Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

Argumentative Essay On Gun Control
Chance Pressley
Mrs. Gallos
English 3
21 November 2017
Gun Control
The topic of gun control is a a very talked about and subjective topic and has many different
opinions and various extremes. First off, gun control can mean anything from having background
checks or waiting periods when buying guns to taking away guns completely. Most people agree
that background checks are necessary to keep guns out of people with bad intentions hands because a
gun itself is a very neutral object and can be used for any amount of good or bad as can any other
object. However, it is much easier for a person with bad intent to hurt more people with a gun then
say a stick or another neutral object. The danger of a weapon is completely up to the person in
control of the weapon.
The first argument of people in favor of gun control is, of course, If people don't have guns, they
can't kill people (or as many people). This makes sense because most mass mass killings and
murders are a result of a person with bad intent gaining possession of a gun. However, would a
stricter gun policy really help? People against gun control think not. There are various subjective
arguments but the facts are simple, the correlation between accessibility of guns and crime with
guns, if any, is that the less accessible the guns are the higher the gun violence is. This is made
very clear with studies from other countries who have very strict gun control policies. Which only
brings us back to the idea that guns are just neutral objects and can only be controlled by the person
in possession of the weapon.
One major problem that those against gun control have is that having guns is a right to every
American Citizen listed in the Second 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"
("Second Amendment"). This is one of the major obstacles of those in a favor of gun control and a
key point in the argument of those against gun control. This is argued subjectively by those in favor
of gun control with saying that times have changed and guns are no longer needed in today's
society. However, as long as the Second Amendment is in place, guns will be legal.
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Dakota Pigg
Mrs.Gallos
English 3
21 November 2017
Gun Control
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,
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is constantly adding new names to a list of suspected
terrorist....show more content...
These trends and patterns are indicative of the use of black market practices to obtain various
weapons by groups that the FBI and other law enforcement have been attempting to limit access to
weapons. Well known terrorist, Farook, who was involved in the San Bernardino terrorist attack
demonstrated the use of acquiring weapons through the black market as he went through friends and
neighbors to gather weapons he would not be able to get himself.
Some studies show, like the one coordinated by Cato, bans on certain guns in five states did not lead
to a decline in gun crime when compared to the other forty–five states, but an increase.
This counter argument is supported by evidence from VPC where they organized a study called
Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non–Fatal Self Defense Gun Use, "In 2012, for every justifiable
homicide in the United States involving a firearm, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides."
(Whittenburg). During 2012 there were 8,342 homicides total. Given these points, guns were
scarcely used for self–defense and in turn used in criminal homicides.
Bailey, David. "Does Gun Control Encourage Crime? The Science of Crime Statistics."
huffingtonpost.com. Oath Inc, 3 Aug. 2016. Web. 15 Nov. 2017.
Cook, Philip. "How dangerous people get

Gun Control In discussion of gun control, one controversial belief has been that banning certain
guns, ammo, and clips will reduce the amount of crime involving guns. On one hand, liberals
argue that this will decrease the amount of crimes because there are less guns out there. On the
other hand, conservatives contend that this is not true. Some even believe that crime might
increase due to this. My own view is that banning these items will have a negative impact on our
society, and here is why. The first reason that I don't think it would have a positive effect is
because criminals don't obey the law anyway so why would this change their availability of
firearms? Just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean one still can't obtain them, so how would
this be any different with firearms? One could buy pretty much anything their heart desires on
the black market, including human body parts, and many kinds of drugs. "Mexico has some of
the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders
(9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun
homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people)" (should more gun control laws be enacted). With that being
said, how come some believe that we should have more strict gun laws simply because other
countries do, are we striving to be like Mexico, one might hope not. One could buy pretty much
anything their heart desires on the black market, including human body parts, and many kinds of
drugs. Making firearms illegal would not help solve anything, in fact I think it would make matters
worse. The effects of the government banning guns could lead to a crisis in America because it
would take away law abiding gun owner's protection. "The October 2015 Gallup survey showed a
higher rate of 43 percent, including guns kept on property outside the home" (Ingraham). 43 percent
of Americans are gunowners that would suffer from the government banning guns; people that could
potentially use these for self–defense in the occurrence of a robbery or assault. According to
gunowners.org: Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self–defense. Law–abiding citizens use guns
to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times

