Why Gun Control is not Enough, by Jeff Mcmahan Essay

Why Gun Control is not Enough, by Jeff Mcmahan - Essay ExampleThis paper tends to summarize the article, with a personal reflection in a later section. Mcmahan emphasizes upon the fact that owning guns makes the matter worse by making self-defense a kind of self-help. Allowing guns pull up stakes make criminals founder instead of eliminating crime. This is because they entrust become better equipped with better guns and readier to shoot. The more the guns, the more atomic number 18 the chances of accidental shots. Even a slight conflict give make race shoot at each other. The power of government and police will be diminished, because people will not look for help from aegis agencies and police, and will defend themselves through the use of guns. The power of the citizens and that of the police approach parity, states Mcmahan (2010, par.5). Moreover, it is all a matter of relative safety. Individuals owing guns will feel safe, and those without guns will be the most vulnerable, and will look forward to having guns. The state which will allow guns will feel safer than that which does not. When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which incur become more vulnerable, writes Mcmahan (2012, par.10). This relative safety will disturb the balance of power and peace among people, agencies, and nations. Mcmahan further writes that gun control is a good solution because it limits the use of guns both for the criminals and for common men. He writes, we would all be safer if no one had guns or, rather, no one other than trained and de jure constrained police officers (2012, par.12). With gun control, people will start trusting the police force for domestic defense. Mcmahan asserts that gun advocates present their arguments against gun control, but incomplete of them is valid, except that the prohibition and effective implementation of gun control is not easy. Mcmahan ends his article by saying that the Unit ed States is suffering from much more force-out and violent incidents that the rest of Western countries because of easy access to firearms, and gun advocates should give their arguments a second thought as to whether guns should be allowed or not. Personal comment Mcmahan has very effectively described the importance of gun control and gun prohibition by presenting arguments from both sides, and has efficiently cleared his stance on the topic. Since owning a gun is beneficial and dangerous both at the same time, thus, it becomes all-important(a) to discuss who should be able to own a gun. Efforts have always been do in order to decrease criminal activity around the globe, among which taking away guns is thought to be one such effort, when it is not. Although Mcmahan asserts that gun control will result in less violence and crime, I believe that common men should be allowed to own guns so that they can protect themselves. The most important point here is how the citizens are goi ng to ensure their safety when they are told to turn in their guns, just as Boylan (2004, p.130) states in his book. People wish to give guns to enjoy their autonomy and guarantee their safety when they meet robbers, criminals and terrorists. Armed citizens feel their strength in protecting themselves and their families from physically stronger criminals. I disagree when Mcmahan (2012, par.3) states, When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesnt cease. Instead, criminals work to be better armed I believe that criminals will still get better if guns are banned, because the wrongdoers will still obtain guns and ammunition from whatever illegal sources. And who will be in loss? The common man, because he will have no illegal source of owning a gun. Owning guns is one of people