essay on gun control debate

• How to Order

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

30+ Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you looking for inspiration for your persuasive essay about gun control? You are at the right place!

Gun control is a controversial but common topic for students. But with so many arguments on both sides, students often find it challenging.

However, reading some sample essays can be a good start! 

This blog provides several example essays on the topic of gun control that you can read for inspiration. Moreover, you'll get tips to help you craft your own persuasive essay about the topic.

So let’s get started!

• 1. Persuasive Essay Examples on Gun Control 
• 2. Persuasive Essay Against Gun Control
• 3. Persuasive Essay on Pro-Gun Control
• 4. Argumentative Essay About Gun Control
• 5. Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay
• 6. Persuasive Essay Topics about Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples on Gun Control 

Start with these general persuasive essay samples on gun control. They will help you understand what makes a good gun control essay.

Check out these examples:

Persuasive Essay about Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples Gun Control

Want persuasive examples on other topics? Check out our persuasive essay examples blog to find samples on a variety of topics.

Persuasive Essay Against Gun Control

Check out these few examples of anti-gun control essays. These will help you understand the arguments of those who are against gun control.

Why Gun Control is Bad

Argumentative Essay Against Gun Control

Check out this short video below on the pros and cons of gun control to find good arguments for both sides.

Persuasive Essay on Pro-Gun Control

Some people believe that stricter gun control laws should be a priority to prevent gun violence. Here are some examples that will introduce you to their arguments in detail.

Why We Need Gun Control Essay

The Pros of Gun Control Essay

Free Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

An argumentative essay about gun control is a paper that looks at both sides of the debate on this important issue. The goal is to make sure that you can support your position with facts, figures, and logical arguments.

Read these argumentative essay examples about gun control to see how it's done!

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay

Now that you have read some good examples of persuasive essays about gun control, it's time for you to start writing your own paper.

But how exactly do you write a good essay by yourself? Here are some steps you should follow:

Step 1- Research the Topic

Before you start writing your essay, it’s important to do some research on gun control.

Read up on the different arguments and viewpoints on the issue to get a better understanding of what you are discussing. Gather as many facts and evidence as you need.

Make sure to take notes, so you can cite anything you use later.

Step 2- Make an Outline

Having a persuasive essay outline will help you stay organized and on track.

Start by making an outline of the main points you want to discuss in your essay. Then, break it down into subsections with specific facts and arguments.

In short, make sure to create a clear structure for your essay.

Step 3- Take a Stance

After doing your research, decide which side of the debate you agree with. Choose one side of the debate. Decide if you're going to argue for or against gun control. Make sure to choose an opinion that you can defend with logical arguments. Moreover, stay consistent throughout your paper about your stance.

Step 4- Support Your Arguments

When making your arguments, make sure to back them up with evidence. Use data, statistics, and quotes from experts to strengthen your points. In addition, you should use rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your essay more effective.

Step 5- Address the Opposition  

Make sure to address any counterarguments that you come across while researching or writing your essay. This will show your readers that you have done your research and considered both sides of the argument.

Step  6- Proofread and Revise

Before submitting your paper, make sure to proofread for any mistakes or typos. Having a second pair of eyes look over your work can help catch any errors that you may have missed.

Take your time to revise and edit your essay. Make sure that each point is clearly laid out and supported with facts, figures, and logic. This is important to make sure that the essay is compelling and error-free!

Persuasive Essay Topics about Gun Control

Wondering which gun topic you should write about? Here are a few persuasive essay topics related to gun control that you can choose.

• The Impact of Stricter Gun Control Laws on Reducing Gun Violence
• The Role of Background Checks in Preventing Firearms Access for Criminals
• Mental Health and Gun Control: Addressing the Connection
• Gun Control vs. Second Amendment Rights: Finding a Balance
• The Necessity of Banning Assault Weapons for Public Safety
• Why Gun Control Won’t End School Shootings
• The Influence of Lobbying Groups like the NRA on Gun Control Policies
• The International Perspective: Comparing Gun Control Measures in Different Countries
• How Can Gun Control Help Suicide Prevention
• The Economics of Gun Control: Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Stricter Regulations

Want persuasive topics on other subjects? Check out our list of 200+ engaging and interesting persuasive essay topics to get topic ideas.

To sum it up for you,

Gun control is an important issue that needs to be discussed in our society. The example essays in this blog have helped to show different arguments for and against gun control. In addition, you got some useful steps on how to write a persuasive essay about this topic.

Whether you are for or against gun control, make sure to conduct thorough research and use evidence when writing your paper.

So keep these steps in mind and start writing your own gun control essay today!

If you need further help with your essay on gun control, don't worry! 

Our essay help online can provide you with high-quality custom papers. We have experienced and professional writers who know what it takes to write a powerful persuasive piece!

So, hire our persuasive essay writing service now!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Gun Control Essay: Important Topics, Examples, and More

Gun Control Definition

Gun control refers to the regulation of firearms to reduce the risk of harm caused by their misuse. It is an important issue that has garnered much attention in recent years due to the increasing number of gun-related incidents, including mass shootings and homicides. Writing an essay about gun control is important because it allows one to explore the various aspects of this complex and controversial topic, including the impact of gun laws on public safety, the constitutional implications of gun control, and the social and cultural factors that contribute to gun violence.

In writing an essay on gun control, conducting thorough research, considering multiple perspectives, and developing a well-informed argument is important. This may involve analyzing existing gun control policies and their effectiveness, exploring the attitudes and beliefs of different groups towards firearms, and examining the historical and cultural context of gun ownership and use. Through this process, one can develop a nuanced understanding of the issue and propose effective solutions to address the problem of gun violence.

Further information on writing essays on gun control can be found in various sources, including academic journals, policy reports, and news articles. In the following paragraphs, our nursing essay writing services will provide tips and resources to help you write an effective and informative guns essay. Contact our custom writer and get your writing request satisfied in a short term.

Gun Control Essay Types

There are various types of essays about gun control, each with its own unique focus and approach. From analyzing the effectiveness of existing gun laws to exploring the cultural and historical context of firearms in society, the possibilities for exploring this topic are virtually endless.

Let's look at the following types and examples from our essay writing service USA :

• Argumentative Essay : This essay clearly argues for or against gun control laws. The writer must use evidence to support their position and refute opposing arguments.
• Descriptive Essay: A descriptive essay on gun control aims to provide a detailed topic analysis. The writer must describe the history and evolution of gun laws, the different types of firearms, and their impact on society.
• Cause and Effect Essay: This type of essay focuses on why gun control laws are necessary, the impact of gun violence on society, and the consequences of not having strict gun control laws.
• Compare and Contrast Essay: In this type of essay, the writer compares and contrasts different countries' gun laws and their effectiveness. They can also compare and contrast different types of guns and their impact on society.
• Expository Essay: This type of essay focuses on presenting facts and data on the topic of gun control. The writer must explain the different types of gun laws, their implementation, and their impact on society.
• Persuasive Essay: The writer of a persuasive essay aims to persuade the reader to support their position on gun control. They use a combination of facts, opinions, and emotional appeals to convince the reader.
• Narrative Essay: A narrative essay on gun control tells a story about an individual's experience with gun violence. It can be a personal story or a fictional one, but it should provide insight into the human impact of gun violence.

In the following paragraphs, we will provide an overview of the most common types of gun control essays and some tips and resources to help you write them effectively. Whether you are a student, a researcher, or simply someone interested in learning more about this important issue, these essays can provide valuable insight and perspective on the complex and often controversial topic of gun control.

Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

A persuasive essay on gun control is designed to convince the reader to support a specific stance on gun control policies. To write an effective persuasive essay, the writer must use a combination of facts, statistics, and emotional appeals to sway the reader's opinion. Here are some tips from our expert custom writer to help you write a persuasive essay on gun control:

• Research : Conduct thorough research on gun control policies, including their history, effectiveness, and societal impact. Use credible sources to back up your argument.
• Develop a thesis statement: In your gun control essay introduction, the thesis statement should clearly state your position on gun control and provide a roadmap for your paper.
• Use emotional appeals: Use emotional appeals to connect with your reader. For example, you could describe the impact of gun violence on families and communities.
• Address opposing viewpoints: Address opposing viewpoints and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
• Use statistics: Use statistics to back up your argument. For example, you could use statistics to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
• Use rhetorical devices: Use rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and analogies, to help the reader understand complex concepts.

Persuasive gun control essay examples include:

• The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to own any firearm.
• Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in the United States.
• The proliferation of guns in society leads to more violence and higher crime rates.
• Gun control laws should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.

Argumentative Essay on Gun Control

A gun control argumentative essay is designed to present a clear argument for or against gun control policies. To write an effective argumentative essay, the writer must present a well-supported argument and refute opposing arguments. Here are some tips to help you write an argumentative essay on gun control:

• Choose a clear stance: Choose a clear stance on gun control policies and develop a thesis statement that reflects your position.
• Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and use credible sources to back up your argument.
• Refute opposing arguments: Anticipate opposing arguments and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
• Use evidence: Use evidence to back up your argument. For example, you could use data to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
• Use logical reasoning: Use logical reasoning to explain why your argument is valid.

Examples of argumentative essay topics on gun control include:

• Gun control laws infringe upon individuals' right to bear arms and protect themselves.
• Gun control laws are ineffective and do not prevent gun violence.

If you'd rather have a professional write you a flawless paper, you can always contact us and buy argumentative essay .

Do You Want to Ease Your Academic Burden?

Order a rhetorical analysis essay from our expert writers today and experience the power of top-notch academic writing.

How to Choose a Good Gun Control Topic: Tips and Examples

Choosing a good gun control topic can be challenging, but with some careful consideration, you can select an interesting and relevant topic. Here are seven tips for choosing a good gun control topic with examples:

• Consider current events: Choose a topic that is current and relevant. For example, the impact of the pandemic on gun control policies.
• Narrow your focus: Choose a specific aspect of gun control to focus on, such as the impact of gun control laws on crime rates.
• Consider your audience: Consider who your audience is and what they are interested in. For example, a topic that appeals to gun enthusiasts might be the ethics of owning firearms.
• Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and current events. For example, the impact of the Second Amendment on gun control laws.
• Choose a controversial topic: Choose a controversial topic that will generate discussion. For example, the impact of the NRA on gun control policies.
• Choose a topic that interests you: You can choose an opinion article on gun control that you are passionate about and interested in. For example, the impact of mass shootings on public opinion of gun control.
• Consider different perspectives: Consider different perspectives on gun control and choose a topic that allows you to explore multiple viewpoints. For example, the effectiveness of background checks in preventing gun violence.

