Question

List 3 Arguments that support your viewpoint on Gun Control.

Answer 1

The arguments in support of gun control include the desire to reduce gun violence, enhance public safety through regulation, and the potential to prevent mass shootings by restricting access for those with severe mental health problems.

Step-by-step explanation:

There are several arguments that support the viewpoint on gun control which aims to balance public safety with individual liberties. Three arguments in favor of gun control include:

• The reduction of gun violence is a primary concern for many citizens, with a significant portion of Americans favoring stricter controls over gun ownership to ensure safety.
• Public safety concerns have led some states to implement restrictions such as background checks and limitations on the types of weapons that can be sold, demonstrating the government's role in protecting citizens from firearm violence.
• The need to address the accessibility of firearms by people with severe mental health problems, as evidenced by the correlation between access to guns and mass shootings, suggesting stricter gun controls could potentially prevent such tragedies.

Answer 2

Use these top three arguments the next time you are asked to defend the need for gun control.

01

of 03

Gun Ownership Leads to Homicides

gun control rally

Protesters with One Million Moms for Gun Control, a gun control group formed in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, rally in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Gun-rights advocates and other extremists sometimes behave as if every attempt to create sane and logical regulations on guns is a fruitless, fascist assault on their freedom, but a quick look at the facts shows a chilling relationship between homicides and gun ownership that shouldn't be so carelessly ignored. The more people that own guns in a region, the more firearm deaths that area will see.

According to a study on this very topic published in the American Journal of Public Health, "For each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%," (Siegel 2013). This study, which looked at data from three decades for every U.S. state, strongly suggests that the more people that own guns, the more lives will be taken by guns.02

of 03

Fewer Guns Means Fewer Gun Crimes

In the same vein, research shows that gun control restricting household firearm ownership could save lives. Gun control is therefore not only logical, it's necessary.

It's common for gun advocates to claim that the solution to gun violence is to be more heavily armed so that you can defend yourself and others against someone brandishing a weapon. This view is echoed by the popular saying, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun."

But again, this argument contains no logic. Other countries that have implemented stricter gun ownership regulations than the U.S. have lower homicide rates, and this is no coincidence. Looking at the example that Japan, with its strict firearm control laws and its almost nonexistent national homicide rate, sets, it's clear that fewer guns, not more guns, is the obvious answer ("Japan—Gun Facts, Figures and the Law").03

of 03

You Do NOT Have the Right to Own Any Gun You Want

The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), a case often cited by gun-rights advocates, that private citizens may own weapons for self-defense but are subject to restrictions on those weapons. Therefore, it's not your right to build and own a nuclear or assault weapon, nor is toting a pistol in your pocket an unfettered natural right. Your right to bear arms is maintained by federal law, but it's not as loose as you might think.

Minors can't buy alcohol and we can't purchase cold medicine right off the shelf because our society aims to protect citizens from drug abuse and trafficking. In the same way, we need to regulate guns even further in order to protect Americans from gun violence. It's inaccurate to claim that unrestricted gun access and ownership is or ever was a constitutional right.