Argumentative Essay: The Need For Gun Control

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."

When it comes to gun control, a considerable number of people assume it is the guns that cause the deaths that mass shootings and firearm crimes see. However, there shall never be a direct focus on the firearms themselves, but instead a focus on those who are using said weapons. Take a moment to stop and ask yourself, will a handgun kill somebody if it is just sitting on a table. No, that will never happen, to cause a gunshot to go off a being has to handle the firearm. The last thing needed in America is for mentally unstable people or a convicted felon/criminal being the one behind the trigger. Mistakenly Americans want control on the guns themselves, instead of also controlling the people buying the arms. Which the way to manage who gains access to weapons is to simply make the background checks more vigorous. Along with background checks, make new stipulations on who can buy and handle weapons and keep track of all gun sales, this includes private dealers.

Additionally, various credible sources have attained proven statistics that deter any misconceptions pro-gun control activists put forth, such as their most common scapegoat saying: “it was the gun” (Schmidt). This statement is distorted by the rage and helplessness experienced by every American after an act of terrorism is executed; real issues such as the “breakdown of the American family, out of wedlock births, and fatherless children” are the true complications that have led to an increase in violence and crime (Schmidt). One of the most candid statistics supporting the anti-gun control viewpoint is that "as the numbers of ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large’ magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half,” which provides a direct correlation between the number of guns owned and the amount of gun violence (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). Furthermore, police reports and felon surveys across the country have found that "assault weapons are used in only 1%-2% of violent crimes,” depicting how insignificant the problem is compared to others, including robbery, suicide, sexual assault, abduction, and physical assault (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). After comprehending the information collected from these two facts, the transparency of the false blame on guns is blatant; unfortunately, due to the easy targeting of guns prompted by fear, the endless circle of polemics continues. Not only do assault weapons make up a miniscule part of violent crimes, but "most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced," making firearms extraordinarily difficult to manage in the first place (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). There is no purpose in exerting gratuitous laws restricting good samaritans’ right to bear arms. These gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns from underground black markets, nor will they prevent offenders from breaking the laws in the first place. Essentially, an increase in gun control laws would give law abiding citizens a disadvantage, and at the same time provide lawbreakers with an augmented number of opportunities to

Our second amendment clearly states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” (amendment). But, what does that mean today? How does one start to form a way to relegated gun control when it clearly states in the Bill of Rights we have the right to bear arms? Does, the idea of every citizen of America have the right to bear arms without any control? The point of gun control is to protect the next generation of American citizens from ever having to worry about their safety. When the Bill of Rights was written down, the Founding Fathers were trying to create a better society where there was no King and people had greater freedom. For my research project I am going to focus on what people know about gun control and their point of views on how to better regulate gun control.

The current gun control policies in the United States were implemented to ban gun possession by high-risk groups. They are to restrict the sales, transfers and purchase of guns to criminals, minors and the mentally ill. The laws restrict carrying guns in public areas, enforcing laws such as weapon permits and special licensing. The laws require licensed gun owners to register the weapons before they can be legally owned or possessed. There are restrictions and bans on certain guns on certain hand guns and automatic weaponry. Finally, the gun laws both state and local require a license by the federal government to sell guns.

Everyday, politicians and leaders of America are faced with many challenges that could potentially alter anyone’s quality of life, but a few are as urgent as gun violence. Gun control is a controversial topic in American politics because the Second Amendment is relatively vague. More often than not, gun advocates utilize the amendment; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” to guarantee their right to own a firearm and argue against gun control policies.

Many of you think that gun control is a good thing, but how good can such an idea really be? The people who know me are well aware that I am a right wing conservative republican and have been for quite some time. I didn’t always have this political stance. Before I began recreational studies in policy, I was a democrat, and at the time I did not know what being a democrat stood for. All I knew was that I should support the democratic party and not the republican party. This opinion changed when I began to actually study politics. My stance on gun control became in line with the beliefs of many conservative figures which is less government control and resultingly more individual freedoms. To achieve this goal of less government and more freedom, we must look at facts. The facts I would like to go over with you prove that gun control is ineffective because of examples of bad gun legislation, the intentions of the second amendment, and the true interpretation of the second amendment. (Intro paragraph=Ethos)

The issue of gun control is a fiercely debated topic in the world today, but it’s particularly prevalent in the United States. Due to the upsurge of mass shootings and gun violence, many people are questioning whether or not restrictions on gun purchases should be stricter. Despite concerns many people have, the government does have a system in place to help regulate just who can get their hands on a gun. Like every system, it could be improved. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it’s hard to argue against developing a better system for screening applicants.

