1. Navy 1
Christa Navy
Harold Blanco
FYS
Debate Paper
1. What underlying issues are being debated in the readings?
There are more issues than just the simple argument of whether there should be
more gun control or not. According to the article, Gun Control: An Overview, there are
three main stances of this debate: “a sociological, ethical, and a legal dimension.” For
sociological, it is whether or not strict gun control and violent crimes using guns
correlate. For ethical, it is the “argument of our rights to bear arms against the protection
of citizens and prevention of crime.” Lastly, the legal dimension is what everyone seems
to immediately debate about during the gun control debates which is what does the
Second Amendment actually mean. This also includes interpreting the “ambiguity of the
amendment’s text” (Lee, M. Stingl, Alexander).
2. According to supporters of stricter gun control, what are some possible advantages in
favor of supporting the issue?
Perhaps the most obvious advantage that gun control supporters believe is that
that they believe it will save lives. The article, Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives,
states that “increased regulation could significantly reduce both the number and scale of
gun-related violent incidents” (Ballaro, Beverly Finley, Laura)

2. Navy 2
3. According to those in opposition, what are some possible disadvantages to stricter gun
control laws?
Perhaps the most used argument in the push for more gun control is that stricter
laws will infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. Anti- gun control enthusiasts also
believe they will have a loss of self-defense if their access to guns is limited or even
taken away.
4. What fallacies of reasoning emerge from the debate?
We see an example of a personal attack fallacy on the Smith and Wesson gun
company as they are accusing them of being more concerned with their profits than
protecting their Second Amendment Rights. While that may indeed be true, there is no
solid evidence to support their attack (Bowman, Jeffrey Newton, Heather). Also, that
same article also states that “guns have only one use: to kill” (Bowman, Jeffrey Newton,
Heather). While that is certainly its main purpose guns can also be used in self-defense,
and as a ways to threaten our enemies without having to kill unless you absolutely have
to.
5. What alternative policy/programs have been proposed or might be developed?
There are many policies that have been brought up to aid in stricter gun control.
Some include background checks and requiring those that want to purchase firearms to
wait for a period of time, and child safety and child-access prevention laws. A mandatory
five-day waiting period was put in place after Ronald Reagan’s press secretary was
wounded from gunshot after an assassination attempt (Lee, M. Stingl, Alexander). Also,
the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 prevented minors, drug users, and people
with a criminal record or mental disorders from obtaining a gun (Bowman, Jeffrey

3. Navy 3
Newton, Heather). Also, it has been suggested that certain types of guns be scrutinized as
to whether or not they should be allowed to be sold such as assault rifles (Ballaro,
Beverly Finley, Laura).
6. What implications does the debate have for families in society?
Implications can be drawn from both sides of the argument, on both sides of the
spectrum. On the one hand, families are allowing themselves to be protected when they
have firearms and know how to handle them properly. On the other hand, it could also be
a danger in the family to have guns in the house, as “guns in the home are more often
used in accidental shootings, suicides, or criminal activity than in acts of self-defense”
(Lee, M. Stingl, Alexander).

4. Navy 4
The Gun Control Movement
The gun control debate is one that no one seems to agree on. Everyone has their own
opinions and it seems impossible for us to meet somewhere in the middle and find a common
ground. For me, the debate of gun control is not only a moral issue, but also an ethical issue. I am
tired of clicking on the news every day and hearing story after story of violence from guns. I’m
not saying that eliminating guns will solve all of our issues, but I believe tighter and stricter
guidelines for selling and purchasing guns are in order for a safer America.
The statistics of gun-related crime in America in the past few years is shocking. There
were 11,078 homicides using guns in 2010. 88% of those homicides were used by a simple
handgun, not even an assault rifle. In addition to that, there were also 53,738 injuries caused by
firearm that didn’t necessarily end in death, but still caused serious wounds (Vernick 84-87).
Reading these statistics alone were enough to open my eyes to the importance of developing a
more effective system here in the U.S.
It seems that the phrases “gun control” and “second amendment” go hand-in-hand. You
can’t hear one without the other. Most people debate that if you develop a more strict system it
will be “infringing on our rights.” However, one must ask, does the second amendment cover
carrying any weapon you want at any given moment? Justice Scalia, the judge on the District of
Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 asked just that. He stated, “The Second Amendment was not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatsoever
purpose” (Vernick 84-87).
In order to cross that bridge between infringing on rights and downright ignorance on
public use of guns, most states in the U.S. have adopted a “shall issue” policy, which states that

5. Navy 5
“persons who are lawfully permitted to own guns must be allowed to obtain a permit to carry
those firearms in public..” This seems to solve the issue as people are still allowed to carry guns
and have weapons as they please, just as long as they qualify and have the certain
documentation. That seems perfectly reasonable as convicted felons and even people with
domestic violence misdemeanors should not be allowed, in my opinion, to carry a gun freely
(Vernick 84-87).
However, there are some that are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum and
believe that regular citizens should not even be allowed to have a gun. Dr. Michael Boylan,
Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Marymount University stated that, “Gun possession by
ordinary citizens of the world is a potential threat to public health.” He argues that, “When anger
is combined with ready access to high-damage coefficient weapons… the expression of that
anger could be fatal” (Boylan 3934-3936). He makes a good point as sometimes people are not
able to control their anger and don’t think about what they are doing or exactly who they could
harm until it’s too late.
A sort of liability was proposed for the manufacturers of guns in the Kelley v. R.G
Industries debate after Kelley was seriously injured after being shot while robbed at his store.
The courts took his proposal under serious consideration and it is still in debate today. There
were arguments made that some rifles were made too extravagantly and didn’t serve the purpose
of self-defense but rather recreation and the simple joy of firing multiple rounds per second. This
product-category liability urged manufacturers of guns to closely examine their products for
safety and usefulness before selling them, because before they know it, that gun could get in the
wrong hands at the expense of someone else’s life. This product-category liability could also

6. Navy 6
provide a “political balance between unrestricted gun rights and unaddressed social harms”
(Shechter 551-578).
Perhaps the reason most lawmakers and citizens alike are scared of implementing stricter
gun control laws is that they are scared that they won’t be enforced. Dr. Boylan makes a case for
this very argument as he states that, “if we had let enforcement worries rule our legislative
agenda, then we would have never passed the 1964 Civil Rights Law or the 1965 Voting Rights
Acts” (Boylan 3934-3936). He is exactly right as we shouldn’t avoid making laws simply for the
fear of failure. After all, this is a matter of our safety and our family’s safety, and one can never
be too cautious when it comes to saving lives.

7. Navy 7
Works Cited
Bowman, JeffreyNewton, Heather. "Point: Controlling Gun Violence Is More Important Than
Controlling Guns." Points Of View: Gun Control (2013): 2. Points of View Reference
Center.Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Ballaro, BeverlyFinley, Laura. "Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives." Points Of View: Gun
Control (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center.Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Lee, M.Stingl, Alexander. "Gun Control: An Overview." Points Of View: Gun Control (2013): 1.
Points of View Reference Center.Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
SHECHTER, NEAL S. "After Newtown: Reconsidering Kelley V. R.G. Industries And The
Radical Idea Of Product-Category Liability For Manufacturers Of Unreasonably
Dangerous Firearms." Georgetown Law Journal 102.2 (2014): 551-578. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Vernick, Jon S. "Carrying Guns In Public: Legal And Public Health Implications." Journal Of
Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.(2013): 84-87. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Feb.
2014.
Boylan, Michael, et al. "Debate: Gun Control In The United States." Clinical Orthopaedics&
Related Research 471.12 (2013): 3934-3936. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Feb.
2014.