Policy Issue:

Gun Control

Justine Vea
Prof. Ken Baxter
POLSC 01
26 Apr. 2018
 Vea 1

1. Introduction

Whether someone is from the United States or another country, he or she has probably

heard of the term gun control. Mass shootings are no surprise to the American people as it has

occurred repeatedly over the history of the U.S., but recently, the number of incidents increased.

Therefore, gun control is currently a popular topic throughout the U.S. and is intense due to the

country’s divided opinion between people who are for it and people who are against it. I have

decided to write my paper on this topic, because it is a topic I feel strongly about and has

affected a tremendous amount of people. In the following paragraphs, I will present background

information, pros and cons, and my opinion along with recommended policy changes in regards

to gun control.

2. Background information

Within the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment that reads, “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.” The Founding Fathers did not go in depth to further

specify this amendment, therefore, the public has different interpretations in regards to the true

meaning of this amendment. In addition, to the last part of the Second Amendment, the

government comprises very little regulation for weapons specifically for guns. With that being

said, the term gun control comes into place. “According to Pẽrez-Peña, ‘Gun control’ is a broad

term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who

can possess or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried, what duties a seller has to

vet a buyer, and what obligations both the buyer and the seller have to report transactions to the

government” (Gun Control Explained). Gun control continues to spark debates due to the rapid
 Vea 2

increase of mass shootings all over the country, including the deadliest one in history back in

October 2017 at Las Vegas during a music festival. After comparing the shooters involved in

these mass shootings, the public noticed distinct patterns between them, therefore gun control

debates now focus “primarily on background checks for buyers, allowing people to carry

weapons in public, and whether to allow the possession of assault rifles” (Pẽrez-Peña).

3. Analysis/Competing Arguments (pro/con)

Gun control debates are always very controversial and intense because there are several

arguments to support it, but there are also numerous arguments against it. I will begin with three

of several arguments supporting gun control and afterward provide some of the

counterarguments. One of the arguments in favor of gun control is the issue that the U.S. has the

most gun ownership among the developed countries in the world and in return has the highest

rate of gun violence (Pẽrez-Peña). “In 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, the nation had more than 33,000 firearms deaths: 70 percent of all homicides

(11,208), more than half of all suicides (21,175), and hundreds of accidental and unsolved

deaths” (Pẽrez-Peña). This statistic provides a general idea of how common gun violence is in

the U.S., and that is only for the year of 2013, not even including the previous and following

years. A second argument supporting gun control is simple and that is to put a reasonable limit

on what the public can purchase and own (Pẽrez-Peña). Gun control is not a matter of disarming

the public, because of course, that’s a natural right of the people, but there must be limitations

such as not allowing the public to get a hold of assault rifles since they are solely intended for

infantry use. Furthermore, no matter how strict the gun regulations will be, law-abiding citizens

will still be able to obtain firearms, but at least if there are limitations, the number of deaths can
 Vea 3

be decreased (Pẽrez-Peña). Lastly, this third argument is purely public opinion lacking any

reliable statistics, but otherwise, the argument is that “the more people carry weapons, the more

likely it is that an everyday dispute can escalate to lethal force” (Pẽrez-Peña). This statement

refers to situations like when people have a dispute and if they have a gun on them, they can

quickly pull out their gun and shoot, most likely killing the other person or people involved

compared to if they did not have a gun on them, they could have had just ended up in a physical

fight. The idea of this argument is that at times people act out of strong emotions, usually anger,

and if guns are present, they will be used to release emotions.

