Arguments Against Gun Control

Words: 544
Pages: 3

Gun Control In our present world a topic of high debate is gun control. Some people think gun control should become stricter whereas others believe gun control should not become stricter. Gun control should not become stricter for three reasons, police take too long to respond to shootings, guns are not the problem, and gun control does not stop all shootings, On average, it takes police 10 minutes to respond to a school shootings, that is too much time but someone at the scene with a concealed handgun could stop it before it happened. At the Columbine school shooting, “Police and other first responders arrived on scene 20 minutes after the first calls” (Drazin 1). 20 minutes is way too long for police to respond to a school shooting. As a rule, a lot of people could be killed in 20 minutes by a shooter, but someone with a concealed handgun could stop the shooter. It takes police 10 minutes to reach the scene, but someone with a concealed handgun could stop the person before they fire a shot. Stopping shootings before they happened is important and concealed handguns can do just that. With this said, people should not be allowed to take away are right to defend ourselves. …show more content…
Ronald Reagan said “You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and lock them up … It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience”. Guns aren’t the problem, it’s the thugs or criminals who use them. As a rule, guns don’t fire themselves, it’s the person who shoots the gun that is causing the damage. In other words, guns can’t shoot without someone pulling the trigger. Guns themselves are not bad, it is the people who use them for bad reasons. All in all, gun control can’t fix a problem where the guns aren’t the