Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay

Published by gudwriter on

A Break Down of my Gun Control Argumentative Essay

Styling Format: APA, 6th Edition

Are your assignments troubling you?

Get your troublesome papers finished by our competent writers now!

Hire A Writer Now

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Title: Stricter Gun Control Laws Should Be Adopted

Introduction

I have tried to design the introduction in such a way that it attracts the attention of the reader and gives him an idea of the essay’s focus. My first sentence comprises of some startling information: The pervasive gun culture in the United States of America is a creation of the country’s frontier expansion, revolutionary roots, colonial history, and the Second Amendment. It is not totally new information to the readers. In fact, it is a pertinent fact that explicitly illustrates the point that I wish to make. It is followed by a sentence of elaboration. In addition, I have tried to ground the reader with some information that is relevant to understand my thesis. Lastly, I have finished my paragraph with a thesis statement for my argumentative essay.

To get your essay on gun control written for a cheap price, connect with a professional research paper writer for help on this platform where we have a pool of experts to choose from, making it easy for you to get matched fast. You can also use our essay generator to get a quality and plagiarism free paper.

Body

The body of my gun control essay contains reasons + evidence to support my thesis. Each body paragraph begins with a topic sentence that identifies the main idea of that paragraph. If you have read the essay, you can see that my explanations try to answer a simple question: how does this evidence support my thesis?

Conclusion

I have tried to sum up my points and provide a final perspective on gun control in an effort to bring closure to the reader. I have reviewed my main points, trying not restate them exactly, and tried to briefly describe my feelings concerning the topic. I was unable to find a good anecdote that would have ended my essay in a useful way.

References:

Though, I won’t recommend it, I have used some news articles from CNBC and NYTimes as part of my references. I would advise you to go for more credible sources such as peer reviewed articles and journals.

Argumentative Essay on Gun Control

Gun control is a controversial subject in the United States of America. In the wake of so many tragic mass shootings, like the recent Las Vegas Shooting, the conversation tends to pull in two directions: Those who believe gun laws should be less strict and those pushing for more restrictions.

When you are writing a gun control argumentative essay, you are free to take any side you want, unless your instructor specifically tells you to take a certain side. What matters is that whichever position you choose, ensure you have good points and supporting facts.

In this gun control essay, I have decided to take a pro gun control approach:  strict regulation up to and including an outright ban on firearms. In fact, my thesis statement for this for argumentative essay is stricter gun control laws should be enacted and implemented if the United States is to solve the problem of mass shootings and reduce crime within its borders.

My essay is divided into three basic parts, the introduction, the body and the conclusion.

Here is my gun control argumentative essay. Enjoy!

Stricter Gun Control Laws Should Be Adopted

Introduction

The pervasive gun culture in the United States of America is a creation of the country’s frontier expansion, revolutionary roots, colonial history, and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment stipulates, “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” (“Second Amendment,” 2020). The argument fronted by proponents of stricter gun control laws is that the amendment targeted militias and not the common citizen. They are of the view that gun control restrictions have always been there and that they serve to enhance the security of the country and the various states. The opponents however argue that through the provisions of the Second Amendment, individuals have the right to own guns. Their view is that individuals need guns for self-defense and that gun ownership thwarts criminal activities. This paper argues that stricter gun control laws should be enacted and implemented if the United States is to solve the problem of mass shootings and reduce crime within its borders (my argumentative essay thesis statement).

On 1st October, 2017, the U.S. witnessed one of the worst mass shooting incidences in its history, probably the worst. The shooting, as observed by Swift (2017), was conducted by a common U.S. citizen who was a gun owner. Following the incidence, there has been rage and confusion all over the country as to whether the gun control debate is still relevant. A whopping 59 people died in the incidence with 500 others sustaining serious injuries (Swift, 2017). This incidence alone, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, tells why the country is in dire need of very strict gun control laws. Nothing can compensate for human life and it is even worse when life is lost at the hands of another human being. It becomes more serious when one person decides to kill, without stopping to think, as many people as time and other factors would allow them to! The latest gun incidence is a clear sign that the threat of lives being lost due to misuse of personal guns is more real than the threat of one losing their life due to lack of self-defense.

