Argumentative Essay: How Should Gun Laws Be Changed, if at All?In an increasingly violent world, gun control and legislation is an essential discussion that must take place in a civilized society. Considering that the United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries, it is crucial that gun control is in the spotlight and appropriately addressed. We cannot ignore statistical evidence that links violence and violent crimes to illegally or easily obtained guns, and there needs to be wholesale changes. Despite traditional opposition to change, gun laws need more restrictions for a multitude of reasons. The relative ease of access to guns, the continual rise in reported gun related accidents, homicides, and mass shootings, the evolution of society since the 2nd amendment was enacted, and the overall safety of the general public are just some of the obvious reasons for stricter enforcement of gun legislation. 

Protecting the rights of citizens to bear arms, utilize guns for sport and hobbies, and to legally purchase and collect all types of firearms for personal enjoyment should be a privilege that law abiding citizens earn, but it should not be at the expense of the safety of people who choose not to arm themselves. When the constitutional right to bear arms becomes muddled with large volume magazines, automatic weapons, and the refusal to utilize reasonable background checks it becomes an attack on one’s personal safety. Any person that wants to coexist with their neighbor and fellow citizen in peace, and has an opinion on how this is best carried out, has the right to have an opinion and to speak out when it comes to their personal safety. 

Before diving into the gun control debate, it is important to first understand the basics of gun law in the United States today. While gun laws vary from state to state, there are a number of federal gun laws enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  An individual as young as 18 can buy a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer and at 21 can buy a handgun.  Any dealer is required by the ATF to hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which enables them to buy and sell firearms (Jones).  The sale of any firearm must be documented.  This allows law enforcement to trace guns back to their original purchasers (Jones). However, the form must be retained by the dealer for 20 years, which prevents the ATF from creating an electronic registry of firearm purchases. If this were allowed, law enforcement could more easily track recovered firearms, which could potentially keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Another aspect of gun law that is crucial to understand is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), allows dealers to check a buyer’s eligibility with a search that usually takes no more than one minute. This background check is not required by private sales (guns shows and online purchases) which make up almost 20% of all transactions (Killough). There are numerous findings that the NICS can detect that would make it illegal to sell to an individual. Some examples are those convicted of any crime punishable by a term exceeding one year, anyone who is declared mentally ill, and anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Keeping guns out of the hands of those with mental health issues is imperative but unfortunately, states are not legally required by law to do so (DeLuca). 

Now delving into the actual debate, one of the problems with gun violence that contributes to the issue the most is the fact that guns are too easy to obtain and are too plentiful in numbers in our society. The current system for registering and owning a gun proves to be futile in many cases where guns fall into the wrong hands. Regardless if the gun was legally or illegally obtained, if more restrictions existed on the sale of guns, there would be fewer guns in general, therefore decreasing crime. There will always be a black market and people who are intent on doing harmful things, but an overall decrease in the availability of guns and tightening of laws would have a direct impact on lessening gun and violent crime. The opposition claims that we would be better off if our citizens were armed and that this method would deter crime - which is wrong-headed and illogical. Backing up this point is data that makes it incredibly clear that arming more people leads to a higher gun-related murder rate: in the five states with the lowest gun ownership, the firearm-related murder rate was between 3-5 people per 100,000. The firearm-related murder rate for the five states with the highest gun ownership was alarmingly higher at 17-20 gun deaths per 100,000 people (VPC).

If all citizens were encouraged to bear arms, crime rates would skyrocket. There would be even more accidents and mishap, more opportunities for gun theft, and substantially more unwarranted crime. In addition to that, this would immediately make every conflict that occurs inherently more dangerous, and even make daily tasks like running errands a potentially risky endeavor. According to a New Yorker article on gun presence in the United States, “there are nearly three hundred million privately owned firearms in the United States: a hundred and six million handguns, a hundred and five million rifles, and eighty-three million shotguns. That works out to about one gun for every American,” and that is before looking at illegal, unregistered weapons (LePore). It is almost inconceivable that a wealthy and educated nation like the United States could have a gun ownership rate so much higher than war-torn countries like Iraq (34.2 per 100,000), or countries like Mexico (15 per 100,000) and Colombia (5.9 per 100,000) that are overrun by drug cartels (“Gun homicides and gun ownership by country”). These statistics are frighteningly high and just go to show there are already enough gun- related deaths, between homicides, suicides, accidents, and mass shootings; so, we certainly don’t need to add more guns to the issue as a solution. 

