Honors English 9
January 24, 2013
The Sandy Hook shooting. The theater shooting. What do they have in common? Guns. The question though, is how we should limit them. Many think that we should completely illegalize them, but is it really going to solve the problem? The truth of the matter is that guns don’t kill people; the criminal that wields the gun kills people. Limiting the use of guns is not an ideal solution and it will not stop criminals from killing others.
It’s understandable that many people want to completely restrict guns because of their personal experiences or tragedies of someone they know dealing with shootings or guns. It’s also understandable that gun laws are passed only to look out for the safety of others. Guns can be really dangerous once it’s placed in the wrong hands. Saying from complete honesty, we can all agree that guns actually do help criminals kill or injure the innocent. Using a gun, a thief can easily rob a bank, or even a psychopath can easily gun down a school with just a press of a trigger. I mean, guns are dangerous right?
Yes and no. Yes, because they can be a tool for evil and destruction. No, because they don’t cause people to kill others, they serve only as a catalyst for the inevitable. If someone is insane enough to pick up a gun and kill innocent civilians, the problem doesn’t lie within the gun, but the beholder of the gun. This means that the thought of killing someone else will eventually manifest whether guns are present or not. Taking away guns isn’t going to make criminals mentally sane or even less dangerous. The problem shouldn’t be emphasized on the tool the perpetrator used, but on the perpetrator himself. Saying that it was a gun that caused a person to kill is like saying if someone had a knife, he would automatically go out and slaughter innocent bystanders. Intentions are intentions. If someone really wanted to kill another person, they would, with or...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document