Given the latest mass shooting incidence, together with such other past incidences, it could be safely argued that the Second Amendment is being misinterpreted to mean what the framers of the Constitution never intended nor meant. It is high time the three branches of the federal government, together with the states, sought a clear reinterpretation of “well-regulated militia”. It cannot be that those who effected this amendment “authorized” what was recently witnessed in Las Vegas. As pointed out by Insana (2017), “The Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned civilians commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity”. The Second Amendment is surely not a leeway for citizens to have unlimited rights to own guns. A well-regulated militia should imply that a state, or the country, adequately serves its law enforcement agencies with the right ammunition and weaponry so as to ensure security. This has however unfortunately been misinterpreted to mean anyone can own a gun.

Stricter gun control laws would reduce deaths resulting from individually owned guns. Street (2016) reports that between 1999 and 2013, the number of gun deaths totaled 464,033. Out of this, 270,237 were gun suicide cases, 9,983 were unintentional deaths, and 174,773 homicides. It is thus crystal clear that mass shooting is not the only way in which guns are being used for the wrong purposes. It is emerging that giving an American citizen the right to own a gun is akin to giving them a shorter way of executing their evil plan of killing themselves, if they had it that is. If a gun is meant for self-defense and crime prevention, isn’t gun suicide the exact opposite of this? As a matter of fact, one would be safer from their own selves without a gun than with a gun. This is why it should be made tremendously difficult for people to acquire guns.

Opponents of gun control laws argue that introduction of such laws would deny people a sense of safety by infringing upon their right to self-defense. This argument is oblivious of the fact that weak gun control laws compromise even the safety of the gun holder himself or herself (Purcell, 2013). Moreover, it is the role of the federal government to ensure that every American citizen is always safe irrespective of the part of the country they find themselves. Building and maintaining strong security agencies is enough to ensure this. On the same note, the “right to self-defense” argument would lose its meaning if an individual cannot first of all defend themselves against themselves. When a person knowingly or unknowingly harms themselves using a gun they own, it means they lack the very self-defense they acquired the gun for.

To take their argument even further, the opponents would contend that the Second Amendment gives every American the right to possess personal guns. They often cite the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Burke, 2017), with more emphasis on the “shall not be infringed” part. They forget that the same clause contains some “well regulated militia” part which should be equally given as much weight as the other parts. While it is true that this right should not be infringed, according to the Constitution, it should not culminate in anybody being allowed to own guns. If the right is as absolute as opponents suggest, firearms would be owned by children and even mentally ill felons, a situation one can never wish for. It is thus a farfetched and unnecessary argument.

Conclusion

The enactment and implementation of very strict gun control laws by the United States is long overdue. People cannot continue butchering innocent citizens in the name of enjoying the provisions of the Second Amendment. If it is the Second Amendment that is creating all this loss of life and lawlessness, it should be thoroughly reinterpreted so that it works in the best interest of all Americans. Nobody has the right to take their own life and that of others. It is sad that gun ownership perpetuates this phenomenon. This discussion reveals that gun ownership is neither promoting self-defense nor deterring crime but promoting the same.

References

Burke, D. E. (2017). “Why the arguments against gun control are wrong”. Huffpost. Retrieved July 11, 2020 from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-the-arguments-against-gun-control-are-wrong_us_59d6405ce4b0666ad0c3cb34. Accessed 29 June 2020

Insana, R. (2017). “The time for polite debate on gun control is over”. CNBC. Retrieved October 20, 2017 from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/the-time-for-polite-debate-on-gun-control-is-over.html

Purcell, T. (2013). Shotgun republic: the gun control debate. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Second Amendment. (2020). In Cornell Law School. Retrieved July 11, 2020 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Street, C. (2016). Gun control: guns in America, the full debate, more guns less problems? no guns no problems?. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Swift, H. (2017). “Gunman’s girlfriend arrives in U.S. and is expected to be questioned”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html

Sample Essay 2: Gun Control

Introduction

The United States continues to experience a pervasive gun culture owing to its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment. According to the Second Amendment, “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” (Cornell Law School, 2017). Proponents of gun control argue that the amendment did not target the common citizen but militias. However, the opponents argue that the amendment guarantees express rights for individual gun ownership. This paper argues that gun control is important for solving mass shooting problems and crime reduction.

