2nd Amendment Argumentative Essay
Americans have a unique relationship with their guns, one not found in most similar first-world countries. American culture idolizes guns through the popularity of hunting, sport shooting, and owning guns for home defense. In America, many celebrate this freedom, but this freedom has a cost. Although America was founded on principles of liberty, the amount of lives lost to gun violence raises an alarming problem which Americans undoubtedly cannot ignore. This problem is not distant or far off from this audience either. According to a publication from Princeton and the Brookings Institute, the annual total of death or injury due to gun violence of those under 20 is over 20,000. (Behrman, Culross, and Reich 1). However, outside of only those
…show more content…
under 20, a Time article denotes over 30,000 deaths a year overall. With such a staggering number, much is to be said about attempts to reduce it (Hale 1).
Often, gun rights activists could argue that guns aren’t necessarily the problem, and that lax laws would make more guns accessible and therefore allow more people to have this means of protection. On the other hand, those in favor of more strict gun control could argue for the opposite and claim that if no guns existed, or if laws made it extremely difficult to obtain them, America would not have this problem. No guns means no shooting, no shooting means no one dies to gun violence.
However, would either of those really be an effective solution? Would lax laws allow everyone to protect themselves? Or would they simply turn the U.S. into “the Wild West”? On the other hand, would Americans really be willing to give up guns to such an extreme degree? And would they really be safe if no one can legally obtain guns when black markets exist to buy them? It’s obvious that a middle ground needs to be found. “Gun rights” should not so heavily outweigh saving lives, and paranoia should not prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and safely enjoying some of America’s pastimes.
Clearly, the middle ground America needs is in more effective “gun control” methods that save lives by keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Although sensible gun laws appear to be a middle ground between the extremes, modern “gun rights” activists often oppose any type of restrictive laws on guns.
While, in theory, less guns on the street could save a few more lives, these activists often declare that not only do they have a legal justification for owning firearms, but they also contend that they make society safer.
As for their legal justification, gun rights activists use their legal freedoms bestowed upon them by the founding fathers, which are manifested in the 2nd Amendment. In addition, the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller is also frequently cited because it solidifies the 2nd Amendment argument by interpreting it as allowing Americans to privately own guns for lawful purposes and without needing a connection to service in a militia. As for their moral justification, an attempted attack on a South Carolina nightclub on June 26, 2016 is an example of gun rights activists’ other point that lawful gun owners can protect others in dangerous situations. The attacker was killed by a legal concealed carry permit holder; the attacker could only wound 3 victims before attempting to flee after being shot in the leg by the concealed carry permit holder (Chasmar 1). In cases such as these, there’s no doubt that an armed bystander saved people from potential death or injury, a case that could not have happened if he was not permitted to carry his firearm with
him.
However, the FBI concludes that this truly is a rare occurrence. From 2000 to 2013, 160 active shooting incidents occurred. Out of all of them, only 7 were stopped by people with guns, 1 armed civilian, 2 off-duty police, and 4 armed guards (Blair and Schweit 11). Only one armed civilian, who these laws would concern the most, stopped an active shooter. On the other hand, 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians, are guns effective at stopping active shooters? In addition, the LA Times summarizes a study where “77 participants with varying levels of firearms training [were put] through three realistic self-defense scenarios. In the first, seven of the participants shot an innocent bystander. Almost all of the participants in the first and second scenarios who engaged the “bad guy” were killed. And in the final scenario, 23% of the participants fired at a suspect who didn’t actually pose a threat” (DeFilippis and Hughes 2). Reinforcing the evidence from the FBI, this study demonstrates that, unless everyone is a trained police officer with perfect judgemental skills, chances are, the “good guy with a gun” could become a liability rather than an asset. Now, if more guns isn’t the solution, and outright banning them isn’t either, what is? Closing the biggest loophole of them all, moving. The New York Times explains data that notes of the 52,915 guns confiscated in New York City from 2010-2015, 90% of the handguns were actually out of state guns, largely coming from the 6 states of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia (Palmer 1). Why would they go out of their way to do this? Because New York City has strict laws on handguns, forcing residents “to register handguns and obtain permits to buy and carry handguns. It also requires handgun owners to be licensed” (Palmer 3). How effective could a law be if someone could bypass it by simply going to a different area? Especially in states that don’t require background checks, this could definitely lead to unvetted people buying guns who, based on their past, should definitely not be buying such weapons. In fact, the shooter at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando had a history of domestic violence and even vocally supported terrorist organizations, according to the Los Angeles Times (DeFilippis and Hughes 3). He, by most standards, should not have been able to buy a gun with his history. If it was a standard in all states to have background checks that take things like this into consideration, would this shooter have been able to commit this horrible act? Not easily. If gun rights activists support keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it is safe to assume that a history of domestic abuse is indeed the “wrong hands”. Due to the 10th amendment, a federally imposed standard would be difficult to establish, but voters can still strive to implement a standard state-by-state. Americans must realize that gun laws are only effective if they are universal, even if it is something as simple as the aforementioned background checks. Americans must come together to save lives by plugging the holes in legislature.
under 20, a Time article denotes over 30,000 deaths a year overall. With such a staggering number, much is to be said about attempts to reduce it (Hale 1).
