

Is everyone in the United States really trust worthy enough to carry around a gun everywhere they go? Gun control, or the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians, is one of the most common social issues in America today (“Gun Control”). It may seem as if this topic is not that big of an issue, but once someone hears that “the United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women),” he or she will realize how big of a deal it is (“Background of the Issue”). When it comes to the idea of gun control, there are multiple different opinions on how intense restrictions should be. The proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; the gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. On the other hand, opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime (“Should More Gun”). While both of these sides have good reasoning, it is important to look into the background, facts, and details on gun control. After looking into this topic in full detail, one would agree that more gun control laws should be enforced because as the number of guns increases, the amount of deaths increases, people continue to use them in the wrong ways, and they are becoming more dangerous.

It is obvious that the number of guns around the United States has significantly increased. People walk around every day with a gun in their pants, have one under their bed, in a safe somewhere, or even stowed away in a locker. It does not so much matter where the gun is, but whether or not someone actually owns one. It was first noticed that the number of guns exceeds the population of the U.S in 2009, when Barack Obama became president. When he first became president there was talk about changing gun laws, which motivated gun owners to get more guns and for non-gun owners to buy one (Ingraham). To get a true idea of how many guns are owned, an article says “adding up new guns and imports and subtracting gun exports, in 2013 there would have been roughly 357 firearms in the U.S—40 million more guns than people. This is just an estimate. These numbers are blind to firearms that enter and exit the country illegally, and to guns that break down, or are lost or destroyed” (Ingraham). It is shocking to hear that the population of the U.S is 317 million people, and even more shocking to know that there is 40 million more guns than there is people. Looking at this in a more mathematical manner, one can conclude that it is highly likely for some people to own more than just one firearm. Even though guns continuously break or get lost, the amount of firearm is and will continue to increase unless more restrictions are put in place. 

Even though some still believe otherwise, the amount of deaths actually increases as the amount of guns increases. In an article that talks about the increasing amount of murders, it states that “it is a basic rule of any empirical research: If [someone] want[s] to evaluate how much a single factor impacts something else, [he/she] should do [his/her] very best to control for all other variables to ensure that the single factor is the only thing being analyzed” (Lopez). So with this rule, researchers make sure to go through all sorts of variables including: economic outcomes, alcohol consumption, rates of urbanization, and other crime rates. After continuously looking into these variables, researchers still found a strong association between firearm prevalence and homicides. In 2013, a study led by a Boston University School of Public Health researcher concluded, “after controlling for multiple variables, the study found that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level” (Lopez). Just like any other empirical research, it is important to look into every detail that may affect the result, rather than just the main point of focus. More enforcement on gun control may not stop every incident, but it will reduce the amount of gun violence in America. 

There are many common ways guns are used in the United States that are the reasons why laws on gun control should be enforced more. One important example of this is homicides. In an article, it is stated that “there were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 174,773 homicides (37.7% of total deaths)” (“Should More”). When it comes to homicide rates, the United States has the highest rate compared to any other nation (McClurg, Andrew J, et al 63).  The old quote “guns don’t kill people- people kill people” is true in a way that guns cannot hurt anyone without someone being behind it firing it. Although the book was written many years ago, it states “evidence suggests that a combination of the ready availability of guns and the willingness to use maximum force in interpersonal conflict is the most important single contribution to the high U.S. death rate from violence” (McClurg, Andrew J, et al 66). What this information shows is that the easy availability of guns is what leads to more deaths. Gun control laws need to become stricter if anyone ever wants the homicide rates to decrease, because otherwise people will find reasons to kill others. 

Another wrong way guns are used is for suicide. Looking at it through statistics, between the years of 1999 and 2013, “there were 464,033 total gun deaths” and of those deaths, “270,237 [were] suicides (58.2% of total deaths)” (“Should More”). Since suicide deaths can sometimes be a forgotten statistic, it is shocking to hear the number of people who have killed themselves. In order to change the amount of suicides from bad to better, certain restrictions need to be placed in order to own a gun. Implementing federal universal background checks for ammunition purchases and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths, and more specifically firearm deaths. If more restrictions were put on the laws regarding gun ownership, less people would own them, and the amount of suicides would decrease. Since “firearm related suicides accounted for 61% of the gun deaths in the United States,” it is apparent that the most common type of suicide is through firearm. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable (“Should More”). 

The idea that loose gun control laws cause more accidental shootings may be low on the statistical standpoint, but it is still commonly used in gun debates. This idea does not so much correlate with the firearm death statistics, but rather is important to the category of gun misuse. It is important because of the pivotal role it plays in the debate over whether keeping a gun in the home for protection entails more risk than benefit (McClurg, Andrew J, et al 92). One of the main reasons accidental shootings is used in gun debates is because it involves children. When the book on gun control and gun rights says “the image of a small child finding his parents’ gun and killing himself or a playmate is an emotionally powerful one” it lies a special stress on the risks of gun accidents to children (McClurg, Andrew J, et al 93). It is important for people to realize that the more flexible gun control laws become, the more dangerous the world becomes. It is frightening enough to see a grown adult holding a gun, and even more frightening to only imagine a young kid holding one. 

