The document summarizes three articles that discuss gun control from different perspectives. The first article outlines sociological, ethical, and legal views on gun control and debates over policies like "Stand Your Ground" laws. The second argues that gun culture needs more control than guns themselves, and notes advantages of both stricter and looser laws. It questions the meaning of the Second Amendment and suggests addressing societal issues that contribute to irresponsible gun use. The third cites statistics showing countries with tougher gun laws have less gun violence, argues background checks should include semi-automatic rifles, but notes the challenge of regulating the existing number of US guns.

1. Mason Dino
Gun Control Overview
In the article “Gun Control: An Overview,” the main issue being debated is whether there
should be more legislation on firearms and the interpretation of the second amendment. There
are three major points to this argument: a sociological view, ethical view, and a legal view. The
sociological view is the concern of how gun control laws will affect gun violence. Looking at the
ethical point of view, it is an individual’s right to own a gun for protection and prevention of
crime. Finally, the legal side has to do with the second amendment. The second amendment
interpretation is up in the air because the question is whether the right to bear arms if for private
use or only well-regulated militias. Some policies that are being debated are the “Stand Your
Ground,” bills which give citizens the right to defend themselves with deadly weapons. This
article does not say much about advantages or disadvantages, but an advantage might be lower
gun violence while a disadvantage might be less profits for people selling guns because a more in
depth background check would cost more.
In the article, “Point: Controlling Gun Violence is more important than Controlling
Guns,” the main point is that guns are used to kill and gun culture needs to be controlled more so
than guns themselves. Some advantages of not having stricter laws are still being able to hunt for
food which people have been doing for centuries. Another advantage is for self-defense. A
couple advantages for stricter laws would be more in depth background checks and possible less
gun violence. A mistaken belief among Americans is that the second amendment grants people
the right to bear arms, but the text says, “A well-regulated militia.” The original meaning of this
was that members of the military used their own guns to defend the country and the guns were
kept in their own home, but eventually the guns were provided for them so they were not kept in

2. homes. At the end of this article it states, “Instead of trying to control guns, perhaps the time has
come for Americans to take a hard look at why so many of our citizens feel the need to use guns
irresponsibly.” Instead of trying to create more guns laws, maybe the society needs some work
like changing movies and video games because they are all based around violence. A gun is just
a machine, plenty of people use them responsibly, but the media only sees the people using them
in the wrong way. Families are affected either positively or negatively. Families in rural areas
like DC, where murder rates are the highest, would be more acceptable to more gun laws because
it could provide a safer environment. In more rural areas, it might affect families negatively
because they might not be able to teach their kids proper gun safety or not being able to hunt
depending on how harsh the law.
The last article, “Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives,” is about more gun control.
United States has extremely high rates of gun violence. This article has statistical evidence
showing that more gun control will lower gun violence. For example, England and Japan have
the toughest gun laws in the world and have 100 times less homicides than America. This is
because it is much easier to access a gun in America compared to other countries. An advantage
of more gun control would be less gun violence. Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle especially
with no background check. Even though other countries have strict laws and low gun violence
that does not mean it will work in America because there are still hundreds of millions of guns
out there. That could be the only disadvantage from this article. A fallacy from this is that some
people truly believe it is there right to own a semi-automatic weapon if they want, but it does not
say anything about that in the Constitution.