Stricter gun control laws are needed for addressing the persistent mass shooting problem in the U.S. The gun control debate might have been made irrelevant by probably the worst mass shooting in the U.S. history that occurred on October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas. The shooting, conducted by a common citizen possessing a gun, claimed 59 lives and left 500 people with serious injuries (Swift, 2017). The Second Amendment does not allow for such heinous acts in the name of owning a gun. So many innocent lives should not be lost at the hands of one person who judges it right, out of their personal reasons, to terminate human lives. The mass shooting incidences clearly indicate that there is more threat of lives being lost through misuse of guns than the threat of people losing their lives due to lack of self-defense.

Gun control would also help address misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by individual gun owners. It is apparent that people are misinterpreting the amendment to mean what was not intended by framers of the constitution given the past shooting incidences. A clear reinterpretation of a “well-regulated militia” should be sought by the three federal government braches in collaboration with the state governments. It is definite that those who debated over and passed the amendment could not have authorized the October 1, 2017 Las Vegas shooting incidence and such other incidences. Moreover, “The Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned civilians commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity” (Insana, 2017). The amendment was meant for protection of lives, not as a threat to lives.

Additionally, deaths resulting from individually-owned guns would decrease if stricter gun laws were adopted. Between 1999 and 2013, there were 464,033 gun deaths out of which 174,773 resulted from homicides, 9,983 from gun accidents, and 270,237 from suicide (Street, 2016). It is thus crystal clear that individual gun owners are using guns in more destructive ways than just mass shootings. It is apparent that letting an American citizen own a personal gun provides them with a quicker way of committing suicide if they had the plans to. Noteworthy, gun suicide is the exact opposite of self-defense and crime prevention, the reasons for which gun ownership was allowed. Acquiring guns should thus be made very difficult for people since it would make them safer from their own selves.

Another general observation is that the quantity of guns in a society determines the rate of gun violence in the society. A good case example to prove this is Japan. Research notes that the country has made it very difficult for its citizens to acquire guns. Even upon being allowed to acquire one, it would only be an air rifle or shotgun but not handguns (Low, 2017). Low (2017) goes on to cite the executive director of Action on Armed Violence, Iain Overton, who argues that a civilian society does not need guns for whatever reason. Overton adds that gun violence will inevitably be there in a society once the society has guns. According to journalist Anthony Berteaux, violence should never be used to quell violence hence the less need for guns.

Opponents of gun control argue that gun control laws would infringe into people’s right to self-defense and thus deny them a sense of safety. This argument fails to recognize that even the safety of the gun holder herself or himself is compromised by weak gun control laws (Purcell, 2013). Moreover, the safety of all American citizens wherever they may be is the responsibility of the federal government. It would be enough to guarantee this safety by building and maintaining strong security agencies and policies. Besides, if an individual cannot first of all defend themselves against themselves, the “right to self-defense” argument loses its meaning. When a person uses their own gun to cause self-harm either knowingly or unknowingly, it means they lack the very self-defense the gun is meant for.

Opponents may also argue that gun control laws give too much power to the government and that this may make the government tyrannical. In their view, the government may end up taking away guns from all citizens. This argument is wrong first because the United States is a country founded on strong Constitutional provisions that clearly spell out the rights of citizens and indicate that the country is democratic (Kopel, 2013). There is thus no room for government tyranny, not even through gun control. Second, stricter gun laws would only make difficult the process of acquiring guns but not take away all guns from citizens.

