Argumentative Gun Control

Argumentative Gun Control
In the argumentative article "Federal gun control laws could reduce deaths up to 90 percent, study says", Jason Thomson, staff at Christian Science
Monitor, argues that implementing gun control laws could cut gun–related deaths by nearly 90%. He develops the claim by first stating his claim and a
vague description of the research he is referencing, Then, he goes into detail about the study supporting his claim and how they came to their
conclusion. Then, towards the end of the article, he presents a counterclaim, stating that gun control could never cut America's massacre rates by this
much because of other factors which were not measured. The author's purpose is to present evidence from a recent, credible study in order to reason
that gun
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Argumentative Essay On Gun Control
Roughly 16,459 murders were committed in the United States during 2016. Of these, about 11,961 or 73% were committed with firearms because
people have been killed with gun shot, example the las vegas shooting. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of
female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.The
Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the
#1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides).
My first paragraph is A gun is stolen every 2 min. once stolen,firearm are traded in illegal markets and often and up used in violent crimes. nypd
officer was killed by a gunman in an ambush attack while patrolling a bronx neighborhood. On the other sides of the country a ups employee entered
his san francisco workplace armed with two guns and opened fire, killing three of his co workers and injuring two others before turning the gun on
himself. these gun violence share one common feature ; both were committed with stolen firearms.
My second paragraph is Do gun control laws control gun. The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated al most solely in
the terms of fixed preconception, with little or no examination of hard facts. Media discussions of gun control are dominated

America should have less gun control Some pro gun control activists would have you believe that all guns do is murder innocent people but there are
countless stories of women using guns to stop rapists or homeowners detailing home invaders with guns. It goes without a doubt that the woman
would have been raped, or the family would have been robbed, however with the ability to possess guns these such tragedies are preventable for all
families. Gun control can't touch illegal guns and gun control only disarms legal citizens, and gun control is an attack on the second amendment. Guns
have become such a huge problem, that they have made their way into the black market. Often the gun is not used by the original owner. "In crimes,
only 13 percent...show more content...
The second amendment 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." Many would claim that the second part of the amendment is merely an extension of the first, it is ridiculous to believe that any
free state could maintain its own militia or sense of security without the right for its citizens to own their own guns. This claim is supported by the
supreme District of Columbia v. Heller by a 5–4 vote allows citizens to possess guns for lawful purposes such as self defense. Guns are a basic right of
american citizen that exist for both self defense and recreation. Many guns are never even used by their original, registered owners, if they are even
registered at all. America's current gun control can't touch these guns but only disarm it's citizens. Gun control is directly a infringement upon our
unalienable rights, the constitution. America does not have a problem with guns, America has a problem with improper gun owners. We need to stop
limiting gun control and start properly taking the steps to disarm criminals, wake up

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

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

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 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argumentative Essay Gun Control
English 101
Argumentative/Persuasive Essay
4/12/2013
Word Count 1,255
Readability 12.3
There are new proposed gun control laws in the aftermath of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut that occurred on
December 14th, 2012. This incident claimed the lives of twenty 1st graders and six adults and has set the government in motion to try to prevent future
acts of violence by strengthening gun control laws in the United States (Smith). This has been a topic that has been an extremely emotional debate with
people on both sides unwilling to compromise. Gun advocates and critics of the new proposed gun laws argue that these new laws infringe on our
constitutional...show more content...
There is also a focus on safety in schools and offering more help to the mentally ill. Also, the government is proposing tougher penalties for people who
purchase guns with the intention of selling them to criminals (Remarks).
The first of these new proposals is the requirement of universal background checks for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm. This will hopefully
close some loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and prevent criminals and people with a history of mental illness
from obtaining firearms (Remarks). As the background check system stands now, people who buy guns from gun shows and other unlicensed
sellers do not have to complete a background check (Stopping). For the Columbine massacre on April 20th, 1999, the killers purchased their guns at
a gun show from an unlicensed seller, so no background check was performed. On April 16th, 2007 was the shooting at Virginia Tech and this
shooter obtained a gun from a licensed gun dealer which he should have been prohibited from buying. He was able to purchase this weapon because
his records were never reported to the FBI's gun background check system. Again in Tucson on January 8th, 2001, a killer acted with guns he should
have been prohibited from buying because his records also were not in the database. These considerable loopholes in our current

