In the past week, we have seen many shootings in the United States. So how can we decide what to do? This week, we learned of the Uvalde footage, Jayland Walker, Greenwood Park Mall, and Shinzo Abe. After learning all that we did, what can we take away? Let's look at this problem from both sides. When talking about gun control, there are two main sides people tend to take: Pro-Gun Control and Pro-Guns. Let us take a peek at both sides.
Be aware that these are only just some common arguments you might hear on both sides. People have different ideas, so you will hear other answers depending on who you are debating.
Gun control means that government will create laws to limit the availability of guns to the public. The intentions of those who believe in gun control work a little like this: guns are incredibly dangerous and do more damage than help; therefore, we should ban guns. They often argue that stricter gun laws decrease gun-related deaths and crime.
They bring up that most gun deaths are suicides. The number of gun suicides often brings up concerns over the safety of firearms, especially near children and teenagers. Because 90% of suicide survivors do not attempt suicide again, guns become a risk factor for suicide as they do not often survive a gun death. In addition, guns are so dangerous to children and teenagers that there should not be households that own guns, as statistics show that children who get a weapon that isn't safely put away end up dying from that gun.
The strong finding that emerges from this research is that gun use intensifies violence, making it more likely that the victim of an assault or robbery will die... In other words: more guns, more deaths.
The second highest gun deaths are homicides. Many defending gun control brings up this point: guns increase gun violence, increasing the number of deaths involved. They might cite the book The Gun Debate by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss using this line, "The strong finding that emerges from this research is that gun use intensifies violence, making it more likely that the victim of an assault or robbery will die... In other words: more guns, more deaths." Because guns are so dangerous, the violence in an encounter between a victim with a gun and a criminal with a gun is only increased. That increased violence will lead to a higher chance of more people getting killed, including the victim.
The most significant counterargument people tend to use against the self-defense argument people will resort to is that using guns for self-defense happens less than guns are used to threaten people. Because guns are more often used for threatening than actual self-defense, the idea that people use guns for self-defense does not make sense to them. They might cite that most "self-defense" is just increasing "justified" homicide. They also mention that gun violence causes too much expensive damage. Because it's killing people, guns are bad. And, because it is causing damage that economically unstable people cannot pay to fix, guns should not be legal.
A very common logical argument people will often say on the side of gun control is that gun control works in other countries. Countries like the U.K., Australia, and Japan have low gun controls, specifically, the U.K. and Australia, as both have had a recent gun ban. Japan also has incredibly low gun crime, as well as incredibly low crime in general. So while those three countries have crimes anyway, the gun crime they experience is much less of a problem than in the United States.
People who support gun rights support the second amendment in the United States Constitution. They believe that gun control would not do much to limit gun violence, especially in the United States. Their reasoning for wanting their guns is like this: I want to protect myself and my family, so I will use fatal means if necessary.
Many gun owners believe that gun control doesn't work. It may work on the law-abiding citizen, but that does not mean criminals will listen. In New York City, law enforcement recovered just under 53,000 guns between 2010-2015. Of those guns, 74% are not from New York State. That means they were trafficked into the state. North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson famously said, "The Crips and the Bloods on the other side of town? They're not going turn guns in. They're going to hold onto 'em." Those who believe in gun rights argue that criminals are called criminals because they break the law; therefore, gun control laws will not apply to them because they are criminals. Those who believe in gun rights may also recall the shooting of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in which the shooter had created a homemade zip gun, meaning gun control laws may not work due to those who create guns instead of buying them.
The Crips and the Bloods on the other side of town? They're not going turn guns in. They're going to hold onto 'em.
Those who believe in gun control also want self-defense. They will often bring up a situation like this: If I have a gun, and I am going to kill you, what are you going to do? You will die, but if you have a firearm, you will protect yourself. They believe that everyone should own a gun in case there is a situation in which they must defend themselves. They might cite a statistic showing that people do use guns for self-defense. A study showed that 31% of gun owners had used firearms in self-defense.
When discussing self-defense, there is a high possibility that people defending defensive gun use will bring up times when people used guns for self-defense. For example, one could bring up the Greenwood Park Mall shooting as proof that guns work in self-defense. If Elisjsha Dicken had not been there with his handgun, the shooter could have killed many more people. Likewise, some might mention when a group of veteran rangers had a shoot-out with the local Crips gang in the neighborhood during a barbecue. There are so many examples of these self-defense situations that people may bring up.
When it comes to other countries, there are a lot of factors one must consider: culture, people, and gun crime history. For example, in the U.K., gun crime had gone up before going down after the gun ban. In Australia, gun crime was already decreasing at an equivalent rate, meaning there is limited evidence that gun control cuts gun crime. Japan is a primarily homogenous country with a culture that does not entice much violence and generally low crime numbers and rates, not making it a good example.
C Pro-Gun Control
R Pro-Gun Rights
C We should have gun control because guns are dangerous. Look at all the shootings that have been happening recently.
R If people had more handheld guns, then they could protect themselves from the shooters. Look at Greenwood Park, or what about that time when rangers had a shoot-out with the Crips? If they didn't have legally owned guns, more people might have died.
C The rangers were such a long time ago. There aren't any gangs in that area anymore, so why do we need guns? And the Greenwood Park Mall shooting would not have happened if people didn't have such easy access to firearms.
R That may have been true, but the fact that an individual who responsibly used a gun in self-defense also proves that guns can save lives. And there are gangs in other areas too. For example, gangs using illegal guns are prevalent in New York City.
C That's why we have police there.
R But police aren't the first responders. The victims involved in the crime and onlookers will be.
And the debate will go on.
Remember, that was just an example of how one debate might go. There are so many other ways that debate could have gone. This weekly report is just a quick summary of common arguments somebody might use in an actual debate. Comment on this post or go into the forum to bring up arguments I might have missed on either side or if there is anything I should add.
Commenti