You can also buy an essay online cheap from our professional writers. Knowing that you are getting high-quality, customized work will give you the peace of mind and confidence you need to succeed!

Pro-Gun Control Essay Topics

Here are pro-gun control essay topics that can serve as a starting point for your research and writing, helping you to craft a strong and persuasive argument.

• Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in America.
• The Second Amendment was written for a different time and should be updated to reflect modern society.
• Gun control and gun safety laws can prevent mass shootings and other forms of gun violence.
• Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases.
• The availability of assault weapons should be severely restricted.
• Concealed carry permits should be harder to obtain and require more rigorous training.
• The gun lobby has too much influence on government policy.
• The mental health of gun owners should be considered when purchasing firearms.
• Gun violence has a significant economic impact on communities and the nation as a whole.
• There is a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher gun violence rates.
• Gun control policies can help prevent suicides and accidental shootings.
• Gun control policies should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.
• More research is needed on the impact of gun control policies on gun violence.
• The impact of gun violence on children and young people is a significant public health issue.
• Gun control policies should be designed to reduce the illegal gun trade and access to firearms by criminals.
• The right to own firearms should not override the right to public safety.
• The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from gun violence.
• Gun control policies are compatible with the Second Amendment.
• International examples of successful gun control policies can be applied in America.

Anti-Gun Control Essay Topics

These topics against gun control essay can help you develop strong and persuasive arguments based on individual rights and the importance of personal freedom.

• Gun control laws infringe on the Second Amendment and individual rights.
• Stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
• Gun control laws are unnecessary and will only burden law-abiding citizens.
• Owning a gun is a fundamental right and essential for self-defense.
• Gun-free zones create a false sense of security and leave people vulnerable.
• A Gun control law will not stop mass school shootings, as these are often premeditated and planned.
• The government cannot be trusted to enforce gun control laws fairly and justly.
• Gun control laws unfairly target law-abiding gun owners and punish them for the actions of a few.
• Gun ownership is a part of American culture and heritage and should not be restricted.
• Gun control laws will not stop criminals from using firearms to commit crimes.
• Gun control laws often ignore the root causes of gun violence, such as mental illness and poverty.
• Gun control laws will not stop terrorists from using firearms to carry out attacks.
• Gun control laws will only create a black market for firearms, making it easier for criminals to obtain them.
• Gun control laws will not stop domestic violence, as abusers will find other ways to harm their victims.
• Gun control laws will not stop drug cartels and organized crime from trafficking firearms.
• Gun control laws will not stop gang violence and turf wars.
• Gun control laws are an infringement on personal freedom and individual responsibility.
• Gun control laws are often rooted in emotion rather than reason and evidence.
• Gun control laws ignore the important role that firearms play in hunting and sport shooting.
• More gun control laws will only give the government more power and control over its citizens.

Example Essays

Whether you have been assigned to write a gun control research paper or essay, the tips provided above should help you grasp the general idea of how to cope with this task. Now, to give you an even better understanding of the task and set you on the right track, here are a few excellent examples of well-written papers on this topic:

Don’t forget that you always have a reliable essay writing service USA by your side to which you can entrust writing a brilliant essay for you!

Final Words

In conclusion, writing a sample rhetorical analysis essay requires careful analysis and effective use of persuasive techniques. Whether you are a high school student or a college student, mastering the art of rhetorical analysis can help you become a more effective communicator and critical thinker. With practice and perseverance, anyone can become a skilled writer and excel in their academic pursuits.

And if you're overwhelmed or unsure about writing your next AP lang rhetorical analysis essay, don't worry - we're here to help! Our friendly and experienced research paper writers are ready to guide you through the process, providing expert advice and support every step of the way. So why not take the stress out of writing and let us help you succeed? Buy essay today and take the first step toward academic excellence!

Looking to Take Your Academic Performance to the Next Level?

Say goodbye to stress, endless research, and sleepless nights - and hello to a brighter academic future. Place your order now and watch your grades soar!

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

In gun debate, both sides have evidence to back them up

Ph.D. Student in Political Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Kinder Institute Assistant Professor of Constitutional Democracy, University of Missouri-Columbia

Disclosure statement

Jennifer Selin has received funding for her research on the executive branch from the Administrative Conference of the United States. In addition, she has received funding for her research on Congress from the Dirksen Congressional Center and the Center for Effective Lawmaking.

Zach Lang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Gun control is back in the U.S. political debate, in the wake of mass shootings in California, Boulder and Atlanta.

Democrats see stricter gun control as a step toward addressing the problem. In March 2021, as the House of Representatives passed two gun control bills, Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the “ solutions will save lives .”

Many Republicans disagree, arguing as Sen. Ted Cruz has that proposed laws seeking to require background checks on all firearms sales and transfers and to ban assault weapons are “ ridiculous theater ” that fail to reduce mass shootings.

As two political scientists trained in data analysis , we set out to determine whether gun control legislation actually prevents mass shootings. We collected data on all mass shootings that occurred between February 1980 and February 2020. We then examined key information on the perpetrators, weapons used and laws in effect at the time of shooting.

Our research, which is yet to be published in an academic journal, suggests that there is statistical evidence to support both parties’ positions about gun control legislation.

While stricter gun control laws may make mass shootings slightly less common, our research suggests that the rhetoric of both parties may not tell the full story. Rather than federal gun control laws, policies that focus on violence prevention at the community or individual levels may be more effective at preventing mass shooting deaths.

Mass shootings in the past 40 years

We defined a mass shooting as a single incident in which a perpetrator with no connection to gang activity or organized crime shot and killed three or more people. This is similar to the definition Congress uses .

We found there were 112 of these events between 1980 and 2020; the number of mass shootings each year has increased over time. An overwhelming majority of mass shooters – 87% of them – obtained their firearms legally. Nearly all shooters – 93% – shot their victims in the same state where they obtained their weapons.

These facts suggest that existing gun laws and regulations governing gun purchases and firearms that cross state lines may not be working to reduce mass shootings. Our study did not address whether or how other forms of gun violence might be affected by those laws.

In fact, mass shootings tended to occur in states with stricter regulations. Of the states with the highest per capita rates of mass shootings, many – like Connecticut, Maryland and California – employ background checks and assault weapons bans.

By contrast, 18 states did not have a single mass shooting event over the entire 40-year period. Many of these states – like West Virginia, Wyoming and South Dakota – have high rates of gun ownership and relatively loose gun control laws.

But those data patterns don’t tell the full story of our analysis.

The effects of gun laws

Gun laws aren’t the only factors that affect where and when mass shootings occur. The number of police officers per capita, a community’s population density and crime rate, and other demographic characteristics such as unemployment rates and average income can also matter.

We used statistical methods to control for those factors, narrowing our analysis to find out whether various types of gun control laws affected the number of mass shootings or number of mass shooting deaths in each state each year.

Specifically, we examined the effects of four different types of gun control legislation: background checks; assault weapons bans; high-capacity magazine bans; and “ extreme risk protection order ” or “red flag laws” that let a court determine whether to confiscate the guns of someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.

We found that background check requirements, assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans each reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States – but only by a small amount. For instance, enacting a statewide assault weapons ban decreases the number of mass shootings in the state by one shooting every six years. And none of the four types of gun control legislation correlate with fewer total mass shooting deaths.

And laws that remove an individual’s right to own firearms if that individual poses a risk to the community do not affect the number of mass shooting events.

Beyond gun control

Our analysis suggests that Americans who want to make mass shootings less frequent and less deadly may want to think beyond gun control legislation.

Statistically, mass shootings tend to occur in large, densely populated states with higher income and education levels per capita. While these states often respond to mass shootings by passing gun control legislation, it may be that alternative avenues are more successful.

For example, we find that increasing the number of police officers per capita decreases the number of mass shootings.

There is a wide variety of policy options designed to prevent mass shootings. The American Psychological Association suggests a comprehensive community approach that works to identify prevention strategies that bring public safety officials, schools, public health systems and faith-based groups together to reduce gun violence.

Aaron Stark , who says he was almost a mass shooter, explains that mass shootings can be an act of desperation resulting from frustration, stress and an individual’s perception that they lack power. This is in line with a new U.S. Secret Service report that suggests politicians may need to think beyond the accessibility of guns. Violence prevention strategies that focus on interpersonal and community relations may be more effective than gun control legislation.

Framing the debate

Many policy options involve value judgments stemming from beliefs about the U.S. Constitution and the power of government to regulate guns.

Among people who think that restricting gun access reduces mass shootings, people disagree over whether the country should prioritize the individual freedoms of gun owners or the safety and peace of mind of non-gun owners. These differing views can reflect different interpretations of the extent to which the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

States have a role to play, too. Federal gun policy covers the entire nation. But our data indicates that attention to state and local factors can play an important role in preventing mass shootings.

In the end, gun control remains a debate about facts and context, complicated by a disagreement over constitutional values.

[ Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter .]

