top of page

Should guns be banned?

Updated: Apr 11, 2021

Written by Venus Aradhya, 15, Washington

Nowadays, it is nearly impossible for a year to go by without a school shooting taking place in the USA. A school shooting- the place which should be reserved for education and knowledge- yet we now have to go through drills and be taught what to do in case a shooter came to our school. Why should we be so worried about being killed when we go somewhere to learn and expand what we know? What is the government’s response to this? They’ve barely made any changes to gun control laws, even after the March4OurLives protest and yearly killings. Instead, the Trump Administration’s suggestion was to arm teachers with guns themselves so that they could defend themselves in this case. This wouldn’t save people from school shootings, it would just make shootings more common and more people would end up dead. Instead of making the ability for anyone to buy a gun harder, it becomes easier day by day. Hopefully, in our next administration, we may see a change for our benefit in gun control.

Onto the subject on whether guns should be banned, let’s look at a few statistics. In 2018, 74% of homicides were due to firearms. Let’s just look at the fact of us banning guns, if we were to, although there may be illegal trade due to the banning just like there is with other banned objects, the number of people with guns would be highly decreased, and so would homicides. 74% of people killed in America could be saved if we ban guns because guns are one of the easiest to access, easiest to use, and easiest to mass murder with out of all weapons. The idea of banning guns has been raised several times before, but people argue that our police won’t be able to protect themselves or get others, and neither will we be able to protect ourselves if there is an intruder. As well as that, they bring up their right constituted in the second amendment that everyone should be allowed to keep arms.

Banning guns altogether may be beneficial on the whole, but people will feel much more vulnerable without protection, and police officers won’t be able to do their job properly. How can this be solved? With the use of non lethal weapons and guns. Two examples of this are an airsoft gun, and a tranquilizer. If people were to use non lethal guns, then they would be just as likely to get their target as they would with a normal gun, making them better than knives and other weapons, but they wouldn’t kill people. Police could use these to knock out people and people can use it for their self defense, saving them as well as guns, but in the end, the people aren’t killed. This helps decrease almost all deaths by guns but still allows people to protect themself. Since the second amendment discusses people owning firearms for their safety, this would be able to solve that problem and get rid of the majority of the mortality rate. While problems still arise with these technologies, if we are able to develop a safe enough weapon that immediately knocks out an opponent, it would be a great substitute for guns.


bottom of page