Persuasive Essay On Gun Control

Every day in America an average of 93 are killed people due to gun violence. One of the biggest concerns today in American policy is gun control. This is a very controversial and complicated topic for both pro-gun and anti-gun supporters. American policy makers need to make it harder for the wrong people to obtain firearms and the fact that Second Amendment and gun control can co-exist. Mental illness constantly emerges in relation to mass shootings and shooters a like, as well as day to day homicides and suicides. America doesn’t necessarily have more crime then other developed countries the crime is just much more lethal. Right-wing Republicans constantly use the Second Amendment as shield to use firearms, the fact is the document is

According to the documentary Under the Gun directed by Stephanie Succhtig gun control laws are lacking in America because of the instilled fear in congress brought on by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Gun control is a very controversial topic in America currently but because of all the recent killings action needs to be taken in order to prevent/slow down the rate at which these tragic events happen. One surprising fact that jumped out to me while watching the documentary was that a person placed on the terror watch list has free access to purchase a gun but they cannot ride an airplane. That fact really surprised me and it also shook me towards action because it made me realize how unbalanced the current laws are. I started to question why we have not changed the current laws in America over all of the recent mass shootings events in America. According to Succhtig, “The National Rifle Association (NRA) is controlling through fear in congress which allows them to get their way” (Succhtig). The NRA threatens the congress by claiming they won’t be reelected if they go against the NRA. Under the Gun was a very compelling and powerful documentary that really got me started on the whole gun control debate. The documentary effectively persuaded me to believe that the current laws that are set in place are failing and are not full

Gun control should not exist at all in the United States. Mass shootings have almost become seen as normal event in the United States. What people do not understand is that gun control is not the answer; there are countries with little to no control that have fewer shootings. According to The Washington Post,Finland is ranked number 4 in countries with the most guns despite that they only had 24 homicides by firearm (“Gun homicides and ownership by countries” n.pag.) . In the article Did Gun Control Work In Australia “it is shown that gun control has reduced the problems but it still has not completely got rid of all firearm deaths”(Matthews n.pag.). The number of murders, homicides, or suicides do not go up due to people just owning more guns. Clayton Perry, a staff writer at the University of Maine, even points out “Stricter gun laws were in place during the Assault Weapons Ban between 1994 and 2004, but that didn't stop the shooters at Columbine in 1999 ”(Perry n. pag.). In Iceland, thirty out of a hundred people own a gun and they have zero homicides caused by guns a year(“Gun Homicides and ownership by country” n. pag.). In this day and age, everything is unpredictable, guns are a form of protection for everyone and there should not be restrictions on protection. The U.S. Department of Justice released a data brief that states, “ On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property”(Rand BJS Statistician n. pag.). The National Sheriffs Association released that the average police response time is at eighteen minutes while the average school shooting only last twelve minutes (“Embracing Technology To Decrease Response Time” n. pag.). Gun control should not exist because other countries do fine without it , high gun ownership has no link with increasing death rates , and guns are not harmful when instructions are followed.

The United States is different because the National Rifle Association (NRA) is more aggressive than any pro-gun lobby group in a similar nation, preventing America from introducing change. Since the 1970s, the NRA’s agenda has focused on supporting Right to Carry laws and fighting gun control within the United States. Primarily, the NRA controls the national gun narrative. If the National Rifle Association continues to form the debate surrounding gun control by positively defining guns, redirecting blame for gun crimes, and running a maintaining avid support, advocates of gun control will never have the strength for reform and significant gun reform legislation changes will not occur like they have in other nations.

According to Nicholas Kristof’s article “our blind spot about guns” gun control is a lot like cars regulation such that if we can regulate cars we can regulate guns. It took a lot of time and effort but thanks to regulations cars are safer than they were many years ago, and the same is very possible with guns. We need to keep our country safe. The first steps to gun control are improving on background checks and also requiring trigger locks on all guns.

To start with, many American citizens will agree that mass shootings have become a severe issue of the modern day. Many “[g]un violence researchers say that no law can eliminate the risk of mass shootings, which are unpredictable and represent a small minority of gun homicides over all” (Sanger-Katz, Bui 2), which goes to say that in order to prevent mass shootings, a number of various laws would have to be put in place. However, while some of these laws sound as if they could be effective, Congress still has the ability to shut down the potential application of these laws. An example of this occurred in 2013, when Congress considered “[e]xpanding background checks for gun purchasers to a wider range of gun sales…” (5), but this idea was ultimately disregarded. If this continues to occur, it is a possibility that no laws on gun control will be changed or implemented, which will keep the gateway open for potential perpetrators to commit mass shootings.

As studies show, every day Americans are injured or killed by guns. However, to stop this ongoing issue our country needs to go to source of the problem and change the laws.