• Gun control
• Gun violence
• Mass shootings
• Second Amendment
• Gun policy US
• Gun research

Management Information Systems & Analytics – Limited Term Contract

Publications Manager

Audience Insight Officer

Academic Programs Officer, Scheduling

Director, Student Administration

Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

History of Gun Control Laws

Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to  Catholics , enslaved people, indentured servants, and  Native Americans ; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the  American Revolutionary War . Several colonies’ gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns. In the June 26, 2008, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” [ 3 ] On June 9, 2016 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that “[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment,” thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and “good cause” for concealed carry licenses in California. [ 145 ] [ 146 ] A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violate the Second Amendment between the 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed. [ 157 ] Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller , wrote, “the Framer’s single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee ‘to keep and bear arms’ was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias,” hence the inclusion of the phrase “well regulated militia.” [ 3 ] Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed. [ 47 ] Read More

Pro 2 More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. There were 572,537 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2016: 336,579 suicides (58.8% of total gun deaths); 213,175 homicides (37.2%); and 11,428 unintentional deaths (2.0%). Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (67.7% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.8% of all suicides). Firearms were the second leading cause of deaths for children, responsible for 15% of child deaths compared to 20% in motor vehicle crashes. [ 30 ] [ 162 ] Female first-time firearm owners were 35 times more likely to commit suicide within 12 years of buying the gun compared to women who did not own guns; male first-time firearm owners were about eight times more likely to do so. [ 171 ] [ 172 ] Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members. [ 4 ] [ 18 ] Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman’s risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that “legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death” [ 6 ] Researchers found that a “general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed.” [ 32 ] According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%. [ 148 ] Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws. [ 158 ] [ 160 ] More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after “red flag” laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable. [ 31 ] [ 33 ] [ 158 ] [ 159 ] [ 164 ] The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired. [ 35 ] Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children’s behavior around guns, stated, “We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves…. [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot ‘gun-proof’ them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children.” [ 36 ] Read More

Pro 3 The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent. The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total). [ 37 ] An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, “gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns.” A study published in the same journal found that “the weapons used [in altercations]… were those closest at hand.” And thus, according to another study, “[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] Statistics show that guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. In 2010 there were 230 “justifiable homicides” in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every “justifiable homicide”). Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. [ 16 ] [ 17 ] Further, armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. None of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were stopped by an armed civilian. Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, “The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation.” [ 41 ] [ 43 ] Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 48 ] The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most common arms were long rifles that had to be reloaded after every shot. Civilians today have access to folding, detaching, or telescoping stocks that make the guns more easily concealed and carried; silencers to muffle gunshot sounds; flash suppressors to fire in low-light conditions without being blinded by the flash and to conceal the shooter’s location; or grenade launcher attachments. Jonathan Lowy, Director of Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, states, “These are weapons that will shred your venison before you eat it, or go through the walls of your apartment when you’re trying to defend yourself… [they are] made for mass killing, but not useful for law-abiding citizens.” [ 49 ] [ 50 ] Read More

Pro 4 A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines. According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases. [ 155 ] As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the “gun show loophole”). [ 28 ] 53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists. [ 27 ] 77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun. [ 165 ] Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, “As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns.” [ 29 ] Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people). [ 44 ] [ 45 ] Read More

Con 1 The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia in the June 26, 2008, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” [ 3 ] The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. [ 51 ] Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, “The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.” [ 52 ] The Second Amendment was intended to protect gun ownership of all able-bodied men so that they could participate in the militia to keep the peace and defend the country if needed. According to the United States Code, a “militia” is composed of all “able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Therefore, the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment would have been composed of almost all adult men and, in turn, that most adult men should not have their right to own firearms infringed. [ 99 ] [ 100 ] Read More

Con 2 Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens’ rights Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: “Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1.” [ 94 ] [ 95 ] [ 96 ] In the late 1960s, gun control laws were enacted in reaction to the militant, gun-carrying Black Panthers. Adam Winkler, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor, stated “The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns” so, after the Civil War, there was “constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African Americans because they would rise up and revolt.” For example, in Virginia, in response to Nat Turner’s Rebellion (also called the Southampton Rebellion, in which enslaved people killed 55 to 65 people in the most fatal slave uprising in the United States) in 1831, a law was passed that prohibited free black people “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead and all laws allowing free black people to possess firearms were repealed. [ 97 ] [ 98 ] Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid’s 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a “worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.” Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes “on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.” [ 77 ] [ 78 ] [ 79 ] [ 80 ] Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would “make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.” Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, “The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life” and “many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.” A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. [ 58 ] [ 59 ] [ 64 ] Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban “assault weapons,” infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, “So-called ‘Assault weapons’ are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term ‘assault weapon’ was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie… [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled ‘assault weapons,’ are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer.” According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting. [ 55 ] [ 65 ] [ 66 ] [ 67 ] [ 68 ] Read More

Con 3 Gun control laws simply do not work. Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, “there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates.” Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The “gun show loophole” is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates. [ 102 ] [ 148 ] Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico’s gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico’s one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people. [ 44 ] [ 88 ] [ 89 ] [ 90 ] [ 91 ] [ 92 ] [ 93 ] The main reason gun control doesn’t work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns. [ 69 ] [ 176 ] The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that “assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level” and “states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.” While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, “Criminals don’t obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job… As the saying goes, ‘If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’” [ 53 ] [ 56 ] [ 103 ] More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, “Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.” According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo , studies show that “children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns” and “children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence.” [82] [85] [154] [ 82 ] [ 85 ] [ 154 ] Read More

Con 4 Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would “give too much power to the government over the people.” [ 58 ] The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre stated, “if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.” [ 75 ] Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting, it’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!” [ 76 ] The Libertarian Party stated, “A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion.” Counsel for the NRA explains, “It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an ‘unorganized’ armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant.” [ 86 ] [ 87 ] Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, “If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves.” [ 149 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Gun Control – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• History of Gun Control
• Did You Know?
• U.S. Gun Deaths by Year
• Leading Causes of Suicide, Homicide, and Unintentional Death
• International Firearm Homicide Rates
• International Civilian Gun Ownership Rates
• Average American Gun Owner
• State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms
• School Shootings: Jan. 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Gun Control Argumentative Essay: The Definitive Guide

What Is Gun Control?

Gun control refers to the regulation and management of firearms within a given jurisdiction. It involves the creation and enforcement of laws, policies, and measures aimed at restricting the possession, use, and distribution of firearms. The objectives of gun control vary, but they often include enhancing public safety, preventing gun-related crimes, reducing the likelihood of mass shootings, and addressing concerns about domestic violence.

Gun control measures can encompass a range of policies, such as background checks for gun buyers, restrictions on the types of firearms and accessories available for civilian use, waiting periods before obtaining a firearm, and limitations on the number of firearms an individual can own. Additionally, some jurisdictions may implement licensing requirements, mandatory firearm registration, and regulations regarding the storage and carrying of firearms.

Debates surrounding gun control often involve discussions about individual rights, constitutional interpretations (such as the Second Amendment in the United States), and the balance between personal freedoms and public safety. Advocates for gun control argue that it is necessary to curb gun violence and prevent tragedies, while opponents may emphasize the importance of individual liberties and the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Overall, gun control is a complex and contentious issue that involves finding a balance between protecting public safety and respecting the rights of individuals to own firearms.

How to Choose a Topic for Argumentative Essay on Gun Control?

Choosing an argumentative essay on gun regulation involves considering various factors to ensure that your topic is relevant and engaging, allowing for a thorough exploration of the issue. Here are some tips to help you choose a compelling argumentative essay topic on gun control:

1. Define Your Position

• Consider your stance on the issue. Are you in favor of stricter gun control measures, or do you argue for more permissive policies? Understanding your position will guide your topic selection.

2. Consider Current Events

• Look at recent news and developments related to gun control. Timely and relevant topics often generate more interest and provide an opportunity to engage with current debates.

3. Narrow Down the Focus

• Gun control is a broad topic. Narrow it down to a specific aspect or angle that interests you. For example, you could focus on the impact of gun control on reducing crime, the effectiveness of background checks, or the constitutional implications.

4. Research Available Data

• Ensure that there is enough research material available on your chosen topic. Access to credible sources and data will strengthen your argument and provide evidence to support your claims.

5. Consider the Audience

• Consider your target audience and choose a topic that resonates with their interests and concerns. Tailoring your argument to your audience can make your argumentative essay more persuasive.

6. Explore Both Sides

• Choose a topic that allows for a balanced discussion. Exploring both sides of the argument demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue and can make your argumentative essay more nuanced and convincing.

7. Avoid Extreme Positions

• While it's important to have a clear stance, avoid overly extreme positions that may alienate readers. Aim for a topic that allows for a reasonable and well-supported argument.

8. Address Local or Global Perspectives

• Consider whether you want to focus on gun control at a local, national, or global level. Different regions may have unique challenges and perspectives on the issue.

9. Check Assignment Guidelines

• Ensure that your chosen topic aligns with the guidelines and requirements of your assignment. Check for any specific instructions provided by your instructor.

10. Personal Connection

• If you have a personal connection or experience related to gun control, it can add depth and authenticity to your argumentative essay. However, be mindful of maintaining a balanced and evidence-based argument.

By carefully considering these factors, you can choose a great argumentative essay topic on gun control that allows for a thorough exploration of the issue and engages your readers.

How to Write a Gun Control Argumentative Essay?

Writing a gun control argumentative essay involves presenting a clear and persuasive argument on the topic. Here's a step-by-step guide to help you structure and write your argumentative essay:

1. Understand the Assignment

• Before you start writing, make sure you understand the requirements and guidelines of your assignment. Know the purpose of your argumentative essay and any specific instructions from your instructor.

2. Choose a Strong Thesis Statement

• Develop a concise and specific thesis statement that outlines your main argument or position on gun control. This statement should clearly convey your stance on the issue.

3. Research Thoroughly

• Gather information from credible sources to support your argument. Look for data, statistics, expert opinions, and case studies related to gun control. Ensure that your research is balanced and addresses both sides of the issue.

4. Outline Your Argumentative Essay

• Create a well-organized outline to structure your argumentative essay. Divide it into an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each section should have a clear purpose and contribute to the overall coherence of your argument.

5. Write a Compelling Introduction

• Start your argumentative essay with an engaging introduction that introduces the topic, provides background information, and ends with your thesis statement. Capture the reader's attention and set the tone for your argument.

6. Develop Strong Body Paragraphs

• Each body paragraph should focus on a specific point or aspect of your argument. Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence and provide evidence to support your claims. Use examples, statistics, and quotations to reinforce your points.

7. Address Counterarguments

• Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints. Anticipate counterarguments and refute them with strong evidence and reasoning. Demonstrating awareness of alternative perspectives adds credibility to your argumentative essay.

8. Use Clear and Convincing Language

• Write in a clear, concise, and persuasive manner. Avoid vague language and ensure that your arguments are logically presented. Use transition words to create a smooth flow between paragraphs.

9. Provide Real-Life Examples

• Support your arguments with real-life examples or case studies. Personal stories, historical events, or current news stories can add depth to your argumentative essay and make your points more relatable.

10. Conclude Effectively

• Summarize your main points in the conclusion and restate your thesis. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion. End with a strong closing statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

11. Revise and Edit

• Review your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammar. Check for any inconsistencies or gaps in your argument. Consider seeking feedback from peers or instructors to improve the overall quality of your argumentative essay.