The statistics of deaths caused by a gun are exponentially increasing and show the demand for change. Guns are involved far too often in day-to-day life between freak accidents, altercations with armed police figures, and by citizens towards other citizens for personal motives. Owning a gun affords citizens more power than some should be allowed to hold. Ordinary people walking the streets we all share should not have the power to take anyone’s life in a matter of seconds, because they’ve chosen to arm themselves. Too many unqualified, untrained, uneducated and irresponsible citizens own guns. In 2011 alone, 467,321 people were victims (either killed or injured) of a crime committed with a firearm, and the weapon used in 68% of murders was a firearm (VPC). In a frighteningly high percentage of instances when gun related violence and crime ensued, the situation didn’t necessarily require using a weapon to avoid an incident, but rather an irresponsible owner made a rash decision to use a firearm. In a recent article from The Trace, shocking statistics regarding gun violence were provided exposing that “12,942 people had been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder,” which does not even include the 20,000 people who take their own lives with a gun every year (Mascia). 

People who own guns for collecting, sport or hunting are being prioritized over the greater good’s safety as the opposition defends their right to their hobby or collection. However, it is these people who leave their gun unprotected and allow a child to access it and accidentally discharge the weapon, and that own rifles and high magazine guns that can easily be stolen or fall into the wrong hands. We cannot allow citizens to bear arms if they will be so foolish and careless with such powerful weapons as to allow headlines such as “an American child under 12 has died by intentional and accidental gunfire every other day” and “toddlers injure or kill themselves” according to analysis by NBC News in the same Trace article (Mascia). While the decision to own a gun may be personal, it has the potential to bring negative consequences to people who would otherwise be uninvolved. It is the responsibility of a gun-owner to prevent accidents from happening, and when the benefits of a hobby circulated around leisure and sport are weighed down enormously by the ever-prevalent risk of injury or death that comes in part with owning a firearm, we have long past the threshold of responsibility.

The opposing side argues that the proposed gun laws would be an infringement upon our fundamental right to bear arms stated in the 2nd Amendment. This is one of the most controversial issues surrounding the debate on increasing gun laws. It’s a common argument from the opposition and probably the most legitimate and problematic of the counter arguments towards stricter gun control. While most of the other arguments can be refuted in defense of the safety of the greater good, the argument surrounding the 2nd Amendment is the touchiest of them all because it is said to strip citizens of one of the fundamental rights they have as a U.S. citizen and go against our own country’s constitution. Contrary to this belief, the 2nd Amendment is outdated and it is only logical due to societal circumstances to update the amendment in some ways. Several reasons the argument of the 2nd Amendment by the opposition is invalid are presented in the Congressional Digest article, including that the need the for citizens to bear arms “1) is now obsolete, with the presence of professional police forces; (2) was intended solely to guard against suppression of State militias by the central government and is therefore restricted in scope by that intent; and (3) does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but rather one that can be limited by reasonable requirements” (Gun Control Overview). The amendment also leaves too much room for interpretation and “is being misread in today’s modern society,” which is why we’re stuck in the position we are in today. Because of the time frame in which the amendment was created, it is taking things out of context to say that every citizen is guaranteed the right to bear arms (Gun Control Overview). According to an Against the Current article, the amendment was made when slavery was at its peak in order to give more power to slave owners over their slaves and “may have been extended as a self-defense measure for slave owners who feared uprisings in the 18th century” (Gun Control: The Carnage In Context). Regardless of what standing society was in when the amendment was made, society has evolved enough since the time it was created to justify the premise that in some regard the amendment is out of touch with where we are as a country today. Some argue that it goes against what our country originally stood for to change anything in our original constitution, but it is unreasonable to think that nothing in society would change in the hundreds of years that have passed since the original constitution was drafted. We are a much more violent society today, so an amendment regarding this topic is subject to updating. When you combine this logic with the fact there were misinterpretations of the amendment initially due to the historical context, and keep in mind that the proposed laws do not completely abolish the amendment but rather adjust it, it invalidates the argument that gun control laws strip citizens of their fundamental rights. 