Argumentative Essay Against Gun Control
Abstract
What cause crime? Is is an individual's access to firearms or is it their willingness to act illegally given the opportunity? In this argumentative essay I
will be discussing one of the most debated topics in the United States today, gun control. There are two extremely opposite views on this topic: the
belief that guns enable crime, and the belief that guns deter crime. These polar opposites leave room for a very good discussion of what facts and
truths may lie behind this topic. Throughout this essay I will be analyzing both sides of this issue.The significance of a topic such as gun control is
very prevalent in today's society. Some see it sad that we must argue over one of our supposedly deemed unalienable rights such as bearing afirearm.
Over two centuries ago with the ratification of our Bill of Rights, I would highly doubt anyone would believe that the ability to carry a firearm would
one day be debated; or even illegal. As the second amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Staff).
Since 1787, nowhere has "the right to bear arms" been further explained in a legal or political sense. Thus, throughout the history of our country the
right to own a firearm has been implied.
The side of this debate that attempts to get technical and say that guns were only needed to form militias, is inadvertently implying the right of gun
ownership themselves. For militias are armies of citizens not involved with the

Gun Control Argumentative Essay
Argumentative Gun Control Paper The issue of Gun Control has been on the minds of humans for hundreds of years. How do we protect
ourselves and our loved ones? How do we keep such a dangerous weapon out of the hands of the wrong person? Inside the Second Amendment we
are granted the right to Bear Arms. Having that amendment gives each person the ability to carry a weapon if they choose, so how can we control
who should or shouldn't carry? According to an article evaluated from Kovandizic and Marvell, each year in America we can see the most violent
crimes have been committed using firearms. "In 2000 firearms were involved in 66% of homicides, 26% of robberies, 6% of aggravated assaults, and
8% of all violent crime victims faced...show more content...
This group has very strong ties with many members of legislation; it also has many lobbyists and supporters in our government. Among the many
members of congress, former presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan were and are members of the NRA. One of the NRA's most noticeable acts
happened a few years ago, they tried to repeal the ban on assault weapons.
The second group mentioned was the Gun Owners of America. The Gun Owners of America is another group that is against gun control. The GOA
preserves and defends the rights of gun owners through legislation. They publish books, articles, and videos on gun issues and how those issues affect
people. They also conduct seminars for the press and Congress about issues on the Second Amendment, and gun issues. The GOA opposes bans on
semiautomatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, and handguns.
You know a little about two major groups for gun control, now let's take a look at a couple groups that are pro–gun control. The major group for gun
control is Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), which is headed by Sarah Brady. Mrs. Brady is the wife of James Brady, who was shot during an attempt on
President Reagan's life in 1981. Another major group is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), which was formerly known as the National
Coalition to Ban Handguns. The CSGV believes that handguns

Gun Control For many years the controversial topic of gun control has sparked countless passionate debates. The arguments posed in these debates
vary widely concerning the possible solutions to solving the problem of violent crime due to the possession of firearms. This paper introduces
three different views concerning gun control. The first illustrates the freedom to own firearms. The second view advocates the complete
restriction of firearms owned by citizens, and the last one presents a modified freedom of possessing firearms. Each faction seeks to have its
position supported by national legislation. One of the big supporters of owning firearms is The Future of Freedom Foundation, known as FFF,
who wants the absolute right to own any weapon. Their reasoning is that people in America can only protect themselves from stronger dangers if
they own firearms. They point out that weak people like women on the street can defend themselves against an attacker, and fewer hostage
situations would happen when people in America can carry guns with them. People of FFF freely say that more guns equals less crime, and that in
some of the states where gun ownership is not highly controlled, lower crime rate is experienced. (Benedict D. LaRosa, October, 2002) Their
argument is that after the government passed a gun control act in 1968, the crime rate climbed up in robbery cases from 138,000 in 1965 to
376,000 in 1972, while murders with guns increased from 5,015 to 10,379 in the same period according to the Census Bureau. They cite an example
about New York, where the restrictions on guns are strong; the crime rate is higher than in Vermont, where gun controls are low. Also, they state
where gun control is strictly enforced, illegal gun ownership is much higher. By allowing guns for citizens, the crime rate will decrease. They also
considered this an economical solution for protection. (Benedict D. LaRosa) They support multiple gun ownership for each person so they can be safe
on the street, in the office and even at home. They say gun control interferes with the right to protect yourself and your family. They attack the
government by saying that the right to own firearms is being taken away slowly from citizens, and

Argumentative Essay: Pro Gun Control
Pro Gun Control
'"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 Control") Due to firearms, more than 30,000 people die in America every year. Mass shootings happen frequently and people die because of the
lack of laws and their security. TheUnited States needs better gun control laws because automatic assault rifles are easy to buy, the mentally ill can
purchase guns, and many die from guns each year.
Automatic assault rifles are easy to buy. Americans can even purchase them online and they ship to your house. They can range in the prices from
$300 to $2,000 and can even come in pink. Anyone can use these guns and many have,

Argumentative Gun Control

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Argumentative Gun Control