The Second Amendment 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." People interpret the
Second Amendment to mean that all people have the right to own guns, but not all people should be
able to own them. "In 2007, 385,178 total firearm crimes were committed, including 11,512 murders,
190,514 robberies, and 183,153 aggravated assaults" (Giffords). The United States government must
have stronger laws about purchasing guns.
The United States government can have stronger gun laws by increasing requirements to own a
gun. Background checks will help the government decide whether someone is capable of owning
and buying a firearm. The background checks will make sure that all prior information of criminal
activity is given and recorded by federal and state directories for restricted owners and buyers of
guns (Giffords). Background checks should help eliminate the amount of guns being sold to
irresponsible people and being used for unnecessary shootings in all communities....show more
content...
In the Second Amendment it says, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" (LII par. 1). Some people interpret the Second Amendment to say that all people have an
individual constitutional right to own guns. However, the Amendment was created before machine
guns and other dangerous firearms were invented. Therefore, people do not possess the authority to
own all types of firearms. "As a result of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), a person may
not make, manufacture, or import a machine gun unless it is for a government entity" (Giffords par.
14). No person, unless directed by the government, for a special purpose, has the right to own the
most dangerous weapons. Even though there is a constitiutional right to own guns, not all people
should be able to own

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.
Guns are not keeping people safe because guns are the cause for many deaths. One of the author's
first argument is that "out of 395 fatalities occurring at a home where a gun was present, suicide
accounted for 333 cases (84%); 41 were domestic violence homicides, and 12 were accidents, while
only nine were shootings of an intruder." (Gooch). The author presented these statistics to
counterattack the idea that guns are used to protect against invaders from breaking into one's house.
The author's reason for this statistic is mainly to point out that guns are used to harm oneself or
another individual rather than for protection. In addition, the author presented the fact that
"self–inflicted gunshots suicides outnumber both homicides and fatal accidents combined, and are
the most common method of committing suicide." (Gooch). In other words, guns do not serve the
purpose of protecting a person or bringing safety into a household. The author used this fact so the
reader can imagine the scenario of a loved one using a gun and hurting themselves severely. Guns are
not providing safety because guns are used majority of the time to hurt oneself rather than protection
from possible threats.
Most of the cases have been individuals hurting themselves or another person, however guns have
also been a huge factor in catastrophic massacres. In these scenarios, guns are used to attack large
groups of innocent people causing horrible massacres. For example, a place where you go to get an
education should be a safe place. Yet, one of the biggest massacres in education history was " the
mass shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007

Gun control, one of the most sensitive issues in America today; should we the people believe in
gun control or should we discard it as futile. The American constitution states in the second
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", and so why should there be a need to put
regulations on gun ownership. On the other hand gun control helps regulate on persons who can
own a gun such as the mentally ill and convicted felons who can cause more harm to others and
themselves. Gun control will also help decrease school shootings and other mayhem that occurs in
the United states. If gun control helps regulate on gun violence why is it so controversial?
Gun control weather it violates the constitution or not has some benefits to it, for some of these
benefits help on choosing who can own a firearm. Convicted felons who are released from prison
cannot own a firearm for in the states judgment they will commit another crime. The mentally ill
cannot own a firearm for in fear of them hurting themselves or others. Gun control also regulates
what type of...show more content...
The American people argue it is unconstitutional because it is our right to bear arms and cannot be
infringe and slowly disarming the public. Firearms are needed for home defense and the
protection of loved ones against criminals who break into the home. People who live on the
outskirts of civilization need firearms for hunting as a means of providing food for their family,
and with out their firearms they may never be able to provide for their family. Sentimental firearms
are passed down through generations and hold the position of valued heirlooms, for no person will
give up their family's

There should be a strict gun control law in the United States to regulate gun holders and eliminate
the misuse of gun and gun violence. It is necessary for the American people to be more careful with
all the firearms due to the result of many gun death whether it's an accident or on purpose.
In the 2nd Amendment of the United States 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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended
scope. This inalienable right should belong to our people as the power to protect themselves.
Keeping this right also shows the respect to our nation's spirit of freedom and liberty of us as...show
more content...
People in the past had to protect themselves from wild, ferocious animal and their enemies; those
were no longer a threat to us. Current society needs to modify the law to adjust current society
better and increase the applicable area of law to cover. The law is the best weapon to protect and
defend yourself, and that's why we need to improve the law with the progress of our society.
Different periods have different problems; we should make the law more flexible to applied, and
gun control is one problem we are focusing right now.
For recent years in America, word "gun violence" and "gun control" were brought up more
frequently, we reevaluate and reconsider the safety of gun and the actual use of it. Gun holder
was asked to put the gun into gun cabinets because it's easy for kids to get and find out how to use
it without any safety instruction. It's horrible to hear a kid knows how to use a gun before he
knows how to read. Kids are not the only thing we should be worried about; many adults are
incorrectly using it as well, there are more than 78 injuries and death that was caused by firearms
every single day over the

