Gun Control Pros And Cons

Introduction The objective of this paper is to evaluate the extremely controversial topic of gun control. The gun control debate has two main sides to it. One side advocates for gun control laws to be changed in a way where they become more strict. The other side believes that gun control laws are fine the way they are now, and that they should not be tampered with. The first section of this paper, the Literature, aims to assess these two opposing views of gun control. Both of these opposing views will then be evaluated for their policies, ideologies, and underlying values that are at the basis of the debate. The next section of this paper, Discussion, intends to examine the many implications, strengths, and weaknesses for each of the arguments.

Gun control activists would like to see many changes in gun control laws, including making it more difficult to obtain a firearm, banning high capacity magazines, banning military-grade firearms, and many more. Currently, over 30,000 people die from firearm injuries each year in the United States (“Fatal Injury Data”). Gun control activists believe that changes the ones listed above will reduce this number of deaths caused by firearms in the United States drastically. One thing that makes it difficult for people advocating for a change in gun control is the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. However, many of these activists argue that the Second Amendment was never intended to protect the right of individuals to own guns. Instead, they argue that the Second Amendment was created to protect the right of militias to own guns. This can be seen in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, where John Paul Stevens, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that “the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee ‘to keep and bear arms’ was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias” (US Supreme Court). On top of this, gun control activists also argue that the Second Amendment was created

One of the main arguments for these pro-gun activists is that guns do not kill people, people kill people. They believe that guns are not the reason for firearm deaths, the person pulling the trigger is. Another common argument for pro-gun activists is that stricter gun control laws will not prevent criminals, or potential criminals, from acquiring guns. Guns rights activist John Lott, speaking on gun control laws, stated “the problem with such laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them, leaving potential victims defenseless” (Lott). This leads to the next strong argument many pro-gun activists participate in: the argument that guns are needed for self defense. According to a report from Pew Research Center, a majority of people they surveyed, both gun owners and non-gun owners, agreed that stricter gun control laws would make it more difficult for citizens to protect their homes and families (“Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason”). The opportunity to protect their homes and families is one of the main reasons why pro-gun activists do not want the current gun control laws to