October 1, 2017 marked the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. With almost 500 injured and 58 killed, not only did Las Vegas feel the tragedy of a personal loss, but the incident had rippling effects that shook all of America (Flaherty). With the fresh wounds of the recent Las Vegas shooting, politician's initial reaction is to implement more strict gun restrictions and "lay down the law" to prevent a similar event from happening again. Due to the drastic laws being carried out, the topic of gun control is a current issue in society. Is the solution to implement more firm restrictions on gun ownership or can the government allow the people to be their own advocates? While the opposing views of pro-gun restrictions argue that is up to the discretion of the government, they are often narrow-minded resolutions with no hope to finding a real solution. This particular shooter obtained his guns legally and passed all background checks, going unnoticed until his plan unfolded. Establishing more strict firearm restrictions would not have stopped the Las Vegas shooting from occurring. The number of gun restrictions can not increase, the government needs to either fix the existing laws or do away with gun restrictions entirely. Gun restrictions are not the solution because guns are not doing the killing--people are, the laws only attack the law-abiding citizens, and the gun restrictions add another infringed upon right that the government controls. While voting against additional gun rules will not completely eliminate the controversy behind this topic, voting against these laws will be a milestone to regaining the rights we have already been promised.

From 1988 to 2001, the usage of anti-depressant drugs in the general public increased by four-hundred percent (Swanson). The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took place in December of 2012, and during 2014, firearms were used in 88 percent of teen homicides, and 41 percent of teen suicides (“Suicidal Teens”). On February 28th, 2017, the Trump administration repealed a firearms regulation that prevented mentally disabled persons from owning guns. At the same time, teenage mental illness is on the rise, specifically in cases of depression and anxiety. A report from the Surgeon General shows that over 90 percent of adolescents that committed either suicide or homicide have or had a mental disability. Mental disabilities such as depression and anxiety put teenagers at a high risk for homicides and suicides. Teenagers who are stressed due to school, lack of parenting, puberty, bullying, and other factors can develop depression, anxiety or another mental illness. Allowing these teens easy access to firearms proves time and time again to be very dangerous. In some cases, the families of these teens have never been assessed to see if they can responsibly store firearms. The only background check performed is on the owner of the firearm, meaning that a person may own the weapon even if another family member living with them legally cannot. Loose gun control laws allow families with physiologically ill children to have access to firearms, without first checking to see if the disabled children in the home are responsible enough to be around said firearms. Repealing gun control laws instated by the Obama administration will cause an increase in adolescent firearm-related homicides, suicides, and tragedies similar to the one at Sandy Hook Elementary.

October, 1st 2017 has marked the latest in a now all too familiar trend of tragedies; a mass killing of civilians by a sick individual. In the wake of this tragedy, there is a mass of human emotion, grief, anger, sadness, and a demand for justice to right what has been wronged. In looking for justice, one needs an antagonist to blame, in this case an object, the gun. While it is true that firearms are the weapon of choice for many violent tragedies across the United States, will a ban on firearms truly solve the problem of violence for the country? Although a firearm ban may seem like a preventative for violence in the United States, a comparison of violent crime in other countries with varying levels of gun control, the lack of

“A series of terror attacks that killed more than 120 people, ISIS claimed responsibility for the horrific Paris attacks,” (Castillo and et. al.). Even though more guns will give more chances of murders, will more gun control laws stop people by getting them, will we be safer without legal guns, and why should we give up our right to bear arms.

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 terrorists list, the black market, increase in gun crime, rarely using guns for self-defense and how extensive background checks would prohibit unqualified people from obtaining firearms.

Breaking news, an “assault weapon” walked in a school and wreaked havoc creating the ninth school shooting we’ve had this year! You may be thinking, what, a gun with a mind of its own? Well, that is exactly the type of thinking the news and gun-control activists want you to have. I have never met a firearm who wants or even can shoot someone, have you? That leads us to think about who the real problem is with gun-control, the firearm, or the human? If these activists were to become successful, we would be able to see the effects. The consequences of people not being able to own guns would have tremendous effects on safety, such as self-defense, which is why laws should focus on placing more restrictions on who can get guns, strengthening the filtering system, and placing harder penalties for those who use guns wrongfully or who do not have the right paperwork.

Assault rifles are becoming the weapon of choice in these recent mass shootings. Since 2004, out of 48 mass shootings 13 of them included assault rifles. The assault rifle can be bought in many states starting at the age of 18. According to the gun control group, since 2009 individuals under the age of 21 committed two mass shootings with an assault rifle. Only one of the two rifles used was bought legally, which means just a single shooting where at least four individuals were shot and slaughtered could have been prevented. Everytown for Gun Safety reports, since 2009 there have been 156 mass shootings, eleven of these shootings were committed by individuals under the age of 21. Out of those 156 incidents 11 of those the shooter used an assault rifle. Although You have to be 21 to

Imagine somebody breaking into your home with the intentions of hurting you and your family and trying to take all your valuables that you own in your house, and not having anything to protect your loved ones. Without the protection of a firearm, the intruder could injure or kill all members within the household easily. In the United States, according to the Bill of Rights, a citizen has the right to bear arms, however, recently people have started to believe that guns only incite violence and therefore gun laws need to be more strict. Although, If you own the firearm for the right reasons and go through the process of having a carrying license, then that is within your rights to protect yourself and be able to own the gun. Therefore,