Gun Control Argumentative Essay
Over the last few years, homicides due to firearms have seen a large increase in commonality and
the debate over gun ownership is as impassioned as ever before. On one hand, avid gun owners cite
the 2nd Amendment and their constitutional right to bear arms as reason to maintain possession over
their firearms. On the other hand though, many fanatics believe that guns should not be accessible to
any member of society, exempt of course for only members of the law enforcement or their country's
military. However, weighing all the possible options and providing resources for strictergun control
laws could help save the lives of many countless victims. Currently, there are over 33,000 gun
related deaths per year, coupled with over 370 mass shootings...show more content...
Currently, each store must conduct a background check that consists of asking of prior convictions
and commitments to mental institutions from the potential buyer. If in the case that the buyer is
deemed fit for purchase, they can likely walk out of the store with a gun, including a high–powered
automatic rifle, the same day. However, if their application is flagged a more extensive
background check is conducted, rightfully so. Nonetheless, rejections only occur in less than 1%
of gun applications and more often than not uninformed and untrained citizens become gun
owners if they apply (LePore 4). Even members of the "No Fly List," a list for potential domestic
terrorists, who aren't allowed to board American flights, are often allowed to obtain a gun license
without much thorough investigation to their background as long as they haven't been labeled
mentally disabled. Such is the case with the Orlando's gay nightclub shooter last year, Omar
Mateen. Mateen, was a suspected terrorist, who although was on the "No Fly List," was still
allowed to obtain a highly powered automatic weapon just days before his unprovoked massacre. By
applying a more thorough required background process, gun stores face much less risk of selling to a
potentially unstable person with ulterior motives than

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 Second Amendment states that
citizens have the right to bear arms for the sake of national defense. The NRA lobbies against any
restrictions on gun ownership; their position is that any limits on guns is a violation of the Second
Amendment. The gun rights groups argue that the citizenry must be ever vigilant and ready to fight
their own tyrannical government or foreign invaders. However, the gun control proponents counter
by saying that even the best armed militia is no match for a state sponsored army with tanks and
fighter jets. For example, the Islamic State, whether state funded or not, can be seen on the daily
news fighting against larger militaries. Their level of armament cannot match the weapons and
technology of the countries trying to end their insurgency. In this case, it seems gun control
advocates have a point, but many Americans would argue that they would rather go down fighting.
Suicide is another arguing point in the gun control debate. In the United States, two thirds of gun
deaths are suicides, (fivethirtyeight). Gun control

The issue of gun control has always been debatable in the United States. In the United States for
every 100 people there is 88.8 guns. This is the highest number of guns in the world. There have
been many mass shootings even at an elementary school. One of the deadliest massacre happened at
the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut. Twenty–six children and six adults are
killed on December 14, 2012. Due to all the gun violence President Obama felt a need to update and
expand background checks for gun control. He issued the new executive actions on January 5, 2016.
Many individuals feel gun control is a necessity, whereas others feel it is problematic. One may
argue the gun debate revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment. There are two
versions of the Second Amendment. One passed by Congress and the others distribute to each
individual state. The one passed by Congress is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
(Willingham). There have been many arguments concerning the Second Amendment. "Proponents of
more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence
would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans,
including gun owners, support new gun restrictions," whereas "Opponents say that the Second
Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns;

Indeed, the United States has a long tradition of holding guns. The public opinion with guns is
deeply based. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2017 showed that 48% of the
population grew up in armed families; 72% believed that most people should have the right to
have guns or that almost everyone had the right to hold guns; 61% believed that the people have
the right to hold almost all types of firearms or most types of firearms; 56% believe that gunners
should be allowed to hold guns in almost any location or in most places. The right to hold guns is
both a constitutional provision and a "political correctness," and gun control faces many practical
resistances. However, with the continuous occurrence of vicious shooting incidents,...show more
content...
On the issue of gun legislation, the Democratic Party tends to establish a strict gun control law and
tries to pass it through the National Assembly. The Republican Party, on the other hand, strives to
prevent the passage of laws and regulations from the standpoint of fighting for party interests such as
voters and election expenses. Therefore, the bill proposed by the Democrats is difficult to pass in the
Senate, where the Republicans dominate. Since most of the constituency divisions in the House of
Representatives are decided by Republican–controlled state legislatures, the Republicans have more
"stable" seats than Democrats do. In the constituencies of these members of the House of
Representatives, politicians are more sensitive to their voters, and these voters are also more
inclined to vote on popular issues such as gun rights. The penalty for offending these voters is much
higher than alienating voters who support gun control, because voters who support gun control often
do not participate in the Republican primary election. The demographic structure also played a role
in the support of the House of Representatives in support of guns, because the proportion of gun
owners is higher in urban areas than in urban areas. Even

