Gun Control Argument Analysis

Words: 1636
Pages: 7

The recent tragedies that have occurred in the United States in the past year have sparked a number of protests across the country calling for an increase in gun control, and in extreme cases, for the banning of guns from the US. An example of one of these protests would be the March for Our Lives protests. At the front of these protests were American college and high school students. There is a problem, however, with this new demand. Many of the protesters and those calling for gun control, students and adults alike, are misinformed on the premise of guns as a whole. Often allowing looks, emotion, and the media to decide for them what they believe, instead of statistical data. Increasing gun control is unconstitutional and introducing more …show more content…
One of the examples of the latter are the activists calling for the raising of the minimum age required to own a long rifle, such as an AR-15, to the age of twenty-one. To someone that has never owned a firearm, or has little to no experience or knowledge in the area, this may sound like a reasonable law to enforce, after all long-rifles typically have larger caliber bullets, one would think they are more dangerous. However, statistics prove this idea to be completely false. According to data released by the FBI, from 2007 to 2016 more than three quarters of homicides committed in the United States were performed with handguns, not only that but more were committed with non-firearm weapons than long rifles and shotguns combined. The average total amount of murders committed per year in that seven year span were about seven thousand. Not only are handguns the …show more content…
An obvious example would be the UK, although there is no specific ban on guns, because the laws there are so strict, essentially the entire population is, in fact, disarmed. There are also, however, those who do believe that, yes guns should be banned. Those that call for the banning of guns often state that if no one has a gun there is no need for the average civilian to have a gun. After all, if the person that one is defending themselves from does not have a gun, why would the potential victim need one. This could not be further from the truth, a banning of firearms would only succeed in disarming the law abiding citizens of the United States, and criminals would still have access to firearms just not through legal means. Just as cocaine, methamphetamine, and other drugs are illegal and yet people still acquire them, criminals will will find a way to acquire guns illegally. Even if guns were to be made illegal, like those who support the banning of firearms in the US are calling for, and magically all guns in the guns in the United States disappeared. Their argument is still illogical. The possession of a gun, by someone that know how to use it, gives them an immediate advantage. It does not matter how strong someone is (or how weak), if they are in the