Guns are undoubtedly dangerous yet, unlike most dangerous items they are far more controversial to talk about. There are two extreme positions on this topic that many can fall into when talking about firearms. Some want to ban guns completely, while the other side feels like guns are a right granted by our constitution and do not need regulation but instead, educate gun owners on the proper usage of a firearm. There are some flaws in both arguments. The problem with banning guns is that we should protect ourselves if the need arises. Guns go a long way in terms of protection so banning them completely isn’t going to fix the problem completely. On the other hand, if we don 't do anything about the loose restrictions on purchasing and operating …show more content…
Owning a gun is not a bad thing, in fact, it is a right that every American should have access to. It 's written within the constitution right next to our freedom of speech. So it is not unreasonable for Americans to expect to not be troubled when someone wants to buy one. However, America 's gun problem does not stem from simply wanting to own a gun. The true issue is the type of firearms Americans have access to. When the Second Amendment was drafted, the most powerful weaponry around then shot one ball at a time, took a minute to reload, and was also very inaccurate so the "arms" in the second amendment does not seem intended for devastating artillery that can cause mass harm to the public. Due to the open-ended nature of the 2nd Amendment, it leaves room for debate on what it truly means to bear arms. Most argue a gun 's main use is protection, that 's why the ability to use them is in our constitution. Some also say that hunting is also a positive use of a firearm. Whatever the case is, no one would need the use of weapons that can fire up to 100 bullets within less than a minute tearing up whatever the gun is aiming at. These types of weapons exist for the sole purpose of killing others as quickly as possible and don 't belong in an American