because people will not be killing them off, which could lead to a development of too many deer. This may boost car accidents and increase human deaths in another way. In the end, innocent people are still dying, which is the main thing the government should be trying to prevent with these gun