This document discusses arguments for and against banning handguns in the US. It notes that over 30,000 people were killed by handguns in the US during the 1990s. Some arguments presented for banning handguns include that they increase crime rates, accidental deaths, and suicides. Arguments against banning include that criminals, not the guns themselves, cause violence and banning would not stop criminal activity. The document examines multiple perspectives on this issue without making a clear conclusion.

1. Should Handguns be banned
Introduction
According to a definition by the Department of Justice Bureau of
Firearms in California, handguns refer to equipment that is used for
self-defense, defending resources and valuable properties. Thus,
handguns are not defined by this department as weapons that are used
in facilitating killing of the innocent people. There are diverse and
different responses that have been elicited by the heated debates that
have been held about handguns control in the US. These responses
have emerged from different organizations, administrative offices,
lobby groups and individuals. Citizens who always follow the law versus
criminals engage in interactive competitions on who should be allowed
more authority when it comes to banning handguns.
Over 30,000 people were killed during the 1990s and handguns were
associated with these killings that were recorded in the US where they
were reported. These deaths were due to murder, suicide, accident and
self-defense among other unidentified reasons. Today, police officers,
uncertified as well as certified handgun holders are using them to
enhance owners’ hunting, committing murder, executing gang activities
and when holding celebrations during which people participate in
pleasurable but unnecessary shooting. The Department of Justice of
Firearms in California has outlined safety measures for handguns. Going
by these safety measures, these uses are against the ownership rights
as well as practices of firearm owners. Therefore, the focus of this essay
is on analyzing and evaluating whether it is really necessary to ban
handguns in the US (CDJ 5).
There are ten main reasons on the basis of which handguns should be
banned according to Bruce Gold. Although handguns are necessary for
self-defense, Bruce notes that the current crime rate continues to

2. increase because they are used to commit murders which are reported
as ‘self-defense’. This complicates investigation by the police. Police
officers are employed by the government to maintain order and to
keep law. Therefore, it is logical to ban civilian ownership of handguns
for self-defense purposes. The best thing to do is to encourage civilians
to depend on the employed police officers to accord them security. This
is due to the fact that the employed police officers have undergone
proper training and they know how to handle handguns than the
civilians (Bruce 1).
Out of 1,000 handguns owned by civilians, crimes are committed using
four of them. Out of the handguns that the citizens own, only 2% of
them are used in defending oneself. Thus, it is apparent that handguns
are unnecessary since they increase the rate at which crimes are
committed in the country because even criminals own them illegally.
The argument of the Gun Owners Foundation is that more lives are
saved using handguns than the lives that criminals take away using
them since they fear attacking citizens when they know that they are
armed. Nevertheless, there are higher chances of recording homicides
as well as suicides in homes where the residents have handguns than in
homes where residents are not handgun owners.
As such, it is logical to ban handguns because they pose danger to their
owners, citizens as well as neighbors regardless of the way they are
used especially when the holders have not undergone specialized
training to handle them. Moreover, households which have handguns
without safety locks to keep them away from children report cases of
accidental shootings, teen murders, suicides and gun wounds. On the
basis of these facts, handguns ought to be banned since they are unsafe
to their holders and the people who live around them (Bruce 1).
Maitreesh Ghatak notes that in a model that has a civilian who follows
the law and a criminal with both holding handguns a contest emerges
where each of them wants to be successful. This means that the
criminal will be determined to kill the victim because they believe that

3. they own a handgun for purposes of causing harm to them. Thus, both
parties use handguns on the basis of the assumption that the other
party has already decided to harm them, steal their valuables,
resources or property using the handgun. Consequently, there is an
increase in criminal activities, murders, accidental shootings and
homicides (Maitreesh 2).
In the United States, the constitution prohibits individuals from
revenging. Only criminals do this because they do not respect the
constitution. Law abiding individuals are required to depend on the law
enforcers to protect them from rape, murder, assault, burglary as well
as other criminal activities. Most handgun holders do not respect
authorities because they have an attitude of over-depending on their
firearms. As such, banning handguns is logical because it will improve
trust and enhance reliance on the authorities. It will also ensure that
the constitution is respected and that the government executes its
duties properly (Bruce 1).
Brian Micklethwait made an observation that laws that prohibit
firearms’ ownership are not a guarantee that criminals will also
surrender the handguns that they have gotten illegally. Instead, it
makes it easier for them to commit crimes against the innocent
citizens. Nevertheless, this scholar notes that if all people upheld the
law world over and civilians ensured their neighbors’ safety, then
banning handguns would be logical because they will no longer be
useful. The United States is among the nations where there are many
civilians who own handguns. This is because citizens can acquire them
legally as long as they can afford them. Nevertheless, no strict
measures have been implemented to prevent handguns from getting to
the wrong people in terms of minimizing criminal activities. For this
weakness to be dealt with banning handguns is necessary and the
police officers should be the only handgun holders in order to enhance
their duties of maintaining order and ensuring that people follow the
set laws (Brian 1).

