Opposing Argument Against Gun Ownership Laws

Opposing Argument Against Gun Ownership Laws

Author’s Name

The Institutional Affiliation

Course Number and Name

Instructor Name

Assignment Due Date

Introduction

Buying guns to stay safe in the wake of rising crimes has become a social norm and culture in America and other developed countries. However, on the flip side, gun ownership entails more dangers than crimes and criminals pose to civilians, leading to a logical question: does gun ownership save from crimes? The answer is no, with all cautions and considerations; at the financial level, laws allowing private gun ownership cost approximately 229 billion dollars to civilians (Brady, 2023). Excessive and indiscriminate wielding of guns also weakens social and cultural cohesion between families, neighborhoods, and communities; a grave aspect of this legal cover for gun ownership is that it causes the loss of a significant number of civilian lives instead of saving them (Moyer, 2017). In addition to that, this legislation has increased the proportion of homicide, especially in urban America, leading to a greater sense of insecurity in people. These realities reinforce the argument that legalizing gun ownership does not serve the purpose it intends, and therefore, repealing such legislation is the need of time.

Arguments Opposing Gun Ownership Laws

The legalization of gun ownership has created a social, existential, and cultural crisis in American society, and these effects have raised question marks on the rationality behind legislation permitting gun ownership. By allowing privately owned guns, the American legal and judicial system has opened up a Pandora’s box of multiple social ills, and an increase in the rate of homicide is one of them (Siegel et al., 2013). A recent estimate has