The current restriction proposals do not completely abolish the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. In fact, all they do is enforce things that should already be common sense to enact. The proposals suggest stricter background checks, and the prohibition of purchase by people on the FBI watch list. These both seem like they should be givens and that there should be no protest regarding such implications. These propositions wouldn't affect the people who are anti- gun-control due to hobby or sport; essentially, the only people affected are mentally ill people or terrorists. Otherwise, you may uphold your right to bear arms. There should be absolutely no realistic protest against the restriction of background checks on gun purchases; it is solely to protect our country and make sure weapons do not fall into the hands of mentally ill people, or those with criminal backgrounds. According to a recent Daily Dot “report showing that suspected terrorists were able to purchase over 2,000 guns in a four-year period,” this has happened so many times in the past and been the cause of a mass shooting or homicide and we can’t keep letting these things slip through the cracks (Sankin). To name a few, Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza was mentally ill and obtained a rifle from his parents, as was the shooter of the Ohio school shooting, and the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho who killed 32 people with a firearm he purchased after passing a background check despite being declared mentally ill two years prior (DeLuca). In regard to mentally ill people obtaining weapons, the opposition claims in a Journal of Criminal Law that “a better solution to reducing gun violence includes offering community programs and preventive training in educational and workplace environments to allow for early detection and intervention” (Wolf). While this seems ideal in theory, it is unrealistic because we don’t know someone is mentally ill or obtains a gun while ill until after they’ve committed a crime, leaving us no option but to tighten the background checks and monitor more heavily the independent sales and gun shows that create loopholes to such background checks. These loopholes are allowing far too many innocent people to die due to the wrong people easily obtaining guns as “forty percent of the guns purchased in the United States are bought from private sellers at gun shows, or through other private exchanges, such as classified ads, which fall under what is known as the ‘gun-show loophole’ and are thus unregulated,” according to a New Yorker article (LePore). Even more alarming is the fact that 81.8% of guns used in mass killings were obtained legally, further displaying the correlation between mass shootings and illegally obtained weapons (DeLuca). 

There are also proposed restrictions on the recreational ownership of assault weapons, military grade weapons, and certain magazine capacity limitations - which are all things that seem as though they should be givens as well. If a person is using a gun for an appropriate purpose such as hunting or even self-defense, there is no need for such a high power, military-style weapon. The job can be done just as well without an automatic weapon, and would save lives in the process. Such high capacity magazines and assault weapons are unnecessary for what would be considered normal and acceptable civilian use. Military weapons are obviously intended to kill in the most efficient way possible, so when a civilian gun is modeled after something used by the military, it enhances the civilian’s ability to kill and gives them an unnecessary amount of power. Examples of this undue power are the .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle used to kill 27 people in the Newton, CT shootings or the AR-15 assault rifle that claimed the lives of 12 in the Aurora, CO shooting. The complaints of people who want to use rifles and other weapons for hunting should not be prioritized over the greater good’s safety because the proposed restrictions would allow law-abiding, mentally stable citizens to continue bearing arms or hunting to a reasonable extent. This compromise reaches a middle ground, despite the false belief that this debate only has two harsh sides representing “the extremes of the two existing major parties... [being that] Democrats want to confiscate all guns... [and] Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions” (Sankin). With these points in mind, it seems that anyone who object to such propositions would fall under one of the categories: people who would no longer be able to buy guns, do not want to give up their weapons, or are involved in some illegal gun business. It is unacceptable for such reasons to prevent these restrictions from passing when so many people are dying due to gun violence each and every day. The safety of the entire population needs to be our main concern. 