Often, gun rights activists could argue that guns aren’t necessarily the problem, and that lax laws would make more guns accessible and therefore allow more people to have this means of protection. On the other hand, those in favor of more strict gun control could argue for the opposite and claim that if no guns existed, or if laws made it extremely difficult to obtain them, America would not have this problem. No guns means no shooting, no shooting means no one dies to gun violence.
However, would either of those really be an effective solution? Would lax laws allow everyone to protect themselves? Or would they simply turn the U.S. into “the Wild West”? On the other hand, would Americans really be willing to give up guns to such an extreme degree? And would they really be safe if no one can legally obtain guns when black markets exist to buy them? It’s obvious that a middle ground needs to be found. “Gun rights” should not so heavily outweigh saving lives, and paranoia should not prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and safely enjoying some of America’s pastimes.
Clearly, the middle ground America needs is in more effective “gun control” methods that save lives by keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Although sensible gun laws appear to be a middle ground between the extremes, modern “gun rights” activists often oppose any type of restrictive laws on guns.
While, in theory, less guns on the street could save a few more lives, these activists often declare that not only do they have a legal justification for owning firearms, but they also contend that they make society safer.
As for their legal justification, gun rights activists use their legal freedoms bestowed upon them by the founding fathers, which are manifested in the 2nd Amendment. In addition, the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller is also frequently cited because it solidifies the 2nd Amendment argument by interpreting it as allowing Americans to privately own guns for lawful purposes and without needing a connection to service in a militia. As for their moral justification, an attempted attack on a South Carolina nightclub on June 26, 2016 is an example of gun rights activists’ other point that lawful gun owners can protect others in dangerous situations. The attacker was killed by a legal concealed carry permit holder; the attacker could only wound 3 victims before attempting to flee after being shot in the leg by the concealed carry permit holder (Chasmar 1). In cases such as these, there’s no doubt that an armed bystander saved people from potential death or injury, a case that could not have happened if he was not permitted to carry his firearm with
him.
However, the FBI concludes that this truly is a rare occurrence. From 2000 to 2013, 160 active shooting incidents occurred. Out of all of them, only 7 were stopped by people with guns, 1 armed civilian, 2 off-duty police, and 4 armed guards (Blair and Schweit 11). Only one armed civilian, who these laws would concern the most, stopped an active shooter. On the other hand, 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians, are guns effective at stopping active shooters? In addition, the LA Times summarizes a study where “77 participants with varying levels of firearms training [were put] through three realistic self-defense scenarios. In the first, seven of the participants shot an innocent bystander. Almost all of the participants in the first and second scenarios who engaged the “bad guy” were killed. And in the final scenario, 23% of the participants fired at a suspect who didn’t actually pose a threat” (DeFilippis and Hughes 2). Reinforcing the evidence from the FBI, this study demonstrates that, unless everyone is a trained police officer with perfect judgemental skills, chances are, the “good guy with a gun” could become a liability rather than an asset. Now, if more guns isn’t the solution, and outright banning them isn’t either, what is? Closing the biggest loophole of them all, moving. The New York Times explains data that notes of the 52,915 guns confiscated in New York City from 2010-2015, 90% of the handguns were actually out of state guns, largely coming from the 6 states of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia (Palmer 1). Why would they go out of their way to do this? Because New York City has strict laws on handguns, forcing residents “to register handguns and obtain permits to buy and carry handguns. It also requires handgun owners to be licensed” (Palmer 3). How effective could a law be if someone could bypass it by simply going to a different area? Especially in states that don’t require background checks, this could definitely lead to unvetted people buying guns who, based on their past, should definitely not be buying such weapons. In fact, the shooter at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando had a history of domestic violence and even vocally supported terrorist organizations, according to the Los Angeles Times (DeFilippis and Hughes 3). He, by most standards, should not have been able to buy a gun with his history. If it was a standard in all states to have background checks that take things like this into consideration, would this shooter have been able to commit this horrible act? Not easily. If gun rights activists support keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it is safe to assume that a history of domestic abuse is indeed the “wrong hands”. Due to the 10th amendment, a federally imposed standard would be difficult to establish, but voters can still strive to implement a standard state-by-state. Americans must realize that gun laws are only effective if they are universal, even if it is something as simple as the aforementioned background checks. Americans must come together to save lives by plugging the holes in legislature.