The document summarizes the key points of debate in several articles around gun control legislation. The main issues debated include requiring background checks for gun purchases, the role of guns in school shootings and violence, and the arguments for and against stricter gun control laws. Supporters argue that stricter laws could reduce gun violence and mass shootings by limiting access, while opponents counter that it would infringe on gun ownership rights and not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. The document also outlines the author's stance in support of gun rights and ownership based on arguments that criminals will still find ways to commit violence and that legal gun ownership deters crime and provides self-defense.

1. Heather Fry
2/10/2014
FYS
Debate Paper
What underlying issues are being debated in the readings? - The main issue in the
overview would be having to have a background check when you buy a gun. You must
have a waiting period in where the store has to call and do a check to make sure you are
appropriate to sell too. Another issue would be the school shootings that have taken
place such as columbine and Virginia tech. Also they mentioned that guns were used to
kill and nothing more, but they did not bring up the point of them being used as
protection. As stated in “Gun Control Saves Lives”, they reported that the United States
has the highest gun related violence. Another great point that was mentioned was that
guns are what causes these deaths, it the person behind it all. Not everyone who owns a
gun will use it to kill.
According to supporters of stricter gun control, what are some possible advantages in
favor of supporting the issue? -The advantages would be that there would be less guns
available. In that case, there might be a lower rate in gun violence and it would make
things more difficult to get a gun. There would be more background checks.Also they
would help prevent mass shootings that happen a lot in schools all around the United
States. It would also bring down the suicide rate for anyone who owns a gun.
According to those in opposition, what are some possible disadvantages to stricter gun
control laws? -The disadvantages to stricter gun control, would be for the hunters or some

2. who just want to have a gun for protection. They would have a serious problem
obtaining this guns and they would also lose their ability to obtain ammunition for their
guns. Also with gun control, you lose the protection that receive from guns. Most
Americans carry these guns because they feel that they would be safer when having a gun
on them. But this I believe will not stop gun related violence.
What fallacies of reasoning emerge from the debate? –Not all guns are used towards
violence. Some are used for hunting or even protection from harmful things. Guns are
seen as being killers, but it take the person who is controlling the gun to shoot it. The
person who is purchasing the gun should still have a background check just to make sure
that it will be put to good use.
What alternatives policy/programs have been proposed or might be developed? –That if
you have any criminal record that you cannot purchase or even own a gun. Also, that they
might eventually try and take away guns all together for the public. Also maybe having a
gun allowed in schools or something to protect in case of a mass shooter entering the
school. They can protect both the kids and themselves from danger and prevent deaths.
What implications does the debate have for families in society? – The families should not
be trusted with a fire arm. And that they will automatically use their fire arms for
violence. They believe that all families will use guns against others and that’s how
violence is going up. Although they think that all guns are used to harm but it is not the
gun that is the harmful thing, it is the shooter who is using it irresponsibly.

3. The stance that I have been assigned, is for legislation on gun control. I stand on this
stance because I believe that we as Americans should have true freedom. Guns are not only
used for killing things but they are used to give ourselves a piece of mind. We feel protected
by these weapons. Having guns would make it more costly for criminals to approach their
pray because they would not know whether or not that person had a gun on them as stated in
the journal “More guns, Less crime”. Being able to have a gun our person would lower the
rate of robberies and deaths because families and other citizens would have protection. If we
take away guns, we will higher the dangers for robberies because they victim would be
without a weapon to protect themselves.
Next, after reading the article “Unrealistic Goals of Gun Control”, they brought up
another great point, which was “those who break a country's laws will somehow experience
an attack of conscience, and it ignores the reality that even if guns disappear, bad people will
find ways to do bad things.” I do agree with this point because, bad people will always find a
way around the law. No matter how many laws we make against guns, it will not stop the
criminals from finding a way around it. Guns are here to help us survive, and protect
ourselves and our families from harmful things and people.
Finally, having background checks for a firearm is a sufficient thing. We don’t know that
the gun that is being purchased won’t somehow get stolen or taken away and used for crime.
As said in the article, “Existing Background Check Laws Are Sufficient to Maintain Public
Safety.”, the issue is not whether or not stricter gun laws might have kept weapons out of the
hands of the shooters at Columbine or Virginia Tech-or out of the hands of victims or
witnesses who might have used them to thwart the attacks. The issue is whether or not gun
control lowers overall rates of violence. And the answer to this question, based on the

4. experiences of other nations where stricter controls have been put into place.” The want us
to not blame the guns but the people using them. Back ground checks will not always solve
the gun related deaths. The gun may end up in the criminal’s hands without them even
purchasing the gun. They could either steal it or borrow it from a friend. So in my
conclusion, guns should not be taken away from our society, they should be promoted. They
can help protect us and save more lives.

5. Work Cited
1. Lee, M.Stingl, Alexander. "Gun Control: An Overview." Points Of View: Gun Control
(2013): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
2. 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. 10 Feb. 2014
3. Ballaro, BeverlyFinley, Laura. "Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives." Points Of
View: Gun Control (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 10 Feb. 2014
4. Shughart II, William F. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime And Gun
Control Laws." Southern Economic Journal 65.4 (1999): 978-981. Business Source
Premier. Web. 11 Feb. 2014
5. Wilson, Brian. "Point: The Unrealistic Goals Of Gun Control." Points Of View: Gun
Control (2013): 5. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
6. DiLascio, Tracey M. "Point: Existing Background Check Laws Are Sufficient To
Maintain Public Safety." Points Of View: Universal Background Checks For Firearm
Purchases (2014): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.