What Is Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

Gun Control: Unconstitutional or Constructive? In a nation of differing opinions, a few issues stick out. Gun control is one of them, a widely debated subject punctuated by acts of heinous violence. In an attempt to curb this violence, articles such as “Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns”, by John Lott, argue that less gun control would lead to less crime. The other side of the coin argues that more gun control would lead to less violence, and this is the argument that the article “GUN CONTROL AFTER HELLER AND MCDONALD: WHAT CANNOT BE DONE AND WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE”, by Gary Kleck, takes. These two articles disagree on a few main points, such as if gun control would actually influence gun violence, if self defense is …show more content…
In Lott’s article, he argues that self defense is a constitutional right and that it is needed to protect an individual and his/her family. According to the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to possess firearms within their own property for the purpose of self defense. He argues that this is especially important in warding against burglars and those who attempt to break into homes. Of the four million burglaries that happen each year, only thirteen percent of them happened when there was a person at home. This is because “felons have often revealed that they are more deterred by the thought of running into an armed homeowner than they are of being caught by the police”(3). This is an excellent example, as Lott says, of how increased legal firearm carrying by citizens would deter criminals from committing crimes. Along with this, legal concealed gun carrying by citizens as they go about in public also protects against rape, deadly assault, and theft. In the hypothetical situation that Lott uses, if more people were encouraged to carry a concealed weapon there would be less rape, deadly assault, and theft because if there is a high percentage chance that the victim has a firearm the criminal will be less likely to commit the crime. Many criminals commit crimes against those they know do not have a way …show more content…
Lott argues that more gun control would do absolutely nothing, and be very ineffective. Lott says that criminals oftentimes procure their weapons illegally, and tightening gun restrictions would not do enough to completely stop illegal firearm trafficking. Therefore, gun violence would not be lowered. Lott compares this idea to illegal drug trafficking. Even though many narcotics, including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines, are illegal in the United States, there is a high availability of each of these illegal substances. Lott says that the same would happen with firearms. Simply outlawing firearms will not solve the problem. Lot also argues that less gun control would be far more effective. If more people are encouraged to possess concealed firearms, then more criminals would be deterred from committing crimes. Lott argues that “the expected penalty of the crime affects the prospective criminal’s desire to commit a crime”(6). However, Kleck argues the opposite. He says that by restricting the supply of firearms within the country and tightening security at the Mexico border, less violence will happen. Making sure there are essentially no firearms are in circulation would lead to dramatically less gun violence, as it would make it increasingly difficult for a criminal or a mentally ill person to possess a firearm. By implementing a system of

Related Documents