Should the Government Be Able to Ban Assault Weapons?

There have been some different mass killings taking place where individuals have been found responsible. An example is the mass killings at Sandy Hook Elementary school and the recent shootings that took place in Orlando last year 2016. These individuals, when caught, are found to have used high definition firearms, weapons that only the military officers should use, and not civilians. These weapons have a large capacity ammunition magazines, and they range from semi-automatic to fully automatic. This means they can cause maximum damage in the shortest time possible without loading them again. These are assault weapons.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Following the high number of cases of mass killings recorded within a short duration of time, there has risen a lot of arguments on whether the government should ban the possession of these types of weapons by the licensed civilians or not. The definition of the term assault weapons in itself is a controversy because it is alleged to have been a political term which was meant to enlarge the composition of assault rifles. An assault rifle is a gun that has the capability of operating in both semi-automatic (where one bullet is fired at a time) and automatic (where there is a continuous release of bullets when the trigger is in the condensed position) modes. The government only licenses civilians to own the semiautomatic rifles for their security purposes.

My arguments

The government should ban the use of assault weapons. Assault weapons have led to mass killings which simply could be avoided if the laws did not allow their use. Much as the owner of an assault weapon may be sane and incapable of committing heinous acts such as murder, one cannot eliminate the fact that human beings get exposed to various circumstances in their lifetime. This may alter their sanity, and if such a person is in possession of such ammunition, the chances are that they are likely to misuse the weapon. Therefore, it is as safe as not even allowing the ownership and instead allow only semiautomatic weapons.

During shows, acquiring a gun would not even require a criminal background check. A terrorist would not be a terrorist until he is in action. Otherwise, he remains to be a normal, harmless citizen, and so, when they purchase an assault weapon at a show, those are some lives lost in waiting. This means the ban will prevent such incidents, and therefore, saving the lives of people

Parents losing their children and loved ones may lead to them seeking revenge and this may result in a lawless society or even anarchy. The government has a responsibility of ensuring the safety of all citizens, and that is why it does not allow everyone to own a gun for self-protection. Therefore, it should find all means possible to disarm individuals with dangerous weapons such as the assault weapons.

Their Counter Arguments

Most of the killings profiled do not relate to the mental status of the individuals caught. Some of them are just terrorists who are in sound mind, and are just carrying out their duties.

During shows, the stands displaying ammunitions are equipped with all the necessary measures required in order for one to acquire an ammunition.

Disarming the individuals owning assault weapons does not include terrorists. The government may disarm them, but terrorists will be somewhere else preparing to launch an attack. Therefore, the government may only reduce the killings, but not stop them.