Arguments Against Gun Ownership

1390 Words6 Pages

Topic: Ownership of Guns for non-professional reasons should be illegal in the United States General Purpose: To argue. Specific Purpose: The specific purpose of this speech is to argue for outlawing private gun ownership in the United States. Central Idea/Thesis Statement: Private ownership of guns in the United States should be illegal. Various specific reasons are presented to support this statement: (1) Banning private ownership of firearms, and, their distribution, would save a large number of lives that are lost as the result of gun violence. (2) Banning the private ownership of guns would also save lives that are lost due to successful suicide attempts with firearms. A common counterargument is that the private ownership of guns is …show more content…

Body I. First constructive argument: Banning the private ownership of guns will reduce the number of deaths due to gun violence. A. Kleck (2009) argues that the private ownership of guns enables the occurrence of deadly mass shootings at school or in the workplace. 1. The distribution of privately owned firearms provides easy access to firearms and makes deadly mass shootings possible. 2. There is not effective protection against anybody who is prepared to die, while murdering the largest possible number of people. 3. Fox and DeLateur (2014) claim that mental illness and risk of extreme violence will always exist, and are not an issue specific to the United States. The private ownership of firearms enables determined individuals in this country with effective means to kills numerous people in a very short time, before law enforcement can effectively intervene. B. Zimring (1968) added that the private ownership of firearms makes violent crime more …show more content…

Closing statement: The debate about gun control is inappropriate, because it does not go far enough. Only a completely ban of privately owned firearms can help drastically reduce the number of firearms related deaths and save countless lives. Without a doubt, the proposition of a complete ban of firearms will be met with fierce opposition. Critics will point at their eagerness to hunt, shoot for recreational purposes, and use guns for self-defense. However, recreational hunting and target practice are hardly basic rights that must be preserved at all costs. Moreover, guns are ineffective for self-defense in many situations. In other words, the risks outweigh the potential advantages by far. Moreover, what is right should not be abandoned, only because it is difficult to implement. It is time that the ownership of guns is restricted to those who need them for professional reasons. The result would be a safer and better