The battle over gun control has been the topic of debate for many decades and continues to remain a
political and social issue. In the United States, the term gun control "refers to any action taken by the
federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale,
purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens." (Lee). The
questions of how much gun control is appropriate, the nature of background checks, mental health,
purchase accessibility, among others, have been opposing in viewpoints over the years. More
recently, mass shootings such as the Columbine High School massacre, the shootings at Virginia
Tech, the Charleston church shooting by Dylann Roof, and the Bryce Williams/Vester Flanagan
anchor shootings have considerably fueled the gun control debate even further....show more content...
England and Japan have incredibly strict gun restrictions, where very few people own guns, as
opposed to Canada, where gun ownership is more prevalent. In Australia, The National Agreement
on Firearms tightened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback
program that removed 650,000 assault weapons from public circulation. "The law also required
licensees to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety
course." (Masters). In the United States, the background checks and requirements are not as strict,
therefore making a gun purchase more attainable. "The United States, with less than 5 percent of the
world's population, has about 35–50 percent of the world's civilian–owned guns, according to a 2007
report by the Switzerland–based Small Arms Survey."

The gun control debate has been one of the centerpieces of American political discourse for the last
several decades. On one side are those who firmly believe that the widespread availability of guns
makes America more dangerous, and that stricter scrutiny should be applied both to who can own
guns and what guns people can own. On the other side are those who believe that not only would
increased firearms regulation be a violation of constitutional rights, but that it would have little to no
effect on violence in America. Beneath this fiery, sometimes irrational debate are two core concepts
of US political theory: constitutional interpretation and federalism. At the center of the gun and
ammunition control fight in the United States is the interpretation of the second amendment. The
amendment states, in its entirety, that "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" (US Const. amend.
II). While the document was ratified in December of 1791, its wording has divided scholars into two
main camps for centuries. The first interpretation is generally called the collective rights theory and
claims that citizens are not guaranteed the individual right to possess firearms and that the second
amendment is simply protecting a state's right to self–defense. In United States v. Miller (1938), the
Hughes Court ruled in favor of the collective rights view and said that Congress could

Manesha Singh
Art of Persuasion
Professor Catalano
10/26/2017
Gun Control Liberties Lately, there have been frequent discussions plaguing the news which
primarily emphasizes firearms and gun control. These debates have led to many American citizens
questioning the laws revolving around gun control and the amendment to the constitution permitting
the right to bear arms. In numerous cities across the United States, the necessity to own a firearm is
incredibly important. For example, let's imagine someone walking the streets of Chicago on a daily
basis and is constantly looking over his or her shoulder over the prospect of someone deliberately
assaulting them. What if that same individual was murdered at gun point in broad daylight because
he/she looked like a vulnerable target? Unfortunately, the senseless murder of this innocent
individual was then reported to a grieving mother where she had to bury her child at a very young
age. Let's propose another overwhelming scenario involving gun control. Imagine a scenario where
you're casually spending an afternoon eating in a restaurant and all of a sudden a criminal comes
rushing in. This criminal obtained his/her firearm legally through an accomplice and now you're
suddenly at the criminal's mercy. Instantaneously, one must feel overwhelmingly unsafe and at any
moment a life changing moment may ensue. Furthermore, what if the individual in danger was
denied the freedom to bear arms and was a direct victim of

