Gun Control Argumentative Analysis

I.
Historical Background
The controversy of gun control has always been a topic of interest of Americans for a long time. As many violent crimes, especially organized crimes in the 1930’s, were done with some sorts of firearms, attempting to lower the number of guns available for use seemed to be a logical solution to the problem. First account of gun control was the “National Firearm Act of 1934” (N/A, History of Gun-Control Legislation, 1). “200 dollars of tax was placed on the production of machine guns and sawed of shotgun.” During the time period, as organized crime was the primary source of crimes in the US, the gun law then wasn’t directed toward the citizens. Over 30 years later, gun control is once again a topic of debate as public figures such as President John F. Kennedy, his brother Senator Robert F.

Kennedy, and the reclaimed Rev. Martin Luther King were assassinated by firearms. (N/A, History of Gun-Control Legislation, 1). “The Gun Control Act of 1968” made it illegal for previous criminals, drug users, the mentally ills, and minors to purchase and own a firearm. This was a very reasonable and a much needed action. An object that can take the life of others should not be placed in the hands of those who are not capable of handling it or have failed to do so when the chance was given. The next big addition to the gun control laws was “The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993”.(N/A, History of Gun-Control Legislation, 2). By employing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), background checks must be done to make sure that people that should not be getting a gun as of “The Gun Control Act of 1968” can not obtain guns. This law is still in effect today and is one of primary subjects of my argument.
II.
Opposing Arguments
The opposition argues that the use the Second Amendment to defend the right to own guns is unreasonable as the Second Amendment is very out-dated. Society now is very different from the time period the Constitution was written. Citizens no longer have to hunt for their own food and no longer have to protect themselves from Native Indians and wildlife animals; The police is there to protect our neighborhoods and there is no reason to own a gun. Though it is very true that the US environment has changed drastically over the last couple centuries, the usefulness of guns remains the same. Guns are the most effective tool of self-defense and protects the citizens from violent crimes(Argresti, Smith, 4). I will expand upon the effectiveness of guns in Section III.
Another argument of the oppositions is the effectivity of the current gun laws. Many links the low crime rate of a country to the low number of guns the citizens of the country possess. The idea that if gun are not available for public use, people, including criminals would have a hard time obtaining guns and committing murders seems very logical. However, as it will be shown in Section III, not only does the low crime rate has no relevance to low number of guns owned (McQuain, 1), the current gun laws are very unreliable and easy to avoid if one knew how to do so (Argresti, Smith, ).

