The article that I’m responding to is “Armed and Less Dangerous” by Nick Meyer. In the article Nick states that he thinks if more people own guns, the amount of violence will decrease. I disagree with him because it’s more likely that if citizens are given guns they would be more likely to use them. Guns are obviously used in times of danger so it’s obvious that if more people are able to get a gun the amount of violence will increase. Most violence is caused by guns and without them being available to citizens there won’t be as many violent crimes.

However, I don’t think guns should be removed from the community completely. People who work for the government such as police officers, soldiers, marines, etc. should be able to own guns in occasions such as bloody wars and vicious community crimes. Also farmers should be able to use guns because they might need to kill their cattle to sell and wild animals that scare the cattle. Otherwise, no citizens should be given guns and they should be under guard by the government. Most murders and robberies are caused with guns, Right? So why does it make sense to give people guns if it’s illegal to kill people in America?

Therefore, if citizens are given guns it doesn’t help the community out. Without guns most crimes can’t be committed. If guns are considered “helpful” as Nick Meyer says, then why do many innocent bystanders get killed by one? If they were so helpful many people wouldn’t get killed, probably little to none. Guns are the problem in most communities and giving citizens guns if you don’t want them to kill someone is uncalled for. Therefore, guns are considered to be “helpful” as Nick Meyer says in “Armed and Less Dangerous” claims when in reality they are deadly.