The Second Amendment is one of the main revolutionary roots that the extensive gun culture came from. The Second Amendment states: "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" (“Should More”). Most people who own a gun use the Second Amendment as their excuse claiming it intended to protect gun ownership of all individuals so that they can participate in the militia to keep the peace and defend the country if needed. Although it may be interpreted by some this way, the Second Amendment was actually intended to protect the rights of the militias to own guns, not the right of individuals. A student at the New York University of Law stated “there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed” (“Should More”). Even though it seems as if laws have become more flexible, everyone should continue following the Second Amendment, which does not give any individual the free choice of owning a gun. 

One of the most common arguments used against gun control is self-defense. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of self-defense in law is “a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one’s own person from physical attack.” The biggest claim most people have when it comes to owning a gun for self defense is that the police cannot protect everyone all of the time. What they mean by this is that some people are put into certain situations where they have no other way to protect themselves other than to physically hurt the person attacking them. Pew Research stated, “61% of men and 56% of women surveyed said that stricter gun laws would make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families” with the attempt to prove that gun control is unnecessary (“Should More”). Although legal rules vary among jurisdictions, it is generally recognized that a person has a right to use force to prevent a threatened harm when he/she reasonably believes the use of force is necessary, even if it turns out he/she was mistaken. On the other hand, people are entitled to use deadly force in self-defense only when they reasonably believe that no lesser force will suffice and that they are threatened with deadly force or certain violent felonies (McClurg, Andrew J, et al 4). Overall, self-defense is not a right to take revenge, nor is it a right to bring upon punishment, but it is a right to prevent threatened harm. 

Although self-defense is a strong reason as to why everyone should be able to own guns, guns are actually rarely used in self-defense. In an article that provides both pros and cons for gun control, it informs the reader “of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior” (“Should More”). What this statistic shows is while it is important to be able to protect oneself, it is rare for a gun to be necessary in order to do so. In an article on Los Angeles Times that tries to argue gun control is not the answer, it gives no accurate statistic on how common it is for guns to be used for self-defense. This article specifically says, “Estimates differ as to how common this is, but the numbers are not trivial. Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year” (Wilson). When looking at articles that are for gun control, a lot of statistics are provided to prove a point. Whereas, like Los Angeles Times, articles that are against gun control seem to have a more difficult time providing clear statistical evidence. In the book “Gun Control & Gun Rights” the authors narrow the doubts about the defensive utility of guns to three beliefs. These three beliefs being: “(1) civilians do not need any self-protective devices, because they will never confront criminals, or at least will never do so while they have access to a gun, or (2) they can rely on the police for protection, or (3) they are not able to use guns effectively, regardless of need” (McClurg, Andrew J, et al 6). While considering these three beliefs, one can see that self-defense is not a strong enough reason to take away gun control. 

A theory that has been around since the early 1960’s has the basic idea that fewer guns equal less gun crime. In order for this theory to begin working at all, drastic changes in the supply of guns will be necessary. A strong gun control advocate, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, explained the theory this way: “If [someone] does not ban all guns, they might as well ban none of them.” Putting aside the issue of the Second Amendment, which affirms the right to keep and bear arms, a gun ban does not have broad popular support (What Should We). Since there are so many variables that go along with gun violence, no single policy could stop all gun crime. This is why so many lawmakers, including President Barack Obama in recent remarks, have gone out of their way to say that gun control would make gun violence more rare, but not totally end it. In an article on gun violence, it says “the tremendous number of guns in circulation is one of the issues that makes America — and some states in particular — unique in the world, and explains why the US seems to be so far ahead of its peers when it comes to lethal violence” (Lopez). While everyone wants the US to be number one in as many ways possible, violence and gun crime should be the ones that are avoided, not accomplished. 

In conclusion, it is extremely important for everyone to recognize that while there is no change in gun restrictions, people are continuously getting hurt. If more enforcement is not put on laws regarding gun control then the amount of homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings will increase. Since gun control is not being strongly forced in the US, people think it is normal to own and walk around with a gun. To get an idea of what may help these high rates decrease, an article says, “To reduce firearm mortality, the study's authors say the federal government should focus on implementation of universal background checks and firearm identification nationally. Such a move, the study's findings show, could cut the rate of gun deaths by more than 90 percent” (Leonard). Because guns will never go away entirely, it is critical for the US to lay down strong restrictions. It is critical that the government places strong restrictions in order to keep those who are not trusted with a gun away from owning one. After a lot of research and studies, it is obvious that will the number of guns increases, the amount of deaths increases, people continue to use them in the wrong ways, and they are becoming more dangerous. It is time that the government realizes how out of hand this issue has become, and finally do something about it. 