Conclusion

The U.S. should enact and implement very strict gun ownership laws if it is to solve mass shooting problems and reduce gun-related crime. People cannot purport to be enjoying the provisions of the Second Amendment while continuing to butcher innocent citizens. The amendment should be reinterpreted so that it serves all citizens in the best manner possible if it is what is creating all this loss of life and lawlessness. The Constitution does not provide for the “right” of taking one’s own life or that of others. It is thus sad that this phenomenon is being perpetuated by gun ownership.

Ready for a globalization essay sample? Check it out.

References

Cornell Law School. (2017). “Second amendment”. Cornell Law School. Retrieved May 20, 2018 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Insana, R. (2017). “The time for polite debate on gun control is over”. CNBC. Retrieved May 20, 2018 from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/the-time-for-polite-debate-on-gun-control-is-over.html

Kopel, D. B. (2013). The truth about gun control. New York, NY: Encounter Books.

Low, H. (2017). “How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime”. BBC News. Retrieved July 4, 2020 from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

Purcell, T. (2013). Shotgun republic: the gun control debate. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Street, C. (2016). Gun control: guns in America, the full debate, more guns less problems? No guns no problems?. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Swift, H. (2017). “Gunman’s girlfriend arrives in U.S. and is expected to be questioned”. New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html

Gun Control Essay Outline

Introduction

Thesis: Gun control is important for solving mass shooting problems and crime reduction.

Body

Paragraph 1:

Stricter gun control laws are needed for addressing the persistent mass shooting problem in the U.S.

  • The gun control debate might have been made irrelevant by probably the worst mass shooting in the U.S. history that occurred on October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas.
  • The shooting claimed 59 lives and left 500 people with serious injuries.
  • The Second Amendment does not allow for such heinous acts in the name of owning a gun.
  • Innocent lives should not be lost at the hands of one person who judges it right to terminate human lives.

Paragraph 2:

Gun control would help address misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by individual gun owners.

  • It is apparent that people are misinterpreting the amendment to mean what was not intended by framers of the constitution.
  • A clear reinterpretation of a “well-regulated militia” should be sought.
  • Those who debated over and passed the amendment could not have authorized mass shootings of innocent citizens.

Paragraph 3:

Deaths resulting from individually-owned guns would decrease if stricter gun laws were adopted.

  • Between 1999 and 2013, there were 464,033 gun deaths out of which 174,773 resulted from homicides, 9,983 from gun accidents, and 270,237 from suicide.
  • Thus, individual gun owners are using guns in more destructive ways than just mass shootings.
  • Gun suicide is the exact opposite of self-defense and crime prevention, the reasons for which gun ownership was allowed.

Paragraph 4: 

The quantity of guns in a society determines the rate of gun violence in the society.

  • A good case example to prove this is Japan.
  • The country has made it very difficult for its citizens to acquire guns.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of gun control argue that gun control laws would infringe into people’s right to self-defense and thus deny them a sense of safety.

  • This argument fails to recognize that even the safety of the gun holder herself or himself is compromised by weak gun control laws.
  • Moreover, the safety of all American citizens wherever they may be is the responsibility of the federal government.
  • It would be enough to guarantee this safety by building and maintaining strong security agencies and policies.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents argue that gun control laws give too much power to the government and that this may make the government tyrannical.

  • This argument is wrong because the United States is a country founded on strong Constitutional provisions that clearly spell out the rights of citizens and indicate that the country is democratic.
  • There is no room for government tyranny.

Conclusion

The U.S. should enact and implement very strict gun ownership laws if it is to solve mass shooting problems and reduce gun-related crime. People cannot purport to be enjoying the provisions of the Second Amendment while continuing to butcher innocent citizens.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

  1. Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline
  2. American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
  3. Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
  4. Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
  5. Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
  6. Argumentative Essay against Abortion, with Outline
  7. Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay, With Outline
Gudwriter Custom Papers

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20