If the assassination of Franz Ferdinand started World War One, then the assassination of John F. Kennedy started the modern gun control debate. Lee Harvey Oswald bought the rifle used to kill President Kennedy via mail-order from a National Rifle Association magazine. Because of this, along with the mounting public outcry, the government began to move towards gun control. However, this movement faced opposition from some in the National Rifle Association or NRA. In 1974, after being a victim of gun violence, Dr. Mark B formed the National Center to Control Handguns (NCCH), the first true gun control advocacy group. Nowadays, The NRA is in a tug of war with various gun control groups, such as “Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and Violence Policy Center.” These gun control groups had a 13-million-dollar yearly budget, the NRA has about 300-million dollar a year to spend. Gun control groups are afraid that the NRA will try to remove all barriers to buying guns; the NRA is afraid that gun control groups will succeed in limiting their access to guns.

The debate around gun control in the United States has been growing, and for good reason. Recent tragedies involving gun violence highlight even more the need for changes in the current gun laws. There needs to be two key changes, and they can be even considered updates, that need to be enforced federally. It’s not time to start pulling guns away or limit the purchasing, but rather create better tools for the current system to do its job. The first change that needs to be implemented is federally mandated background checks that are consistent across all states. The other is having sufficient waiting periods in place before being allowed to purchase guns. Overall, federally mandated background checks and waiting periods across all states are the best ways to restrain gun violence and reduce gun homicides in the U.S. because they would prevent guns from being placed in the hands of criminals or mentally ill people, while also preventing gun-wanting people during momentary lapses of judgment to purchases firearms.

In this paper regarding gun control I will be using multiple sources to help support my argument. I will be the rhetor, with the help of other reputable sources and authors. The purpose of this paper is to show why gun control is something that is very much needed in America. There needs to be gun control, however, it does not mean people need to lose their right to own a gun. The audience of this article is republican politicians in the United States Government that are in charge of creating gun control regulations. This is the main audience because these are the people who can make changes to laws and policies to create safer gun distribution. In this paper I will show how gun control, without taking away the right to own a gun, can be achieved. This will be done by using facts, statistics, and by comparing American gun polices to gun policies of other countries.

A common controversial topic that is discussed universally is the issue of shootings and gun use. Citizens views on the topic range from the wishes to completely ban guns, to the total allowance and ownership of such items. In comparison, some drugs may be illegal, although people still possess them. Would the same be for guns? Should more be done to implement the control over guns? Or should more freedom be given to gun owners? One can visualize the positives and negatives regarding gun control by learning more about the following: the suspected terrorist list,

Would you ever want to die or have one of your family members die from a gun? I have had friends that experienced a family member dying from guns or firearm suicide. People in the community would feel safer from gun threats and gun violence. More Gun control laws should be enacted in the United States to stop gun violence and firearm suicide.

A gun is a magnet to devastating consequences. The consequences can vary from injuries which result in expensive medical bills, to death. Without a doubt, guns do not provide safety. Reason is because having a gun increases the risk of injury or death, provokes massacres, and medical bills involving guns are plunging the government's funds. Therefore, various authors present facts and statistics about cases with gun violence revealing the high number of casualties and the amount the government is spending in treating patients with gun related injuries in order to invalidate the idea that guns are safe.

Although gun control laws are made to prevent violent outcomes, the influence which laws carry are the complete opposite to what one would think. Ever since the ratification of the Second Amendment, the debate on gun control has become a very heated topic. There is one side that believes that guns should be banned in order to stop any future tragedies from occurring. On the other hand, there is another side that believes guns are our cherished right to own and we should be allowed to use them freely. Even though many gun advocates believe that guns should be used in its continued free fashion, there are many tragic events occurring in the US almost everyday, that should lead to the scrutinization of guns.