The banning of handguns can ultimately be a good thing in regards to lowering the count of handguns in circulation but can also be harmful when ideas such as less people being able to protect themselves against criminals. When the idea of the banning of handguns comes into play, it is expected for there to be both negatives and positives to the theory. What we must ultimately find out is which would be more likely to work and at what cost. Professor Daniel Polsby and Philosopher Nicholas Dixon both give some helpful insight into the matter at hand. Professor Daniel D. Polsby feels that a ban on handguns would ultimately lead to criminals still having access to and arming themselves with handguns while most law-abiding citizens would now be without their once legal possession of a gun. Polsby senses that this lack of legal armament will increase the already wide margin ratio between criminals who have guns to citizens that have them. This will in conclusion makes criminals deadlier now than ever before without the worry of whether or not the criminal's targets are properly arming themselves.
Philosopher Nicholas Dixon on the other hand argues that "
a handgun ban will result in a reduction in overall rates of violent crime." Dixon however never denies the fact that having a ban on guns will not change criminals being just as heavily armed as they are today. In most cases, the penalty of the crime that criminals are planning on committing with the aid of their handguns will be way more severe than the penalty of possessing an illegal handgun. So in essence, regardless of whether there is a ban on handguns or not, criminals will always have a way to get their hands on one anyway. So by not banning the use of handguns, citizens will be able to protect themselves against these threats. Dixon does not agree with this opinion however. He consents the ban of handguns because he feels it will reduce the overall "pool" of guns, which will reduce the number of guns that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document