12. Format According to Guidelines

• Ensure your argumentative essay follows the required formatting guidelines, including citation style (APA, MLA, etc.). Properly cite all sources used in your research.

By following these steps, you can craft a well-structured and persuasive gun control argumentative essay that effectively communicates your position on the topic.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Here’s a list of excellent argumentative essay topics on gun control to use in writing your argumentative paper. If you like any of the topics but have no time to develop them properly in a written form, please consult our argumentative essay writing service .

• Stricter laws could help reduce gun violence.
• Background checks may prevent crimes involving guns.
• The Second Amendment's role in individual rights and public safety is unclear.
• Checking mental health might improve gun control efforts.
• Countries with fewer guns tend to have lower homicide rates.
• Gun lobbyists have a significant impact on making laws.
• Arming teachers may not be the best idea for school safety.
• Gun shows contribute to unregulated gun sales.
• Gun buyback programs aim to make communities safer.
• Community policing could be better for public safety than strict gun control.
• Access to firearms affects domestic violence rates.
• Preventing mass shootings may require more than just gun control.
• Gun control may affect racial groups differently.
• Concealed carry laws may impact personal protection and public safety.
• Smart guns and new technology aim to make firearms safer.
• America's love for guns impacts gun control discussions.
• Deciding on gun laws raises questions about federal vs. state control.
• Gun violence has significant economic costs to society.
• Learning from other countries may inform better gun control approaches.
• Media plays a role in shaping public perception of gun control issues.

Pro-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Stricter gun control regulations get all the hype nowadays, given the recent events in the United States. It may be a smart choice to examine pro-gun control topics if you want to draw readers’ attention.

• Making background checks universal can help control guns.
• Waiting periods before buying guns may prevent impulsive violence.
• Strict licensing for guns is necessary for public safety.
• Banning high-capacity magazines can reduce the severity of mass shootings.
• Smart gun technology enhances safety and limits unauthorized use.
• Mental health screening should be a part of gun purchases.
• Red flag laws can prevent individuals at risk from accessing guns.
• Understanding public opinion is crucial for effective gun control.
• Gun control is vital in addressing domestic violence and protecting victims.
• Examining the impact of gun-free zones on public safety is important.
• Community policing can help collaboratively address gun violence.
• Reducing accidental shootings involves looking at gun ownership.
• Addressing gun trafficking requires better cooperation between federal and state authorities.
• Gun control is crucial for reducing injuries and promoting public health.
• Connecting gun control with suicide prevention is essential.
• Examining the influence of corporate interests in the firearms industry is important.
• Gun control can be a deterrent, learning from international success stories.
• Banning assault weapons mitigates the impact of military-style firearms.
• Stricter regulations are needed to reduce the economic cost of gun violence.
• Promoting responsible gun ownership laws through education enhances safety and awareness.

Anti-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Always weigh in on the pros and cons of a certain topic. Although it may seem contradictory, anti-gun control topics can allow the classroom to explore an opposing point of view to understand the counterparts better and maybe come up with interesting conclusions on the matter.

• Individual rights should prevail over stricter gun control measures.
• The Second Amendment protects an inviolable right to resist further regulations.
• Background checks are doubted for their efficacy in preventing crimes.
• Waiting periods for gun purchases are seen as an infringement on personal freedom.
• High-capacity magazines' direct link to mass shootings is challenged.
• Pushback against smart gun technology raises concerns and critiques.
• Mental health screening is criticized for potential stigmatization and privacy issues.
• Red flag laws need to balance safety and individual liberties.
• Skepticism surrounds public opinion on the need for more gun control.
• Gun-free zones are questioned for their role in attracting criminal activity.
• Community policing is favored over strict gun control for addressing root causes.
• Accidental shootings raise questions about individual responsibility versus legislation.
• Gun trafficking solutions should focus on local rather than federal measures.
• Unintended consequences of gun control on law-abiding citizens are highlighted.
• Doubts persist about the effectiveness of gun control in improving public health.
• Corporate influence on gun control legislation deserves a closer examination.
• Skepticism exists about the applicability of international approaches to local contexts.
• The impact of an assault weapons ban on personal defense is scrutinized.
• The economic consequences of stricter gun control are considered unintended.
• Educational initiatives are suggested as an alternative approach to gun safety.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Example

As we studied what gun control is, why it stirs so much controversy, and what are some great topics to write about, it’s time we analyzed one of the argumentative essay examples regarding gun control. Keep in mind – it’s for your inspirational needs only!

The Gun Control Debate: Constitutional Rights vs. Public and Personal Safety

The issue of gun control has been a contentious topic that has sparked intense debates across the United States. On the one hand, proponents argue for stricter regulations to curb the rising gun violence. On the other hand, opponents emphasize the importance of protecting individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Striking a balance between these two perspectives is essential to ensure public safety without infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment has been at the center of the gun control debate, with advocates arguing that it guarantees an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense and protection against tyranny. Any attempt to restrict this right must be carefully examined to avoid violating the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The alarming increase in gun violence in recent years has raised concerns about public safety. Mass shootings, homicides, and suicides involving firearms have become all too common, necessitating a reevaluation of existing gun control measures. Stricter regulations on the purchase, possession, and use of firearms are essential to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and to mitigate the devastating consequences of gun-related incidents.

Implementing effective gun control measures requires finding a middle ground that respects individual rights while promoting public safety. Background checks, waiting periods, and mandatory firearm training are potential measures that can help ensure responsible gun ownership. By focusing on these aspects, the government can maintain a balance that protects both individual liberties and the collective safety of the community.

Addressing mental health issues is a crucial aspect of the gun control debate. Many incidents involving firearms are linked to individuals with untreated mental health conditions. By investing in mental health resources and integrating mental health evaluations into the gun purchase process, society can strive to prevent individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms.

Comparing the gun control policies of other developed nations can provide valuable insights. Countries with stricter gun control measures often experience lower rates of gun violence. Analyzing these models can help the United States identify effective strategies that balance individual rights and public safety.

In conclusion, the gun control debate is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of individual rights and public safety. Striking a balance between the two is crucial to addressing the escalating gun violence while respecting the constitutional rights of citizens. By implementing sensible regulations, focusing on responsible ownership, and addressing mental health concerns, society can work towards a safer future without compromising fundamental freedoms.

Final Remark

Gun control regulation sparks considerable controversy in the United States due to deeply entrenched cultural and political factors. The country has a long-standing tradition of gun ownership dating back to its founding, with the Second Amendment enshrining the right to bear arms in the Constitution. Additionally, the historical significance of firearms in shaping American identity and the perceived importance of self-defense contribute to staunch opposition to any perceived infringement on gun rights. 

Moreover, the issue is heavily politicized, with political parties and interest groups taking firm stances on either side of the debate. Given its complexity and relevance to contemporary society, students should explore this topic through argumentative essays to gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted factors at play, ranging from constitutional interpretation and public policy to social and cultural dynamics.

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 10 December 2019

The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning

• Joseph M. Pierre 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  159 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

255k Accesses

434 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Social policy

The gun debate in America is often framed as a stand-off between two immutable positions with little potential to move ahead with meaningful legislative reform. Attempts to resolve this impasse have been thwarted by thinking about gun ownership attitudes as based on rational choice economics instead of considering the broader socio-cultural meanings of guns. In this essay, an additional psychological perspective is offered that highlights how concerns about victimization and mass shootings within a shared culture of fear can drive cognitive bias and motivated reasoning on both sides of the gun debate. Despite common fears, differences in attitudes and feelings about guns themselves manifest in variable degrees of support for or opposition to gun control legislation that are often exaggerated within caricatured depictions of polarization. A psychological perspective suggests that consensus on gun legislation reform can be achieved through understanding differences and diversity on both sides of the debate, working within a common middle ground, and more research to resolve ambiguities about how best to minimize fear while maximizing personal and public safety.

Discounting risk

Do guns kill people or do people kill people? Answers to that riddle draw a bright line between two sides of a caricatured debate about guns in polarized America. One side believes that guns are a menace to public safety, while the other believes that they are an essential tool of self-preservation. One side cannot fathom why more gun control legislation has not been passed in the wake of a disturbing rise in mass shootings in the US and eyes Australia’s 1996 sweeping gun reform and New Zealand’s more recent restrictions with envy. The other, backed by the Constitutional right to bear arms and the powerful lobby of the National Rifle Association (NRA), fears the slippery slope of legislative change and refuses to yield an inch while threatening, “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands”. With the nation at an impasse, meaningful federal gun legislation aimed at reducing firearm violence remains elusive.

Despite the 1996 Dickey Amendment’s restriction of federal funding for research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Rostron, 2018 ), more than 30 years of public health research supports thinking of guns as statistically more of a personal hazard than a benefit. Case-control studies have repeatedly found that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of gun-related homicide or suicide occurring in the home (Kellermann and Reay, 1986 ; Kellermann et al., 1993 ; Cummings and Koepsell, 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ; Dahlberg et al., 2004 ; Hemenway, 2011 ; Anglemeyer et al., 2014 ). For homicides, the association is largely driven by gun-related violence committed by family members and other acquaintances, not strangers (Kellermann et al., 1993 , 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ).

If having a gun increases the risk of gun-related violent death in the home, why do people choose to own guns? To date, the prevailing answer from the public health literature has been seemingly based on a knowledge deficit model that assumes that gun owners are unaware of risks and that repeated warnings about “overwhelming evidence” of “the health risk of a gun in the home [being] greater than the benefit” (Hemenway, 2011 ) should therefore decrease gun ownership and increase support for gun legislation reform. And yet, the rate of US households with guns has held steady for two decades (Smith and Son, 2015 ) with owners amassing an increasing number of guns such that the total civilian stock has risen to some 265 million firearms (Azrael et al., 2017 ). This disparity suggests that the knowledge deficit model is inadequate to explain or modify gun ownership.