4. Nevertheless, Nan Desuka notes that it is not the handguns which kill
people. Criminals are the ones who commit crimes using them.
Therefore, it is clear that handguns do not commit suicides, homicides
and murders. As such, these crimes are not due to their ownership.
Criminal activities cause these problems. In supporting these claims,
the writer used the slogan, “Guns do not kill people…criminals do”.
Banning handguns is illogical because it is not a guarantee that criminal
activities will end. As long as criminals are desiring, willing and
determined to commit crimes, they will do so even when they do not
have handguns since they can use other means to execute their plans
(Nan 1).
Several writers came up with an article that was published on the Wall
Street Journal regarding murder in the US. These writers observed that
in the US, there were different circumstances under which killings were
committed to different genders and races from 2000 to 2010. During
these years, more than 160, 000 homicides and murders were recorded
in all states of America except in Florida. These were due to arguments,
robbery, police killings, narcotic drugs, and gangs, murders committed
by babysitters, rape, arson, gangs, alcohol influence, vehicle theft,
gambling, sexual offenses and abortion. Several weapons were using in
committing these murders including knives, strangulation, blunt
objects, explosives, asphyxiation, firearms, poisons, fire, and pushing
from windows. As such, it is evident that banning handguns will not
serve as a solution for ending murders, suicides and even homicides.
Handguns contribute to these activities but they are not the sole causes
of these crimes (Rob, Madeline, Jon and Palani 1).
Bruce Gold observed that ownership of handguns for self-defense
purposes existed even 2 million years ago. More civilians were using
them to commit “non-event” crimes. As such, banning handguns in the
contemporary societal setting is ethical. Handguns ought to be banned
in every state because it will stop criminals from migrating. Bruce noted
that criminals migrate to places where there are no strict firearm laws.

5. When handguns are banned, havens for them including Virginia will
have reduced criminal activities.
It is also important to consider the fact that meeting the cost of buying
firearms is not possible for every citizen. When people buy or own
them to ensure their self-defense, it means that unarmed citizens
become the victims of accidental shootings and crime from handgun
holders. The aim of the constitution in the US is to ensure equality for
all. The gap between the haves and have-nots will keep widening as
long as the rich can afford handguns while the poor remain their
victims. On the basis of this fact, handguns complicate investigation any
time they are involved in a case between a civilian and a criminal.
Therefore, it is legally and ethically right to suggest or to propose a ban
on handguns.
Conclusion
Civilians own handguns because they believe that they provide self-
defense as well as to protect their properties. Nevertheless, the
government has employed police officers to provide security to every
citizen in the country. Civilians should depend on the employed security
personnel without owning handguns. To enhance equality, to
emphasize the work of the security forces, to eliminate compromises of
police investigations as well as to minimize crimes including vehicle
theft and robbery, it is logical to ban handguns.
Stop fretting on how to go about writing an argumentative essay
on Should Handguns be banned. Let http://www.premiumessays.net/
be your desired service provider. We have a team of experts who will
meet all your needs.

6. Works Cited
Brian, Micklethwait. Why Guns Should Not be Illegal, Political Notes;
Libertarian alliance, 1995. Print.
Bruce, Gold. Gun Control-Simple Solutions for Simple Minds: Ten Good
Reasons to Ban Guns, Web, 2002. Print.
California Department of Justice (CDJ). Handgun Safety Certificate,
California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, 2012. Web
Maitreesh, Ghatak. Gun Control and the Self-Defense Argument,
University of Chicago, Department of Economics, 2001. Print.
Nan, Desuka. Why Handguns must be Outlawed, Mountain View,
Mayfield Publishing Company, 1993. Print.
Rob, Barry, Madeline Farbman, Jon Keegan, and Palani
Kumanan. Murder in America, The Wall Street Journal, 2013, Web.
- See more at: http://www.premiumessays.net/articles/should-
handguns-be-banned/#sthash.MffhsCTw.dpuf