III.
Findings
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

A well-known quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest minds and founding fathers of the United States, demonstrates what true liberty is. The two wolves are presumably the Democratic and the Republican Parties, and the lamb is the citizenry. Wolves, natural, sly predators, would have no problem oppressing a defenseless, dull lamb. But, what if the lamb wields a weapon of destruction even the biggest and most cunning wolves with gnarly teeth and outstretched claws can not ignore? Would the wolves still overwhelm the lamb? To be armed is to be independent, history has proved this many times; however, many americans are still asking to be enslaved by their governments. Anti-gun rights activists promote false information and show only the partial positive influences of gun control laws, withdrawing the overall negative effects they have on the whole of society. Gun control laws should be as they have failed to work, endanger American society, and most importantly, are completely irrelevant when it comes to keeping neighborhoods and communities safe.
When the public is asked about gun control, many of them, those who advocate gun control solely based on recent tragic news events without considering actual datas and facts on gun control itself, do not even know that partial forms of gun control have been and are still in use today. In the past century, many attempts have been made to regulate the amount of guns owned, believing that the number of guns is directly proportional to the number of crimes. However, gun control laws passed in Washington DC, Chicago etc. didn’t lower the murder rates but instead raised them higher than ever. Outlawing the carrying of firearms in Washington D.C. raised the murder rate by 73%; the handgun ban in Chicago proved to be misguided as crimes done with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than before also constituting 96% of all firearm murders in Chicago in 2005. On the contrary, areas that empowered the power of gun owners, issuing laws such as the “Right To Carry Law”, saw a positive change in their community. In the state of Florida, as permitted adults were allowed to carry their guns, the crime rate dropped an average of 36% percent, and in Texas, the crime rate dropped an average of 30%. Another form gun control is present in our society is through background checking.In 1998, the FBI launched The National Instant Criminal Background Check System(NICS), a system for determining whether an individual is eligible to purchase firearms. However after over a decade of time and $650 million dollars were spent on the NICS, it is still very unreliable. Not only is the NICS very easy to pass (researchers were able to purchase guns in several states using fake ID) criminals always have a way of attaining guns. Such various methods includes purchasing guns off the streets, straw buyers, and many other countless methods that may be unknown to us. Experts states for those who are ineligible to purchase guns can easily turn to the streets to purchase guns, many of them virtually untraceable because they have been in the black market for 10-12 years, or to straw buyers, eligible buyers who are willing to purchase guns in the criminals’ stead for extra bucks. It is evident that gun control laws do not work and have not made the society safer but much more dangerous.
One of many things anti-gun activists tell the public is that the Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be repealed(Kent,1). They state that Americans no longer live in the wild where our ancestors were living in fear of the dangers of living in an uncivilized area. However, in the form of robbers, rapists, murders etc. the citizens of America are still living in a society with many hazards. In a lifetime, people will be victimized by a violent crime at least once 83%. (Agretha, 25) Many times, these events can leave the civilians injured or even killed. The most sure way of ensuring the safety of these innocent people is a gun. Just showing the criminal that you own a gun, can change the course of violent events vastly. When inmates of 11 state prisons were asked if their planned criminal activity was altered by a gun-wielding victim, “34% had been scared off, wounded, or captured by someone with a gun, 40% decided not to commit the crime because they knew or assumed the victim had a gun.”(Agretha 8) Another group that supports the use of guns is the police force. When 15,000 law enforcers, those who work on the streets and are familiar with violences of America, were asked of their opinion on the newly passed assault rifle ban in some states, over 91% of them stated that the new law would have no effect or a negative effect in reducing gun violence (Avery, 1) 86% of the officers also believe that horrendous school shootings that shocked the nation such as the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting and the Columbine High School Shooting could have had less casualties and even prevented if there were armed adults near the area; thus, 81% of them think that arming school teachers or administrators and giving them adequate training will help prevent future school shooting from happening.(Avery, 2) Yet, rather than putting students’ safety ahead of their added burden, school administrators and teachers refuse to have guns present in school. It is evident that guns should not be banned but rather distributed even more openly to ensure the safety of our citizens.
Most importantly, gun control laws have no relevance to the safety of our country.

While anti-gun activists preach that reducing guns owned per capita will decrease the crime rates, the altercation of the crime rates is proven to happen for a different reason. Switzerland, the country with the third most amount of gun per civilian, is one of the safest country around the world. Despite guns being completely legal, In 2014 there were only .52 deaths per 100,000 civilians in Sweden. This proves that the number of guns the civilians own is not directly relevant to the number of crimes. Another great example of gun control being irrelevant to the safety of a country is the effects that gun control had in the UK. After the UK banned all guns, the crime rate never decreased. (Agretha 9) Yes, the crime done with firearms was significantly decreased, yet violent crime rates increased. Even though the guns are no longer in the streets, the criminals will still accomplish their planned activity one way or another. Our government must abandon the idea that banning guns will affect the number of crimes, and attack the real problems that are causing these

crimes.
IV.
Projections For the Future
In many studies, researchers state that a country’s high crime rates are related to that country’s economy. Violent crimes are seen most in countries that have most of their civilians in poverty. Research conducted by Amir Sariaslan in Sweden, teenagers who grew up in families whose incomes are in the bottom fifth of the country, are 7 times more likely to be convicted of violent crimes, and twice more likely to be a part of a drug offense. (N/A, 1) Also, it isn’t a coincidence that all of the 10 most dangerous cities of US have over 20% poverty with Detroit having over 40%.(Hess, 3) If the US government doesn’t attack the poverty problems in the bottom classes of our country, the crime rates will never drop. Instead of debating on whether they should take away the civillian’s most effective tool of self-defense, both parties of the US government should work together to solve the current issues of poverty, an issue that will actually help lower the number of crimes in the US.