In contrast to the premise that people weigh the risks and benefits of their behavior based on “rational choice economics” (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ), nearly 50 years of psychology and behavioral economics research has instead painted a picture of human decision-making as a less than rational process based on cognitive short-cuts (“availability heuristics”) and other error-prone cognitive biases (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974 ; Kunda, 1990 ; Haselton and Nettle, 2006 ; Hibert, 2012 ). As a result, “consequentialist” approaches to promoting healthier choices are often ineffective. Following this perspective, recent public health efforts have moved beyond educational campaigns to apply an understanding of the psychology of risky behavior to strike a balance between regulation and behavioral “nudges” aimed at reducing harmful practices like smoking, unhealthy eating, texting while driving, and vaccine refusal (Atchley et al., 2011 ; Hansen et al., 2016 ; Matjasko et al., 2016 ; Pluviano et al., 2017 ).

A similar public health approach aimed at reducing gun violence should take into account how gun owners discount the risks of ownership according to cognitive biases and motivated reasoning. For example, cognitive dissonance may lead those who already own guns to turn a blind eye to research findings about the dangers of ownership. Optimism bias, the general tendency of individuals to overestimate good outcomes and underestimate bad outcomes, can likewise make it easy to disregard dangers by externalizing them to others. The risk of suicide can therefore be dismissed out of hand based on the rationale that “it will never happen to me,” while the risk of homicide can be discounted based on demographic factors. Kleck and Gertz ( 1998 ) noted that membership in street gangs and drug dealing might be important confounds of risk in case control studies, just as unsafe storage practices such as keeping a firearm loaded and unlocked may be another (Kellerman et al., 1993 ). Other studies have found that the homicide risk associated with guns in the home is greater for women compared to men and for non-whites compared to whites (Wiebe, 2003 ). Consequently, white men—by far the largest demographic that owns guns—might be especially likely to think of themselves as immune to the risks of gun ownership and, through confirmation bias, cherry-pick the data to support pre-existing intuitions and fuel motivated disbelief about guns. These testable hypotheses warrant examination in future research aimed at understanding the psychology of gun ownership and crafting public health approaches to curbing gun violence.

Still, while the role of cognitive biases should be integrated into a psychological understanding of attitudes towards gun ownership, cognitive biases are universal liabilities that fall short of explaining why some people might “employ” them as a part of motivated reasoning to support ownership or to oppose gun reform. To understand the underlying motivation that drives cognitive bias, a deeper analysis of why people own guns is required. In the introductory essay to this journal’s series on “What Guns Mean,” Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that public health efforts to reduce firearm ownership have failed to “address beliefs about guns among people who own them”. In a follow-up piece, Galea and Abdalla ( 2019 ) likewise suggested that the gun debate is complicated by the fact that “knowledge and values do not align” and that “these values create an impasse, one where knowing is not enough” (Galea and Abdalla, 2019 ). Indeed, these and other authors (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Braman and Kahan, 2006 ; Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ) have enumerated myriad beliefs and values, related to the different “symbolic lives” and “social meanings” of firearms both within and outside of “gun culture” that drive polarized attitudes towards gun ownership in the US. This essay attempts to further explore the meaning of guns from a psychological perspective.

Fear and gun ownership

Modern psychological understanding of human decision-making has moved beyond availability heuristics and cognitive biases to integrate the role of emotion and affect. Several related models including the “risk-as-feelings hypothesis” (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ), the “affect heuristic” (Slovic et al., 2007 ); and the “appraisal-tendency framework” (Lerner et al., 2015 ) illustrate how emotions can hijack rational-decision-making processes to the point of being the dominant influence on risk assessments. Research has shown that “perceived risk judgments”—estimates of the likelihood that something bad will happen—are especially hampered by emotion (Pachur et al., 2012 ) and that different types of affect can bias such judgments in different ways (Lerner et al., 2015 ). For example, fear can in particular bias assessments away from rational analysis to overestimate risks, as well as to perceive negative events as unpredictable (Lerner et al., 2015 ).

Although gun ownership is associated with positive feelings about firearms within “gun culture” (Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ; Metzl, 2019 ), most research comparing gun owners to non-gun owners suggests that ownership is rooted in fear. While long guns have historically been owned primarily for hunting and other recreational purposes, US surveys dating back to the 1990s have revealed that the most frequent reason for gun ownership and more specifically handgun ownership is self-protection (Cook and Ludwig, 1997 ; Azrael et al., 2017 ; Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Research has likewise shown that the decision to obtain a firearm is largely motivated by past victimization and/or fears of future victimization (Kleck et al., 2011 ; Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ).

A few studies have reported that handgun ownership is associated with past victimization, perceived risk of crime, and perceived ineffectiveness of police protection within low-income communities where these concerns may be congruent with real risks (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 , 2004 ). However, gun ownership tends to be lower in urban settings and in low-income families where there might be higher rates of violence and crime (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 ). Instead, the largest demographic of gun owners in the US are white men living in rural communities who are earning more than $100K/year (Azrael et al., 2017 ). Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) likewise reported that gun owners tend to have higher incomes and greater ratings of life happiness than non-owners. These findings suggest a mismatch between subjective fear and objective reality.

Stroebe and colleagues ( 2017 ) reported that the specific perceived risk of victimization and more “diffuse” fears that the world is a dangerous place are both independent predictors of handgun ownership, with perceived risk of assault associated with having been or knowing a victim of violent crime and belief in a dangerous world associated with political conservatism. These findings hint at the likelihood that perceived risk of victimization can be based on vicarious sources with a potential for bias, whether through actual known acquaintances or watching the nightly news, conducting a Google search or scanning one’s social media feed, or reading “The Armed Citizen” column in the NRA newsletter The American Rifleman . It also suggests that a general fear of crime, independent of actual or even perceived individual risk, may be a powerful motivator for gun ownership for some that might track with race and political ideology.

Several authors have drawn a connection between gun ownership and racial tensions by examining the cultural symbolism and socio-political meaning of guns. Bhatia ( 2019 ) detailed how the NRA’s “disinformation campaign reliant on fearmongering” is constructed around a narrative of “fear and identity politics” that exploits current xenophobic sentiments related to immigrants. Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that during the 1960s, conservatives were uncharacteristically in favor of gun control when armed resistance was promoted by Malcolm X, the Black Panther Party, and others involved in the Black Power Movement. Today, Metzl argues, “mainstream society reflexively codes white men carrying weapons in public as patriots, while marking armed black men as threats or criminals.” In support of this view, a 2013 study found that having a gun in the home was significantly associated with racism against black people as measured by the Symbolic Racism Scale, noting that “for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism, there was a 50% greater odds of having a gun in the home and a 28% increase in the odds of supporting permits to carry concealed handguns” (O’Brien et al., 2013 ). Hypothesizing that guns are a symbol of hegemonic masculinity that serves to “shore up white male privilege in society,” Stroud ( 2012 ) interviewed a non-random sample of 20 predominantly white men in Texas who had licenses for concealed handgun carry. The men described how guns help to fulfill their identities as protectors of their families, while characterizing imagined dangers with rhetoric suggesting specific fears about black criminals. These findings suggest that gun ownership among white men may be related to a collective identity as “good guys” protecting themselves against “bad guys” who are people of color, a premise echoed in the lay press with headlines like, “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?” (Smith, 2018 ), “Report: White Men Stockpile Guns Because They’re Afraid of Black People” (Harriott, 2018 ), and “Gun Rights Are About Keeping White Men on Top” (Wuertenberg, 2018 ).

Connecting the dots, the available evidence therefore suggests that for many gun owners, fears about victimization can result in confirmation, myside, and optimism biases that not only discount the risks of ownership, but also elevate the salience of perceived benefit, however remote, as it does when one buys a lottery ticket (Rogers and Webley, 2001 ). Indeed, among gun owners there is widespread belief that having a gun makes one safer, supported by published claims that where there are “more guns”, there is “less crime” (Lott, 1998 , 1999 ) as well as statistics and anecdotes about successful defensive gun use (DGU) (Kleck and Gertz, 1995 , 1998 ; Tark and Kleck, 2004 ; Cramer and Burnett, 2012 ). Suffice it to say that there have been numerous debates about how to best interpret this body of evidence, with critics claiming that “more guns, less crime” is a myth (Ayres and Donohue, 2003 ; Moyer, 2017 ) that has been “discredited” (Wintemute, 2008 ) and that the incidence of DGU has been grossly overestimated and pales in comparison to the risk of being threatened or harmed by a gun in the home (Hemenway, 1997 , 2011 ; Cook and Ludwig, 1998 ; Azrael and Hemenway, 2000 ; Hemenway et al., 2000 ). Attempts at objective analysis have concluded that surveys to date have defined and measured DGU inconsistently with unclear numbers of false positives and false negatives (Smith, 1997 ; McDowall et al., 2000 ; National Research Council, 2005 ; RAND, 2018 ), that the causal effects of DGU on reducing injury are “inconclusive” (RAND, 2018 ), and that “neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponent’s point of view” (Smith, 1997 ). With the scientific debate about DGU mirrored in the lay press (Defilippis and Hughes, 2015 ; Kleck, 2015 ; Doherty, 2015 ), a rational assessment of whether guns make owners safer is hampered by a lack of “settled science”. With no apparent consensus, motivated reasoning can pave the way to the nullification of opposing arguments in favor of personal opinions and ideological stances.

For gun owners, even if it is acknowledged that on average successful DGU is much less likely than a homicide or suicide in the home, not having a gun at all translates to zero chance of self-preservation, which are intolerable odds. The bottom line is that when gun owners believe that owning a gun will make them feel safer, little else may matter. Curiously however, there is conflicting evidence that gun ownership actually decreases fears of victimization (Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ; Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ). That gun ownership may not mitigate such fears could help to account for why some individuals go on to acquire multiple guns beyond their initial purchase with US gun owners possessing an average of 5 firearms and 8% of owners having 10 or more (Azrael et al., 2017 ).

Gun owner diversity

A psychological model of the polarized gun debate in America would ideally compare those for or against gun control legislation. However, research to date has instead focused mainly on differences between gun owners and non-gun owners, which has several limitations. For example, of the nearly 70% of Americans who do not own a gun, 36% report that they can see themselves owning one in the future (Pew Research Center, 2017 ) with 11.5% of all gun owners in 2015 having newly acquired one in the previous 5 years (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Gun ownership and non-ownership are therefore dynamic states that may not reflect static ideology. Personal accounts such as Willis’ ( 2010 ) article, “I Was Anti-gun, Until I Got Stalked,” illustrate this point well.