Samira Rastegar
Argumentative Essay
ESOL 0054 – 81003
Dr. Dogger
Nov 15, 2017
The Gun Control
Gun control is a controversial topic that has been around for decades in the United States and all
around the world. After the recent terrible events, it has become an issue of controversy between the
two groups that agree and disagree with gun control. Between 1970 and 2000, firearm injuries in the
United States annually has 32,703 deaths. After motor–vehicle crashes, firearm injuries are second
leading reason of injury and death in the United States.Majority of people that are against with gun
control believe that gun can help them for self–defense in home and society. However, other people
believe that if we reduce the number of guns in our society, we will reduce the amount of
violence. There are many reasons for gun control. Let's focus on three main reasons: manic people,
economy issue, and accident by children. First, the crazy person is one of the reason of gun
control. Studies show, increased risk of committing to violence against other if people have serious
mental illness like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Individually if perpetrators are
using drug and alcohol, and they are not tacking medical treatment. (Cook, Goss 71). Also, review
of more than 20 studies showed that commit to violence among mentally ill people are three to five
times more than other people. (Cook, Goss 72). For example, the gunman behind the worst mass
shooting in Texas

In the USA, Americans have right to own guns, and this is for self– protection. However, many
people are trying to take over advantage of the law by using guns to apply physical attack on
someone. This makes the issues of regulating the access, ownership, and use of guns are paramount
importance. The question of whether guns should be controlled touches the core of the country's
national security. Many Americans think thatgun control is wrong because guns do not kill people,
people do. If a person wants to kill someone, there are millions ways for him to do his dreadful
action without guns. Also, guns do provide protections. On the other hand, many others agree that
gun control should be enforced. With the widespread all of the incidences of unpurposed mass
shootings on the media, several proponents have had to question the existing legal on gun control in
the USA. Civilians should be kept away from guns to...show more content...
While most opponents of strict gun control ague that people should be allowed to own guns because
of their own self–defense. Also, those opponents show their evidence that their right to own gun is a
part of Second Amendment. Many Americans choose to interpret this to mean that civilians could
have the right to bear arms, but the key words in the law are 'well–regulated militia', which imply
that the groups or individuals owning guns must be well regulated. Therefore, when Americans are
trained properly, guns now will be the truest meaning of self–protection. In addition, many
Americans even take advantage of the "well–regulated militia" quote to do crimes. For example,
there was a veteran who found out his wife cheated on him. While he was in anger, he used his
handgun to shoot at his wife. This implies that most of the crimes committed using civilian held guns
is not for self–defense, but rather for purposes of committing violent

Marshun Jones
Ms. Wilks
English IV
I was interested in this after the recent shootings in the U.S
The gun control Act of 1968 was passed after the assassinations of both president John F. Kennedy,
the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. It banned interstate mail orders of all
firearms, interstate handgun sales and weapons with no "sporting purpose. "It prohibited the sale of
firearms to minors, felony, fugitives, drug addicts and these committed to a mental institution. And
then allowed the sale of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The violent crime control
and law environment Act of 1994 banned the possession, transfer or domestic weapons for 10 years.
The debate over gun control in the United States has...show more content...
Gun–control advocates sought to rekindle the debate following another string of deadly mass
shootings in 2015, including the killing of nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina,
and 14 at a community center in San Bernardino, California. These advocates often highlight the
stricter gun laws and lower incidence of gun violence in several other democracies, like Japan and
Australia, but many others say this correlation proves little and note that rates of gun crime in the
United States have plunged over the last two decades.The current Constitution of Japan was
promulgated on November 3, 1946, and came into effect on May 3, 1947. China's expanding
military and growing assertiveness has been bolstered by weapons cloned from the arsenals of other
countries. It is not only American weapon designs and technology that have been stolen and
replicated by the Chinese. Russia has at times served as China's unwitting research and development
department. China bought two dozen of the fighters but later negotiated for a license to assemble
additional planes domestically using key components imported from Russia. Gun control in Japan,
combined with the prevailing respect for authority, has led to a more harmonious relationship
between civilians and the police than in the US. It's something of

