Argumentative Essay on Gun Control

This assignment is an argumentative essay on the topic of gun control in the United States. The student is required to critically analyze the case for stricter gun control laws, considering the arguments both for and against it. The essay must address the concerns of both sides, including the potential impact on public safety and individual rights. References from various sources are provided to support the arguments. The assignment requires the student to evaluate the arguments on both sides and propose a solution that balances the concerns of both sides.

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
GUN CONTROL
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

The pervasive gun culture in USA has come under criticism in the wake of various shooting
incidents that have taken place in the recent times thus putting the lives of innocent people at
risk. In this regards, it is essential to note that USA has the highest per capita ownership of
guns with about 88 guns in 100 people. It is estimated that about 22% of the population in
USA possesses atleast one gun. In the above background, it makes sense to critically analyze
the case for stricter gun control laws (ProCon)
One key argument against gun control norms is that it would infringe the Second Amendment
which states the following (Rowe)
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Further, considering the American tradition, gun control would impinge on the liberty and
freedom of people. However, the counter argument is that the rights under the Second
Amendment are not unlimited and unchecked. Also, recent judgements have highlighted that
carrying concealed firearms without necessary permit is not a constitutional right (Burke)
A key argument for gun control is that it would bring down the gun related which stand at
464,033 from 1999 to 2013. Varying studies have also indicated that legal purchase and
possession of firearm tends to enhance the risk of violent death. This is especially true for
young children who are especially vulnerable. However, the counter argument is that
possession of legal firearms has led to drop rates in violent crimes owing to presence of
defensive mechanism for the victims. Studies have been cited whereby it has been indicated
that banning weapons does not have any material impact on the murders. Also, it has been
found that states having highest gun ownership increase have witnessed the most drop in
violent crimes (ProCon)

Further, it has been cited that people have the right to self-defense considering that it is
unreasonable to expect the presence of police at all times. The NRA (National Rifle
Association) quotes that rifles are used as a self –defense mechanism annually about 2.5
million times. Infact as many as 37 states have a right in their respective Constitution with
regards to possession of firearms for security purpose (Rowe). On the contrary, the
proponents of gun control cite statistics to support their argument that runs are rarely used in
self–defense. It has been estimated that in all the violent crimes between 2007 and 2011,
firearms have been used as a defensive mechanism in only 0.79% of the cases. This figure is
even more dismal in case of property related crimes. Thus, the advocates of gun control cite
that the possession of firearms is more used for implementing heinous crimes and mass
shootings rather than serving as a self –defense mechanism (ProCon)
Also, a key argument against gun control is that even after implementation of these, there
would not be much drop in the crime rate as majority of the guns used for committing these
crimes are legally owned weapons Normally, these are obtained from friends, relatives or are
even stolen. This is also supported by various studies which indicate that the guns possessed
by criminals tend to arise from legal means. As a result, it is feared that gun control laws if
supported could lead to a complete blanket ban over possession of guns. This would therefore
allow the government to yield more power than required and hence end up jeopardizing the
safety of the citizens who would then have to rely solely on the police and other security
services (Rowe). Also, measures under control law such as background check along with
micro-stamping have raised privacy concerns amongst those who are lobbying against gun
control (ProCon). On the other hand, the supporters of gun control tend to cite the societal
costs associated with gun violence which tends to run in billions of dollars and hence lead to
wasting of taxpayers’ money. Also, there is the demand to ban high capacity magazines
which have the potential to turn a murder into mass murders (Burke)

On the basis of the above discussion, it is apparent that there are valid arguments on both
sides. As a result, it is imperative that the government must tread with caution and should aim
at introducing gun control laws trying to maintain a fine balance between the concerns on
both sides. Besides, it would also make sense to independently evaluate the arguments on
both sides so as to implement a law which is just and ensures the safety of the American
people without jeopardizing their liberty and constitutional rights.

References
Burke, David. “Why The Arguments Against Gun Control Are Wrong.” 10 Mar. 2017. Web.
5 Mar. 2018. < https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-the-arguments-against-
gun-control-are-wrong_us_59d6405ce4b0666ad0c3cb34>.
ProCon. "Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted." 10 May 2017. Web. 4 Mar. 2018.
<https://gun-control.procon.org/>.
Rowe, R. "Here's Why Gun Control Doesn't Make Sense Right Now." 15 Oct. 2017. Web. 5
Mar. 2018. <https://www.ranker.com/list/arguments-against-gun-control/richard-
rowe>.