With existing research heavily reliant on comparing gun owners to non-gun owners, a psychological model of gun attitudes in the US will have limited utility if it relies solely on gun owner stereotypes based on their most frequent demographic characteristics. On the contrary, Hauser and Kleck ( 2013 ) have argued that “a more complete understanding of the relationship between fear of crime and gun ownership at the individual level is crucial”. Just so, looking more closely at the diversity of gun owners can reveal important details beyond the kinds of stereotypes that are often used to frame political debates.

Foremost, it must be recognized that not all gun owners are conservative white men with racist attitudes. Over the past several decades, women have comprised 9–14% of US gun owners with the “gender gap” narrowing due to decreasing male ownership (Smith and Son, 2015 ). A 2017 Pew Survey reported that 22% of women in the US own a gun and that female gun owners are just as likely as men to belong to the NRA (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Although the 36% rate of gun ownership among US whites is the highest for any racial demographic, 25% of blacks and 15% of Hispanics report owning guns with these racial groups being significantly more concerned than whites about gun violence in their communities and the US as a whole (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Providing a striking counterpoint to Stroud’s ( 2012 ) interviews of white gun owners in Texas, Craven ( 2017 ) interviewed 11 black gun owners across the country who offered diverse views on guns and the question of whether owning them makes them feel safer, including if confronted by police during a traffic stop. Kelly ( 2019 ) has similarly offered a self-portrait as a female “left-wing anarchist” against the stereotype of guns owners as “Republicans, racist libertarians, and other generally Constitution-obsessed weirdos”. She reminds us that, “there is also a long history of armed community self-defense among the radical left that is often glossed over or forgotten entirely in favor of the Fox News-friendly narrative that all liberals hate guns… when the cops and other fascists see that they’re not the only ones packing, the balance of power shifts, and they tend to reconsider their tactics”.

Although Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) concluded that “white men in economic distress find comfort in guns as a means to reestablish a sense of individual power and moral certitude,” their study results actually demonstrated that gun owners fall into distinguishable groups based on different levels of “moral and emotional empowerment” imparted by guns. For example, those with low levels of gun empowerment were more likely to be female and to own long guns for recreational purposes such as hunting and collecting. Other research has shown that the motivations to own a gun, and the degree to which gun ownership is related to fear and the desire for self-protection, also varies according to the type of gun (Stroebe et al., 2017 ). Owning guns, owning specific types of guns (e.g. handguns, long guns, and so-called “military style” semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s), carrying a gun in public, and keeping a loaded gun on one’s nightstand all have different psychological implications. A 2015 study reported that new gun owners were younger and more likely to identify as liberal than long-standing gun owners (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Although Kalesan et al. ( 2016 ) found that gun ownership is more likely among those living within a “gun culture” where ownership is prevalent, encouraged, and part of social life, it would therefore be a mistake to characterize gun culture as a monolith.

It would also be a mistake to equate gun ownership with opposition to gun legislation reform or vice-versa. Although some evidence supports a strong association (Wolpert and Gimpel, 1998 ), more recent studies suggest important exceptions to the rule. While only about 30% of the US population owns a gun, over 70% believes that most citizens should be able to legally own them (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Women tend to be more likely than men to support gun control, even when they are gun owners themselves (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Mencken and Froese, 2019 ). Older (age 70–79) Americans likewise have some of the highest rates of gun ownership, but also the highest rates of support for gun control (Pederson et al., 2015 ). In Mencken and Froese’s study ( 2019 ), most gun owners reporting lower levels of gun empowerment favored bans on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines and opposed arming teachers in schools. Kahan and Braman ( 2003 ) theorized that attitudes towards gun control are best understood according to a “cultural theory of risk”. In their study sample, those with “hierarchical” and “individualist” cultural orientations were more likely than those with “egalitarian” views to oppose gun control and these perspectives were more predictive than other variables including political affiliation and fear of crime.

In fact, both gun owners and non-owners report high degrees of support for universal background checks; laws mandating safe gun storage in households with children; and “red flag” laws restricting access to firearms for those hospitalized for mental illness or those otherwise at risk of harming themselves or others, those convicted of certain crimes including public display of a gun in a threatening manner, those subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and those on “no-fly” or other watch lists (Pew Research Center, 2017 ; Barry et al., 2018 ). According to a 2015 survey, the majority of the US public also opposes carrying firearms in public spaces with most gun owners opposing public carry in schools, college campuses, places of worship, bars, and sports stadiums (Wolfson et al., 2017 ). Despite broad public support for gun legislation reform however, it is important to recognize that the threat of gun restrictions is an important driver of gun acquisition (Wallace, 2015 ; Aisch and Keller, 2016 ). As a result, proposals to restrict gun ownership boosted gun sales considerably under the Obama administration (Depetris-Chauvin, 2015 ), whereas gun companies like Remington and United Sporting Companies have since filed for bankruptcy under the Trump administration.

A shared culture of fear

Developing a psychological understanding of attitudes towards guns and gun control legislation in the US that accounts for underlying emotions, motivated reasoning, and individual variation must avoid the easy trap of pathologizing gun owners and dismissing their fears as irrational. Instead, it should consider the likelihood that motivated reasoning underlies opinion on both sides of the gun debate, with good reason to conclude that fear is a prominent source of both “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” attitudes. Although the research on fear and gun ownership summarized above implies that non-gun owners are unconcerned about victimization, a closer look at individual study data reveals both small between-group differences and significant within-group heterogeneity. For example, Stroebe et al.’s ( 2017 ) findings that gun owners had greater mean ratings of belief in a dangerous world, perceived risk of victimization, and the perceived effectiveness of owning a gun for self-defense were based on inter-group differences of <1 point on a 7-point Likert scale. Fear of victimization is therefore a universal fear for gun owners and non-gun owners alike, with important differences in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of those fears. Kahan and Braham ( 2003 ) noted that the gun debate is not so much a debate about the personal risks of gun ownership, as it is a one about which of two potential fears is most salient—that of “firearm casualties in a world with insufficient gun control or that of personal defenselessness in a world with excessive control”.

Although this “shared fear” hypothesis has not been thoroughly tested in existing research, there is general support for it based on evidence that fear is an especially potent influence on risk assessment and decision-making when considering low-frequency catastrophic events (Chanel et al., 2009 ). In addition, biased risk assessments have been linked to individual feelings about a specific activity. Whereas many activities in the real world have both high risk and high benefit, positive attitudes about an activity are associated with biased judgments of low risk and high benefit while negative attitudes are associated with biased judgments of high risk and low benefit (Slovic et al., 2007 ). These findings match those of the gun debate, whereby catastrophic events like mass shootings can result in “probability neglect,” over-estimating the likelihood of risk (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ) with polarized differences regarding guns as a root cause and gun control as a viable solution. For those that have positive feelings about guns and their perceived benefit, the risk of gun ownership is minimized as discussed above. However, based on findings from psychological research on fear (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ; Slovic et al., 2007 ), the reverse is also likely to be true—those with negative feelings about guns who perceive little benefit to ownership may tend to over-estimate risks. Consistent with this dichotomy, both calls for legislative gun reform, as well as gun purchases increase in the wake of mass shootings (Wallace, 2015 ; Wozniak, 2017 ), with differences primarily predicted by the relative self-serving attributional biases of gun ownership and non-ownership alike (Joslyn and Haider-Markel, 2017 ).

Psychological research has shown that fear is associated with loss of control, with risks that are unfamiliar and uncontrollable perceived as disproportionately dangerous (Lerner et al., 2015 ; Sunstein, 2003 ). Although mass shootings have increased in recent years, they remain extremely rare events and represent a miniscule proportion of overall gun violence. And yet, as acts of terrorism, they occur in places like schools that are otherwise thought of as a suburban “safe spaces,” unlike inner cities where violence is more mundane, and are often given sensationalist coverage in the media. A 2019 Harris Poll found that 79% of Americans endorse stress as a result of the possibility of a mass shooting, with about a third reporting that they “cannot go anywhere without worrying about being a victim” (American Psychological Association, 2019 ). While some evidence suggests that gun owners may be more concerned about mass shootings than non-gun owners (Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ), this is again a quantitative difference as with fear of victimization more generally. There is little doubt that parental fears about children being victims of gun violence were particularly heightened in the wake of Columbine (Altheide, 2019 ) and it is likely that subsequent school shootings at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Stoneman Douglas High have been especially impactful in the minds of those calling for increasing restrictions on gun ownership. For those privileged to be accustomed to community safety who are less worried about home invasion and have faith in the police to provide protection, fantasizing about “gun free zones” may reflect a desire to recreate safe spaces in the wake of mass shootings that invoke feelings of loss of control.

Altheide ( 2019 ) has argued that mass shootings in the US post-Columbine have been embedding within a larger cultural narrative of terrorism, with “expanded social control and policies that helped legitimate the war on terror”. Sunstein and Zeckhauser ( 2011 ) have similarly noted that following terrorist attacks, the public tends to demand responses from government, favoring precautionary measures that are “not justified by any plausible analysis of expected utility” and over-estimating potential benefits. However, such responses may not only be ineffective, but potentially damaging. For example, although collective anxieties in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in the rapid implementation of new screening procedures for boarding airplanes, it has been argued that the “theater” of response may have done well to decrease fear without any evidence of actual effectiveness in reducing danger (Graham, 2019 ) while perhaps even increasing overall mortality by avoiding air travel in favor of driving (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ).

As with the literature on DGU, the available evidence supporting the effectiveness of specific gun laws in reducing gun violence is less than definitive (Koper et al., 2004 ; Hahn et al., 2005 ; Lee et al., 2017 ; Webster and Wintemute, 2015 ), leaving the utility of gun reform legislation open to debate and motivated reasoning. Several authors have argued that even if proposed gun control measures are unlikely to deter mass shooters, “doing something is better than nothing” (Fox and DeLateur, 2014 ) and that ineffective counter-terrorism responses are worthwhile if they reduce public fear (Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ). Crucially however, this perspective fails to consider the impact of gun control legislation on the fears of those who value guns for self-protection. For them, removing guns from law-abiding “good guys” while doing nothing to deter access to the “bad guys” who commit crimes is illogical anathema. Gun owners and gun advocates likewise reject the concept of “safe spaces” and regard the notion of “gun free zones” as a liability that invites rather than prevents acts of terrorism. In other words, gun control proposals designed to decrease fear have the opposite of their intended effect on those who view guns as symbols of personal safety, increasing rather than decreasing their fears independently of any actual effects on gun violence. Such policies are therefore non-starters, and will remain non-starters, for the sizeable proportion of Americans who regard guns as essential for self-preservation.