While some may say gun control laws go against our own constitution because of the 2nd Amendment, ignoring gun violence goes against our constitution much more as it defies everything our country stands for when we ignore the hundreds of thousands of people dying from such malicious and brutal attacks. Children are dying in mass shootings at schools because mentally ill people are getting their hands on guns and innocent people are being robbed of a lifetime of opportunity. Even more shameful is the disregard to give the victims justice after they die; we are allowing people to get away with this kind of violence. It’s disgraceful that our country isn’t upholding our beliefs of acceptance, opportunity, and safety; and this disgrace is displayed as we consistently see “a backlash against politicians who offer ‘thought and prayers’ after mass shootings but no legislative action” (Mascia). Groups of people are targeted in violent hate crimes, like the mass shooting in the gay bar in “Orlando, motivated by hate, driven perhaps by mental instability and certainly empowered by a culture of violence,” and our country still isn’t doing anything to change gun violence (Clarke). Even in day to day life, from police brutality to unnecessarily discharged weapons, to citizens killing each other with unregistered guns, people are killed every day by gun violence that is motivated by racism, ignorance and hate. We are allowing this kind of discrimination, hate and violence to infiltrate our country and soil our country’s original ideals. We are portraying a country of people that allow sporadic acts of hate and violence. 

Those who argue against gun control and encourage everyone to be armed in order to protect themselves are only encouraging more violence. Instead of this, we need to become a 

country that doesn’t feel the need to have a gun in their pocket every time we leave the house. Many European countries have completely banned the sale or ownership of guns to the general public and are in much better standing than us in regards to overall deaths and deaths due to gun violence. In a Vice News YouTube video where people from all over the world are asked about their thoughts on U.S. gun violence, it is made clear that “from a foreign perspective, [guns] are out of hand” (Do We Need Stricter Gun Control?). We need to follow this foreign ideal in order to uphold our reputation as the land of opportunity and greatness, because in our current standing, foreigners look at our violence in disgust. An exemplary model of the entire gun law system is that of the UK, which has some of the most strict gun laws in the entire world. Applicants for gun licenses must declare any criminal and medical problems, and any previous treatment for depression or mental illness. They are typically interviewed to ensure they have “good reason” to possess a firearm. After receiving the license they must renew it every five years, and it can be revoked and weapons confiscated if the holder is no longer deemed to be fit to hold weapons. Gun holders must keep their weapons in locked boxes that are bolted to the floors or walls, which are subject to random police inspection. Additionally, as of 1998, all handguns and assault weapons are banned. This has lead to an incredible decrease in gun-related homicides. In 2011, there were 59 people killed using firearms in England and Wales combined compared to 77 homicides in DC alone. In addition to that, an assault weapon ban that the United States should aim to replicate is the one that Australia put into place in 1996. In addition to banning all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, the government also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 guns from private owners. While it may seem costly, it was very effective. In the decade following the ban, there were no mass shootings and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (Plumer). There is no reason the United States could not support a similar system to the gun laws of the UK and Australia.

Ultimately, the arguments presented by the opposition are overpowered by the logic of the arguments presented in defense of gun control. Gun control is necessary due to the ease of access to guns, increasing gun related deaths, the Second Amendment being outdated, and the safety and standing of our society. The protection of the greater good should be the main concern of a democracy in this case. It’s imperative that the general public of this country as well as those in positions of power truly consider the role that guns play in America; are the benefits guns offer worth dealing with the egregious problems they bring? We need to forget the notion that guns keep us safe; we have proven time and time again that the public is too irresponsible to own firearms and they, in fact, detriment our safety in uber-violent and exponentially increasing ways. Outdated gun laws that have been ignored or backwardly defended by politicians for our country’s entire history need to be seriously reconsidered.
