Gun Control Argumentative Analysis

Between 2000 and 2015, over 150,000 Americans were killed in gun related homicides (Zakaria). It has been estimated that there are over 310 million guns in the hands of United States citizens (Krouse). These statistics have rallied many gun-control opponents and proponents to action. Gun control opponents believe that the answer to this problem is to loosen gun control laws to dissuade potential shooters. Gun control proponents believe that the answer is to tighten gun control laws so that a gun is never put into a potential shooter’s hands. The best way to find an answer to this predicament is compare the United States’ current gun control legislation to that of other countries to see where and how the countries have succeeded and failed

On one hand, you have people pointing out that the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” allows all citizens to carry weapons and this right can not be revoked. The other side of the debate points out the line “a well-regulated militia” and argues that the founding fathers wished for guns to be used for the defense of the country. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of District of Columbia v Heller that all citizens have the right to bear arms but with restrictions for criminals and the mentally handicapped (Neily). This case effectively voided the argument about the well-regulated militia. Gun ownership could now not be banned for the average citizen. Still, the United States has an incredibly high crime rate and it is incredibly easy to buy guns. In 2015, a man with apparent emotional problems, Vester Flanagan, was able to pass a background check and acquired two Glock 9mm handguns before he went out and shot a reporter and her cameraman on live television (Johnson). A federal law enforcement officer cited the lax background checks, saying that if they had been stricter and more thorough, Flanagan would not have been able to shoot and kill two people. Guns can not be banned in the United States because of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s rulings on the issue, however, the responsible course of

Another argument is that if guns are restricted and criminals can’t get their hands on them legally, then they will just find other ways of acquiring guns through illegal means; since the criminal still gets a gun, the guns should not be restricted. These two arguments are prime examples of logical fallacies. The first argument appeals heavily to emotion: It’s purpose is to incite fear in those who are “good” and don’t have guns. However, no one is saying that “good” people shouldn’t get guns. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The purpose of gun control legislation is to stop the “bad” people from acquiring guns to commit violent crimes. The latter argument is an appeal to consequences. While potential shooters may still get their hands on weapons illegally, that doesn’t mean that legal firearms should be unrestricted. It seems naïve to say that just because criminals are going to get their hands on guns anyway that they might as well be allowed to acquire them legally. Gun-control legislation is supposed to make it harder to take the easiest path to a