Gun control in the United States is a very controversial topic in today's political society, leaving the
nation divided into two sides with two strongly opinionated beliefs. This all started with the increase
in the amount of mass shootings and an overall increase in gun violence. The two sides consist of
the liberal point of view and the conservative point of view. The liberals believe that the availability
of firearms to the people in the country is a major issue, and that the U.S. government is at fault for
the mass shootings due to the lenient regulations on guns. In retaliation, the conservatives argue that
having a gun is a God given right, that the Second Amendment of The Constitution. Although the
availability of guns is seen to be...show more content...
has a sin tax on harmful substances such as cigarettes and alcohol, so why are there none on gun
regulation? Putting a tax on the price of guns could potentially decrease the overall percentage of
purchase of guns. In the U.S. simple regulated background checks are required by licensed firearm
dealers, yet there is no mandatory check when exchanging a weapon privately, while in other
countries such as Canada background checks are mandatory across all firearm exchanges and focus
on the buyer's mental health and addiction history. The United States could learn how to keep citizens
safer by examining other areas' regulations. "California has America's strictest gun laws. This means
that prospective gun owners must hold a Firearms Safety Certificate, submit to a waiting period like
in Canada, buy weapons only through licensed dealers, and possess only a 'California legal' gun that
complies with restrictions on what can and cannot be sold inside the state." (https:/
/www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/04/news
/how–american–gun–deaths–and–gun–laws–compare–canadas). Compared to Canada's gun laws
these are seen as fairly lenient. According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics,
California is on the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to gun violence per capita, evidence
shows that (as of 2014) California's death rate is 7.4 per 100,000 people, compared to a much
smaller state with lenient gun

What is gun control? Who is affected by Gun Control? Why should someone care about Gun
Control? Imagine going to a concert with your friends and family, you guys are laughing and
having a good time when all of sudden someone starts shooting up the place. Are you thinking to
yourself that if guns were banned this wouldn't have never happened? Or are you wishing you
had a gun to protect everyone from what is happening? Gun Control has been an issue since the
beginning of time, there are some people who think we need it and others who say we have the
right to bear arms. With gun control a lot more lives could be saved and people won't have to be
scared of a mass shootings happening somewhere. Kids can feel safe when going to school and they
won't have to worry about one of their class mates shooting up the school.
Gun Control is a set of laws or policies that regulate the sale or use of firearms by civilians. Guns
have a high rate of killing or injuring someone, which makes this a primary topic for gun control
policies. Even with a good reason to have gun control, it is still one of the most difficult topics in
American politics. Criminals are affected by gun control because they won't be able to have easy
access to getting a gun. Families are also affected in some way, for one with gun control families
won't have to be scared of a mass shootings happening because Gun Control will be put in place.
People need to care about this because kids,women and men could have been saved from some of
these mass shootings we have had over the last couple of months. Families wouldn't have to
mourn for their loved ones, if people can just see why this is such a big issue and be able to find a
way to stop all of these killings and shootings.
Having gun control can save a lot of lives and could have stop events that shouldn't have
happened. For Example, the Las Vegas shooting and Columbine High School shooting could have
all been avoided if these shooters were not able to get easy access to all of these guns. For the Las
Vegas shooting, Stephen Paddock who killed 58 people was able to get 23firearm and hundreds of
rounds of ammunition.The police also found 19 more guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition
in his house. It's not

Gun control is a vital necessity to the welfare of our nation. Many people out there are supporting the
"anti– gun control cause" with the excuse of "self–defense". I believe that not everyone will handle a
gun for self–defense. The possession of a gun is a sign of power. One of the bigger ambitions that
one has is to have power and the easier it is to obtain a gun; the faster a criminal will gain power
over an innocent person. When one is in possession of a gun, that person has complete control of
their actions and may act upon the weapon however the person may please even if they know that
their action will cause harm to defense–less people. There are many deaths caused by guns out there
that could have been stopped by controlling the...show more content...
I always tell my sister that if she is not strong enough to control herself, she will never be strong
enough to control others and will resort to the easiest ways to "eliminate" that person. She will do
whatever is easier to get that stone out of her way rather than talking things over and controlling the
situation.
Not so long ago my neighbor's daughter was killed by her ex. I am positive that this could have
been stopped. I do not know how the man obtained the gun, but I am sure it was through an illegal
way. He is not a policeman, he worked at a supermarket. He does not live in a violent area. He
lived in Bergenfield with his girlfriend. The man did go buy a gun a day before because he knew
that he wanted to kill his girlfriend. The saddest part is that he killed the girl because she wanted
to break up with him. This is what we want for our country? For people to kill their former
boyfriends/girlfriends because that person ended the relationship. This tragedy could have not been
stopped by the girl having a gun with her. In fact, she might have had to face years of prison for
murder and carrying a gun without a license. Sure, gun control will not eliminate violence or
completely prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Criminals have their ways to go around the law
but by having gun control the murders and assaults with gun will lessen. I know that everyone has
rights but the 2nd amendment is misinterpreted. We are not in war with England anymore and

Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from College Application Essay Help Manchester

More from College Application Essay Help Manchester (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Argumentative Essay On Gun Control