In 2006, Braman and Kahan noted that “the Great American Gun Debate… has convulsed the national polity for the better part of four decades without producing results satisfactory to either side” and argued that consequentialist arguments about public health risks based on cost–benefit analysis are trumped by the cultural meanings of guns to the point of being “politically inert” (Braman and Kahan, 2006 ). More than a decade later, that argument is iterated in this series on “What Guns Mean”. In this essay, it is further argued that persisting debates about the effectiveness of DGU and gun control legislation are at their heart trumped by shared concerns about personal safety, victimization, and mass shootings within a larger culture of fear, with polarized opinions about how to best mitigate those fears that are determined by the symbolic, cultural, and personal meanings of guns and gun ownership.

Coming full circle to the riddle, “Do guns kill people or do people kill people?”, a psychologically informed perspective rejects the question as a false dichotomy that can be resolved by the statement, “people kill people… with guns”. It likewise suggests a way forward by acknowledging both common fears and individual differences beyond the limited, binary caricature of the gun debate that is mired in endless arguments over disputed facts. For meaningful legislative change to occur, the debate must be steered away from its portrayal as two immutable sides caught between not doing anything on the one hand and enacting sweeping bans or repealing the 2nd Amendment on the other. In reality, public attitudes towards gun control are more nuanced than that, with support or opposition to specific gun control proposals predicted by distinct psychological and cultural factors (Wozniak, 2017 ) such that achieving consensus may prove less elusive than is generally assumed. Accordingly, gun reform proposals should focus on “low hanging fruit” where there is broad support such as requiring and enforcing universal background checks, enacting “red flag” laws balanced by guaranteeing gun ownership rights to law-abiding citizens, and implementing public safety campaigns that promote safe firearm handling and storage. Finally, the Dickey Amendment should be repealed so that research can inform public health interventions aimed at reducing gun violence and so that individuals can replace motivated reasoning with evidence-based decision-making about personal gun ownership and guns in society.

Aisch G, Keller J (2016). What happens after calls for new gun restrictions? Sales go up. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

Altheide DL (2019) The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. Am Behav Sci 52:1354–1370

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association (2019). One-third of US adults say fear of mass shootings prevents them from going to certain places or events. Press release, 15 August 2019. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/fear-mass-shooting . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Anglemeyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G (2014) The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Int Med 160:101–110

Google Scholar  

Atchley P, Atwood S, Boulton A (2011) The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude. Accid Anal Prev 43:134–142

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ayres I, Donohue III JJ (2003) Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Stanf Law Rev 55:1193–1312

Azrael D, Hemenway D (2000) ‘In the safety of your own home’: results from a national survey on gun use at home. Soc Sci Med 50:285–291

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, Miller M (2017) The stock and flow of U.S. firearms: results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. Russell Sage Found J Soc Sci 3:38–57

Barry CL, Webster DW, Stone E, Crifasi CK, Vernick JS, McGinty EE (2018) Public support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. Am J Public Health 108:878–881

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bhatia R (2019). Guns, lies, and fear: exposing the NRA’s messaging playbook. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/04/24/468951/guns-lies-fear/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Braman D, Kahan DM (2006) Overcoming the fear of guns, the fear of gun control, and the fear of cultural politics: constructing a better gun debate. Emory Law J 55:569–607

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1997). Guns in America: National survey on private ownership and use of firearms. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Chanel O, Chichilnisky G(2009) The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence. J Risk Uncertain 39(3):271–298

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1998) Defensive gun use: new evidence from a national survey. J Quant Criminol 14:111–131

Cramer CE, Burnett D (2012). Tough targets: when criminals face armed resistance from citizens. Cato Institute https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Craven J (2017). Why black people own guns. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-gun-ownership_n_5a33fc38e4b040881bea2f37 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Cummings P, Koepsell TD (1998) Does owning a firearm increase or decrease the risk of death? JAMA 280:471–473

Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow M (2004) Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol 160:929–936

Defilippis E, Hughes D (2015). The myth behind defensive gun ownership: guns are more likely to do harm than good. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Depetris-Chauvin E (2015) Fear of Obama: an empirical study of the demand for guns and the U.S. 2008 presidential election. J Pub Econ 130:66–79

Doherty B (2015). How to count the defensive use of guns: neither survey calls nor media and police reports capture the importance of private gun ownership. Reason. https://reason.com/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Dowd-Arrow B, Hill TD, Burdette AM (2019) Gun ownership and fear. SSM Pop Health 8:100463

Fox JA, DeLateur MJ (2014) Mass shootings in America: moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Stud 18:125–145

Galea S, Abdalla SM (2019) The public’s health and the social meaning of guns. Palgrave Comm 5:111

Graham DA. The TSA doesn’t work—and never has. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa-doesnt-work-and-maybe-it-doesnt-matter/394673/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Hahn RA, Bilukha O, Crosby A, Fullilove MT, Liberman A, Moscicki E, Synder S, Tuma F, Briss PA, Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2005) Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 28:40–71

Hansen PG, Skov LR, Skov KL (2016) Making healthy choices easier: regulation versus nudging. Annu Rev Public Health 37:237–51

Harriott M (2018). Report: white men stockpile guns because they’re afraid of black people. The Root. https://www.theroot.com/report-white-men-stockpile-guns-because-they-re-afraid-1823779218 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Haselton MG, Nettle D (2006) The paranoid optimist: an integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10:47–66

Hauser W, Kleck G (2013) Guns and fear: a one-way street? Crime Delinquency 59:271–291

Hemenway (1997) Survey research and self-defense gun use: an explanation of extreme overestimates. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1430–1445

Hemenway D, Azrael D, Miller M (2000) Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys. Inj Prev 6:263–267

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hemenway D (2011) Risks and benefits of a gun in the home. Am J Lifestyle Med 5:502–511

Hibert M (2012) Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychol Bull 138:211–237

Joslyn MR, Haider-Markel DP (2017) Gun ownership and self-serving attributions for mass shooting tragedies. Soc Sci Quart 98:429–442

Kahan DM, Braman D (2003) More statistics, less persuasion: a cultural theory of gun-risk perceptions. Univ Penn Law Rev 151:1291–1327

Kalesan B, Villarreal MD, Keyes KM, Galea S (2016) Gun ownership and social gun culture. Inj Prev 22:216–220

Kellermann AL, Reay DT (1986) Protection or peril? An analysis of fire-arm related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 314:1557–1560

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, Banton JG, Reay DT, Francisco JT, Locci A, Prodzinski J, Hackman BB, Somes G (1993) Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 329:1084–1091

Kellerman AL, Somes G, Rivara F, Lee R, Banton J (1998) Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 45:263–267

Kelly K (2019) I’m a left-wing anarchist. Guns aren’t just for right-wingero. Vox. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/7/1/18744204/guns-gun-control-anarchism . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G (2015) Defensive gun use is not a myth: why my critics still have it wrong. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G, Kovandzic T, Saber M, Hauser W (2011) The effect of perceived risk and victimization on plans to purchase a gun for self-protection. J Crim Justice 39:312–319

Kleck G, Gertz M (1995) Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. J Crim Law Criminol 86:150–187

Kleck G, Gertz M (1998) Carrying guns for protection: results from the national self-defense survey. J Res Crime Delinquency 35:193–224

Koper CS, Woods DJ, Roth JA (2004) An updated assessment of the federal assault weapons ban: impacts on gun markets and gun violence, 1994–2003. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108:480–498

Lee LK, Fleegler EW, Farrell C, Avakame E, Srinivasan S, Hemenway D, Monuteaux MC (2017) Firearm laws and firearm homicides: a systematic review. JAMA Int Med 177:106–119

Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol 66:799–823

Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286

Lott JR (1998) More guns, less crime. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lott JR (1999) More guns, less crime: a response to Ayres and Donohue. Yale Law & Economics Research paper no. 247 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Matjasko JL, Cawley JH, Baker-Goering M, Yokum DV (2016) Applying behavioral economics to public health policy: illustrative examples and promising directions. Am J Prev Med 50:S13–S19

McDowall D, Loftin C, Presser S (2000) Measuring civilian defensive firearm use: a methodological experiment. J Quant Criminol 16:1–19

Mencken FC, Froese P (2019) Gun culture in action. Soc Prob 66:3–27

Metzl J (2019) What guns mean: the symbolic lives of firearms. Palgrave Comm 5:35

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Moyer MW (2017). More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows. Sci Am https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

National Research Council (2005) Firearms and violence: a critical review. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

O’Brien K, Forrest W, Lynott D, Daly M (2013) Racism, gun ownership and gun control: Biased attitudes in US whites may influence policy decisions. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77552

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pachur T, Hertwig R, Steinmann F (2012) How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? J Exp Psychol Appl 18:314–330

Pederson J, Hall TL, Foster B, Coates JE (2015) Gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control in older adults: reexamining self interest theory. Am J Soc Sci Res 1:273–281

Pew Research Center (2017) America’s complex relationship with guns. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/Guns-Report-FOR-WEBSITE-PDF-6-21.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pierre JM (2015) The psychology of guns. Psych Unseen. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-guns . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Salla S (2017) Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 23(7):e0811640

RAND (2018) The challenges of defining and measuring defensive gun use. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Rogers P, Webley P (2001) “It could be us!”: cognitive and social psychological factors in UK National Lottery play. Appl Psychol Int Rev 50:181–199

Rostron A (2018) The Dickey Amendment on federal funding for research on gun violence: a legal discussion. Am J Public Health 108:865–867

Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352

Smith TW (1997) A call for a truce in the DGU war. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1462–1469

Smith JA (2018) Why are white men stockpiling guns? Sci Am Blogs. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Smith TW, Son J (2015). General social survey final report: Trends in gun ownership in the United States, 1972–2014. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Stroebe W, Leander NP, Kruglanski AW (2017) Is it a dangerous world out there? The motivational biases of American gun ownership. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 43:1071–1085

Stroud A (2012) Good guys with guns: hegemonic masculinity and concealed handguns. Gend Soc 26:216–238

Sunstein CR (2003) Terrorism and probability neglect. J Risk Uncertain 26:121–136