On the contrary, multiple arguments exist to oppose gun control in America. The first

opposing argument relates to principle in which gun advocates assume that the right to own

firearms is a natural individual right. They argue that they have all means to carry guns “for

hunting, self-defense, sport – or just because they want to” (Pẽrez-Peña). The only written law in

the Constitution that pertains to firearms is in the Second Amendment, but even then, the

amendment is rather short and inconclusive so it can be understood in different ways. “Gun

rights advocates say [Second Amendment] that means an individual right to gun possession,

while gun control advocates say it means the people’s collective right, through a militia”

(Pẽrez-Peña). Essentially, gun advocates see guns as more than a materialistic object. They see

their gun possessions as their identity, who they are as a person. Anti-gun control people believe

gun control will eliminate their gun rights and destroy their individuality. The second basis for

anti-gun control is the law itself. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled “that the states were obligated

to recognize an individual’s right to bear arms” which confirms that the Second Amendment

indeed protects the individual right to firearms, so not necessarily in the context of a militia
 Vea 4

(Schmidt, Steffen W., et al.). However, “even with that ruling, the national and state

governments retain the power to regulate the ownership of firearms” (Schmidt, Steffen W., et

al.). Another argument that the gun supporters emphasize on is the practicality of owning a

firearm in terms of making society feel safer through the power of self-defense and capability of

stopping armed criminals (Pẽrez-Peña). Lastly, an argument that I personally thought of is the

basis that guns itself are not the ones causing violence, but the person pulling the trigger.

Firearms exist for specific reasons, but if they are used inappropriately, the blame is solely on the

person who misused the gun, and the actions of other gun owners do not account for all gun

owners. Therefore, there might not be any point of creating stricter laws for gun ownership.

4. Observations and Recommended Policy Changes

Through careful observations, readings, and research, I personally agree with the gun

control advocates who want to add limitations to current gun laws. Growing up, I did not have to

worry about a possibility of a mass shooting when I went out to public places with my friends or

family. Now, I am extra conscious of my surroundings, because all I see in the news and social

media are these mass shootings happening anywhere whether it is at a festival, at school, in a

movie theater, or a work office. I am aware of the fact that people die every day because that’s

just how life is, but if it’s a situation where multiple people die and get injured at a single time,

it’s very disturbing and horrifying. The weapons being used are not regular guns used for

livelihood or self-defense. In fact, these weapons are intended for massive killings. This is why

changes need to be made. I have some policy changes that I would highly recommend. First and

foremost, I would like to completely prohibit civilians from being able to purchase any kind of

assault rifles, whether it’s a semi-automatic or fully automatic. These are not necessary nor is it
 Vea 5

needed for the uses that gun advocates talk about such hunting or as a sport. Second, the amount

of ammunition a single person can own needs more restrictions. As of right now, there is less

regulation on ammunition than on guns, but without bullets, there are no lethal consequences,

thus, ammunitions need to be carefully monitored, recorded, and limited per household. Most

importantly, background checks need to be more thorough and forced upon all sellers, including

private sellers and provide sufficient educational information about firearms. These background

checks need to have some sort of test to detect if a person is mentally unstable or disturbed. Most

of the time, mass shooters are considered to be mentally ill, so why not try to detect this before

allowing them to purchase and own a firearm. Oftentimes, people who own guns do not know

how to properly handle or store their guns, making it very unsafe, to begin with. A little extra

educational information session would be nice in addition to passing the firearm safety test.

5. Conclusion

Public opinions of gun control come and go as these mass shootings occur, but let’s not

forget about the lives that’s been viciously taken. They died because of someone’s distorted

mentality or just pure evilness, using inhumane weapons. I am fed up of seeing people,

especially government leaders, on social media expressing their thoughts and prayers for the

victims and their families, but as sympathetic as that sounds, that will not bring back the lives

that were lost nor will that help solve the problem. I look forward to the day when there’s

actually something being done rather than debating about the problem.

6. References

P​ẽrez-Pe​ñ​a, Richard. “Gun Control Explained.” ​The New York Times​, The New York Times, 7

Oct. 2015, ​www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html​.

 Vea 6

Accessed 25 April 2018.

Schmidt, Steffen W., et al. ​American Government and Politics Toda​y. Cengage Learning, 2015.