'The Case Against Banning Guns' By Paul Waldman

While comparing the two articles ‘The Case for Banning Guns’ and ‘The Case Against Banning Guns’ the one that makes the most sense and is the most logical is the latter choice. While both sides made realistic arguments, the author, Paul Waldman, choice of words point the reader to believe that he realizes his view is unobtainable. Throughout the second article, the author, Shiha Dalmia, had many valid points, including the example used to reiterate her point about the fact that the biggest mass murders in America in the entire last century have been done without the use of guns. Throughout the entire first article about the need for banning guns, the author repeatedly states that his beliefs cannot be done and the government will not do this. The author included almost an entire paragraph about the main reasons why most citizens with opposing views from him are against the idea of banning guns from the private hands of the people. Some of these reasons include the fact that many people are very safe and careful with their guns, or the example of the gun passed down from generation to generation and have been in the family for many
For example, “ a number of researchers tell us that the number of suicides and homicides would be far smaller if the means to do so surely and easily complete a suicide weren’t there.” This is saying that if the guns were gone there would be less death by suicide and homicide. But, if a person has violent intents towards themselves or another, they will find a way to do this harm. The author chose to include the following statement in his article, many believe that police officers are trained to automatically assume that anyone and everyone is attempting to harm or kill them. By saying this, the author is saying that the ones who are trained to protects us are also the people have the mindset to kill everyone who looks remotely