Colton Bloomquist

4/18/2016

Argumentative Essay First Draft

The controversial topic on whether or not the U.S. should increase gun control
for civilians has risen immensely over the last several years due to multiple
shooting incidents in a variety of public settings. But is increased gun control the
correct path to take in order to lower the crime rate involving firearms and amount
of mass shootings across the United States? Some people agree, others do not. As
for me, I believe banning the ownership of firearms by civilians would not decrease
the crime rate across America.
While reading the essay, Guns Save Lives by Scott L. Bach, a specific
paragraph stuck out to me. He opens the essay by giving the example of an arsonist
using a match to light a building on fire. He later states The match has no mind of
its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. This leads
me to think, what is the main purpose of a gun. Some people use firearms to hunt,
others use them for fun or for sport. I believe the primary purpose of a firearm is to
be able to protect yourself, your family, and your property if the need arises. This
would mean a women protecting herself from a rapist, or a father protecting his
family and personal belongings during a home break-in. Statistics show that in cities
where a concealed carry permit is allowed, crime rates for rape, robbery, and

murder are 10% lower than that of a city who has banned concealed carry permits.
This statistic gives the idea that if a law banning the ownership of guns is passed it
could actually increase the rate of the previously stated crimes.
Now lets discuss the history of prohibition style laws implemented by the
government and how they affected that society. The first example is the well-known
historical event that occurred in Germany, year 1938. Germanys government
passed a law forcing all Jewish civilians to give up their guns just months before the
start of WWII. Without their firearms the Jewish people held no defense against the
hatred of Hitler and his followers. This clearly shows the importance for all civilians
to have the freedom to own a firearm even in times of peace. Another historical
event caused by too much government involvement is the prohibition of alcohol in
America during the 1920s. Yes, the prohibition did stop some law abiding citizens
from attaining alcohol, however the positive effects were greatly outweighed by the
negative effects. In the essay The Consequences of Gun Control by Eric Peterson
he explores the topic of The Prohibition and states Not only did it fail to achieve the
desired goal, but mob violence also increased as factions fought to control the black
market supply. Likewise, the War on Drugs has not significantly decreased drug
usage, but rather inadvertently assisted in the formation of powerful Drug Cartels
and increased violence over drug-sales turf in our cities. Peterson quickly gives two
examples of how prohibition has historically failed over and over again. If the quote
history repeats itself is true than we can expect a significant rise in organized
crime if the ownership of guns were to be banned.
When discussing the controversial topic of gun control the comparison of the
United States to other countries is often debated. While researching this section of
the topic I came across the article Does Gun Control=Death Control? written by

William Huesler. He discusses the numbers and shows hard facts regarding the
comparisons between homicide rates and amount of gun control for countries
around the world. While comparing Mexico to the U.S. Huesler states, Mexico has
the highest firearms homicide rate, which is about 3 times higher than that of the
United States. We should note that guns are banned for all civilians in Mexico.
Another statistic stated by Huesler shows that Switzerland and Israel have low gun
control laws but an extremely high gun possession rate. Yet, when compared to the
United States the homicide by firearms rate is exceptionally lower, with Switzerland
having a rate of .23 per 100,000 and the U.S. having a rate of 3.43 per 100,000.
Using the previously stated facts you can confidently say the answer to Hueslers
question is no, gun control does not equal death control.
Now, there are those who would disagree with my viewpoints. Those who
would state that all of the previously mentioned arguments are null and void
because if the law to ban guns was passed then no one would have guns. They say
that if the law is passed then you as a civilian will not need a gun to protect yourself
from a criminal because the criminal will not have a gun either. There are numbers
that prove about 6% of all crimes that involve a firearm were committed with a gun
that was legally purchased. Which would mean that if guns were banned then
technically we would stop only 6% of crimes which is about 28,000 per year. If you
look at just those numbers it would make sense to ban guns, however there is much
more to it. Such as the two million crimes that were stopped in 2014 alone as a
result of the victim possessing a firearm. With just that one fact we can render that
6% or 28,000 crimes a year is an obsolete argument compared to two million crimes
stopped by allowing civilians to own guns. I would also like to add to the opposing
statement criminals will not have a weapon either. As previously explained, if

guns were banned then there would be an increase in the black market for firearms
(exactly the same way it worked in the Prohibition) allowing criminals to obtain
firearms and leaving law abiding citizens defenseless against armed adversaries.
Some people would say that the banning of guns would stop mass shootings.
I do believe that if firearms were banned then there may be less mass shootings as
guns would be harder to obtain, but they will still happen. When discussing
Columbine some say it could have been easily avoided if guns were banned. Yet,
statistics show that if guns arent available then they will make a bomb, so on and
so forth. New ways will always be invented. Three thousand people died during the
September 11th attack on the world trade center and not a single gun was used.
With all of the previously mentioned arguments and data-driven information
we come to the conclusion that banning firearm ownership for civilians in the U.S.
would not lower the crime rate by firearms and actually has the potential to
increase it. If an armed criminal is attacking you and you have a firearm, your
chances can go from 0-100 depending on how well you can operate your firearm. So
we dont need to ban guns. We need to educate gun owners so that when the time
arises they are able to effectively protect themselves. We need to create more
robust educational courses so that a teacher can protect his/her class from a
shooter, or a family protect themselves from an intruder. We need to work towards
making a criminal feel afraid to commit a crime because the increased chance an
effective gun owner being present. Guns will never go away, so lets use them to
our advantage.

Citations

Heusler, William. "Does Gun Control=Death Control."

Historynewsnetwork.org 1/16/15.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157833 4/18/2016

Peterson, Eric. " The Consequences of Gun Control." Oklahoma Wesleyan

University . http://www.okwu.edu/keating-center/2013/04/theconsequences-of-gun-control/ 4/18/2016

Cooper, Alexia and Smith, Erica. "Gun Violence Nation Institute of

Justice 4 April. 2015. http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gunviolence/Pages/welcome.aspx

Bach,Scott. "Guns Save Lives." Nation Rifle Association.

http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm 4/18/2016