Gun Control Henry Wilson Analysis

Gun control in America is one of the most fiercely debated topics in today’s political sphere. Nearly everyone has an opinion and there is a mind-boggling amount of information typically discussed regarding the matter. Media hot takes and campaign talking points aside, far too many lives have been lost to gun violence. A total of 12,902 in 2016, to be exact. The fact that more lives have been lost to gun violence in the United States this year than the 5,000 lost in the almost 10-year war effort overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan is appalling. Is sensible and reasonable gun control progress attainable in our near future? That remains to be seen, however it is my intention to respectfully dissect an argument presented by none other than an essay

Many tragedies have occurred recently that have spurred the debate on whether or not we need tighter gun controls. On one side of the debate are the gun control supporters, who claim that the easy access to guns is the primary cause for high rates of crime plaguing the United States. On the other side are people who argue that gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, since they will continue to get them illegally. Guns are used for protection when in the hands of people who obey the law. It is crucial to not hinder law-abiding citizen’s ability to possess firearms with stricter gun laws, since gun laws do not lower crime, and guns can keep people safe.

The studies and research on gun control has opened up many ideas on how weak the current laws really are. Crime rates consist of high numbers. “Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii”

The violence in the United States is a big issue, but making more gun laws is not the answer. It is an inevitable fact that making it harder to get access to guns would only lead people to turn to black markets and more underhanded deals. In an article for the Los Angeles Times, James Q. Wilson writes, “It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow” (Wilson). Dramatic changes within gun controls laws would, in itself, make more people mad and possibly lead to riots. In many people's minds, more gun control laws would mean to taking guns away. Gun control laws within themself are not a bad thing, the extent to which they are taken within a nation

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

In 2015, on an average day in America, thirty-six Americans were killed by guns, excluding suicides. How many of those deaths would have been prevented if there were stricter gun laws? How many parents would have lived to see their babies grow up? How many children would have lived to graduate, or get married? Although many Americans believe that gun control takes away their second amendment right it actually increases every citizen’s safety by the use of extensive background checking, checking medical records, and restricting gun distributors.

Developing stricter gun laws in the United States can lower the amount of crime that is committed using firearms, as well as to prevent accidental death, homicides and suicides. Gun control is effective, and many nations have the statistics to prove that. Firearms have a place in society, but it is not in the name of self-protection. The source is somewhat incorrect, as gun control is necessary, but it does not mean that all firearms should be eliminated.

While Americans were contemplating gun control proposals in the wake of mass shootings at a Colorado School, another gunman massacred 50 people in a club in Orlando. This incident brought heated political exchanges between President Obama and Trump, the Republican presidential candidate. It is estimated that in 2015 alone, there were more than 351 mass shootings in the United States. This is a worrying trend that should be reversed as soon as possible. Surprisingly, the trend has divided Americans into two groups. On one extreme end, there are those Americans who believe that the government should enforce gun control. On the other end, some Americans insist that stricter gun controls will not help in the fight against killings. In this light, this paper will try to provide a detailed analysis of the gun control debate while highlighting the various points made by the proponents and opponents of the gun control. The essay posits that gun control is counterproductive.

England’s gun ban created the unintended consequences of lawlessness in the streets, as well as, it did not stop criminals from possessing guns and committing crimes. (Malcolm)

In Beverly Ballaro and Laura Finley’s article Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives, Ballaro and Finley make a convincing argument by use of logic, emotion, and evidence. By using logic, Ballaro and Finley support their argument even further. One of their main points is that there is no need for an AK-47 or similar assault rifle in most house holds. The common uses of guns in houses is usually for protection and sport, both of which there is no need for a military grade weapon, “Designed for the purpose of killing as many people as possible as efficiently as possible” (Ballaro and Finley).

Wilson argues in his essay that not allowing people to buy guns will have no effect on the illegal use of guns, which in essence, is the sole reasoning for wanting to eliminate guns in the first place. He makes the claim

The controversial issue of gun control is one of the most debatable topics among politicians and civilians alike. This is because of the complexity of gun control and the long history that is related to the subject. Gun control is typically an effort, by the government, to create legislation that regulates the sale and use of firearms within the country. There are various arguments that surround this topic which include gun-related violence, accidents, self-defense, murders, suicide, constitutional rights, and so on. James Q. Wilson, a professor who has taught at Pepperdine University, Harvard University, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and a published author of several books, take a negative stance on the subject of gun control. Wilson contributed to the gun control debate in the last few years with his written op-ed article. According to Wilson, there is no possible method to eradicate the hundreds and millions of guns that exist within the country, restrictive gun laws will not significantly affect the United States’ murder rate, and that guns play an important role in self-defense in everyday lives. Contrary to what Wilson believes, strict gun control is necessary and should be enforced to ensure public safety because gun laws have the power to produce a positive outcome in the long run, reduce gun-related violence, and reduce the numerous risks that gun ownership open.

Former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer once said "Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror". Spitzer’s words makes one think: should we fear the person behind the gun or the gun itself? The majority of violent crimes that happen in America are not only caused by a criminal, but also the weapon in which the criminal is holding. America’s gun violence problem stems from the increasing accessibility of firearms. Many of the mass shootings in America could have been prevented if access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons were completely banned. Gun violence is an arising issue, and a change needs to be made concerning the gun laws in the U.S. Stricter gun control laws is necessary to prevent high accessibility to firearms and mass shootings, also research shows that Australia’s strict gun control laws are proven to be more efficient in preventing gun violence.

We begin with one of the biggest misconceptions on how more gun control actually affects both the United States and other countries. It may seem odd at first but stats and data about other countries and cities in the United States prove that the more gun laws and regulations they have, the more gun homicides there are in the area. The United States has the highest gun ownership percentage than any other country at 1.45 guns per person but our homicide rate is 103rd in the world at only 3.6 per 100,000 residents. Credit Data taken from the years 1994-2014 shows that American gun ownership rates have increased from .94 to 1.45 respectively and that gun homicide rates have greatly decreased during the same time period from 7.0 to 3.6 per 100,000 people. Credit

For many years, people have been pushing the American government to implement new laws that deal with gun control. Supporters of the argument claim that increased gun control will drastically reduce the crime rate in America. Nevertheless, a majority of gun control arguments are formed from strict control of data and emotional appeal. The mainstream media picks up these stories and broadcasts them to viewers without providing any context to them. While gun control activists assert that gun control is necessary, the American government should not ban guns because of the following reasons: potential vulnerability of innocent people being shot at by criminals and the inability for people to defend themselves against their own government.