Sunstein CR, Zeckhauser R (2011) Overreaction to fearsome risks. Environ Resour Econ 48:435–449

Tark J, Kleck G (2004) Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes. Criminol 42:861–909

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2000) The impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping firearms for protection and unsafe gun-storage practices” A review and analysis with policy recommendations. Urban Educ 35:496–510

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2004) Risky firearms behavior in low-income families of elementary school children: the impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping and storing firearms. J Fam Violence 19:175–184

Wallace LN (2015) Responding to violence with guns: mass shootings and gun acquisition. Soc Sci J 52:156–167

Webster DW, Wintemute GJ (2015) Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Ann Rev Public Health 36:21–37

Wertz J, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Sorenson S, Miller M (2018) Differences between new and long-standing US gun owners: results from a National Survey. Am J Public Health 108:871–877

Wiebe DJ (2003) Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med 47:771–782

Willis J (2010). I was anti-gun, until I got stalked. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2010/10/21/buying_gun_protect_from_stalker/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Wintemute GJ (2008) Guns, fear, the constitution, and the public’s health. N. Engl J Med 358:1421–1424

Wolfson JA, Teret SP, Azrael D, Miller M (2017) US public opinion on carrying firearms in public places. Am J Public Health 107:929–937

Wolpert RM, Gimpel JG (1998) Self-interest, symbolic politics, and public attitudes toward gun control. Polit Behav 20:241–262

Wozniak KH (2017) Public opinion about gun control post-Sandy Hook. Crim Just Pol Rev 28:255–278

Wuertenberg N (2018). Gun rights are about keeping white men on top. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/09/gun-rights-are-about-keeping-white-men-on-top . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, USA

Joseph M. Pierre

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph M. Pierre .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pierre, J.M. The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning. Palgrave Commun 5 , 159 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Download citation

Received : 30 July 2019

Accepted : 27 November 2019

Published : 10 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Consider This from NPR

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

As Lawmakers Debate Gun Control, What Policies Could Actually Help?

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) speaks during a rally against gun violence outside the U.S. Capitol on June 6, 2022 in Washington, DC. Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) speaks during a rally against gun violence outside the U.S. Capitol on June 6, 2022 in Washington, DC.

President Biden urged Congress to act and the House is preparing to pass multiple gun control measures. But the Senate is where a compromise must be made. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is reportedly discussing policies like enhanced background checks and a federal red flag law. While it's unclear what Congress might agree to, researchers do have ideas about what policies could help prevent mass shootings and gun violence. NPR's Nell Greenfieldboyce explains. Hear more from her reporting on Short Wave , NPR's daily science podcast, via Apple , Google , or Spotify . NPR's Cory Turner reports on what school safety experts think can be done to prevent mass shootings, and former FBI agent Katherine Schweit describes where Uvalde police may have erred their active shooter response. Schweit is the author of Stop the Killing: How to End the Mass Shooting Crisis . Help NPR improve podcasts by completing a short, anonymous survey at npr.org/podcastsurvey . In participating regions, you'll also hear a local news segment to help you make sense of what's going on in your community. Email us at [email protected] .

This episode was produced by Brent Baughman, Ayen Bior, and Michael Levitt. It was edited by Patrick Jarenwattananon, Nicole Cohen, Will Stone, Courtney Dorning, and Connor Donevan. Our executive producer is Cara Tallo.

How to Constructively Debate Gun Control

Masthead members conduct an experiment in persuasion  

• Link Copied

Today, we’re continuing our ongoing Masthead-member debate on gun rights. If you’re just catching up, here’s Justin Robinson’s argument for why gun rights deserve protection . The way gun-control advocates typically press their cases, Justin wrote, “throws gun-rights advocates into a reflexive, defensive crouch.”

We asked you to rebut Justin’s argument, and vote for the best rebuttals. We’ll get to those rebuttals (lightly edited and condensed by us)—and Justin’s responses—in a moment.

Because today’s issue is unusually lengthy, we’ve moved Justin’s recommendations for how to have a better gun control debate to the top. If you’d like to keep this email short , I recommend you focus on that and skip the rest. For those of you that savor a meatier argument , the full rebuttals and responses compose the rest of the email.

But first, register now for our call with Jeffrey Goldberg . We’re talking to The Atlantic ’s editor in chief on Monday, November 6, at 1 p.m. EST. Register at this link to receive dial-in details . Write back and let me know what questions you have for Jeff. (Please note that daylight saving time ends this weekend in the U.S., so if you’re calling from outside the country, you may need to adjust your local time.)

THE SHORT VERSION: HOW TO HAVE A BETTER GUN CONTROL DEBATE

Here’s a synthesis from Justin Robinson of his conclusions after participating in this debate. It’s a useful, concise statement of where gun-rights advocates can find meaningful agreement with advocates of tighter gun controls. If you don’t want to read the full back-and-forth, there’s plenty of insight here.

We all seem to agree that with 300 million guns in the country, we can’t get to total confiscation from where we are. We seem less in sync on how much confiscation is a good idea. Here's an explainer from Australia showing how difficult it is to own firearms there. Private ownership of pistols pretty much doesn't exist. With respect to James Fallows , that is a political impossibility here. But I'll close out with some suggestions of what I think may be achievable, in rough order of utility.

• A federal standard for training and licensing of gun owners, including cops. Drivers renew their licenses periodically; gun owners should have periodic background checks separated from purchases. Training would weed out some casual gun owners, and that’s good. As Betsy Schneier and Emily Brown suggest, we should acknowledge the dangers inherent in ownership.
• A federal standard for criminalizing negligent use. Briefly, "flagging," improper storage, and accidental discharges should have stronger consequences. ("Flagging" is pointing a weapon at a person, regardless of intent to fire.) Worked for drunk driving .
• A commitment to data collection. We can sell this to gun owners who fear witch hunts by pointing out that shoddy self-defense data is already subjecting them to witch hunts.
• Some kind of title program. We cannot imagine a mass "inventory reduction" of the excess weapons in circulation if we cannot guarantee that legal owners won't get caught up, too.

Getting even this much done would save lives, and maybe take decades to accomplish. Do we want to get started, or do we want to keep being right?

THE MEATY VERSION, PART I: WHY WE NEED TIGHTER GUN CONTROLS

Here are the top responses to Justin Robinson’s original argument, as decided by our members.

The Right Debate Requires More Data

by John Harland

People on both sides of the gun-control debate have honed convincing talking points. Very few of us innocently caught in the motel-lobby situation with a gunman would not be thankful for the armed citizen who rescued us. On the other hand, other countries with more restrictive gun laws seem to have fewer mass shootings.  

Too much of the gun debate, from my perspective, is driven by "moral imagination" and anecdotes. Too little of the debate is driven by data. If we just have two extremes in the debate—guns or no guns—we are doomed to Sisyphean arguments.

We are having the wrong debate. We should acknowledge, first, that the United States will not be able to eliminate guns for both practical and constitutional reasons and, second, that lives are being lost needlessly and people are being maimed by bullets from guns. The debate should then be about what data we need to analyze the causes of deaths and injuries by bullets and how we can fund nonpartisan research to identify possible ways we can reduce the likelihood of these deaths and injuries.

We have historical precedent for using data to help us incrementally and substantially improve the safety record of cars. The number of deaths per million vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. has steadily dropped from about 25 in 1921 to about 2 today. Instead of an endless debate about whether to ban cars, there are detailed reports on major accidents providing data used to enlighten decisions on car safety. We even have a government agency dedicated to gathering data and researching ways to make the use of cars less deadly. Because of the data, we not only look at car design, but also driver training, design and maintenance of roads, how to encourage people not to drive tired, and the legal age for drinking alcohol.

How typical is the situation in the motel lobby where a person who is clearly trained saves the lives of innocents? How often do similar situations end with innocents being killed by a well-meaning Good Samaritan? If our goal is to reduce needless gun deaths, we need the data to inform our discussion and research to help us interpret the data. Let’s have the more realistic debate be about how to collect data to drive incremental improvements, not the unwinnable debate about whether or not to ban guns.

We Need Classification, Not Cowboys

by Jonathan Spoon*

I understood and appreciated Justin's argument for the good cowboy. It’s a neat way to skirt our current issues under the assumption that there are more good people than bad and that everyone wants to participate in this kind of daily shootout. Most people are neither the robber nor the store clerk. They are the innocent bystanders who don't want death to be a prevalent option when shopping for groceries. There are certainly well-trained, ethically sound gun carriers who save innocent people from criminals. There are probably more toddlers who get accidentally shot by their 5-year-old brother because we have too many guns and give them to people not responsible enough to own them. Basically, guns were a tool when the constitution was written, and they are a fetish now. Their nature and our use of them has changed, and our rules need to as well.

The first step is classification. There should be at least three classifications for firearms: (1) hunting guns, (2) personal protection, (3) weapons of war, and maybe (4) weapons of mass destruction. Hunting rifles and low-capacity shotguns should be available to most law-abiding citizens of a certain age. The University of Texas shooter was an exception, but, generally, people can't go on killing sprees with these weapons. Personal protection is the tough section. Lynyrd Skynyrd said it best: "Hand guns are made for killin' / They ain't good for nothin' else.” This is the area where we need serious regulation or innovation. Weapons of war are simple. Buy them back for five years at exorbitant prices, then go out and confiscate them. People don't need assault rifles and they shouldn't have them. If WMD come up, arrest the perpetrator immediately and sentence him to enough years for people to stop playing with rocket-launchers.

There is a big missing part to this discussion. We have not even broached the topic of smart weapons. These are guns that are technologically capable of recognizing their owner and only functioning in his or her possession. This should be the future of personal protection weapons.  

Being purely anti-gun won't work. Identify the ones that are creating a public health epidemic and start removing them from our populace.

The Most Important Right Is to Safety

by Michael Grattan

We need to address the issue of gun ownership in this country honestly.

First, we need to admit that we will never take away guns from their owners following the Australian model. There would be far too much resistance, and there are already too many guns in private hands. That horse has left the barn.

Second, we need to admit that the myth of a responsible "good guy with a gun" responding to a gun-related incident is just that, a myth. A study of police shootings found that law enforcement officers only hit 27 percent of what they were shooting at. I cannot imagine the average gun owner doing any better. Also, most people do not spend their day at the higher level of alertness required to be constantly "on guard" to be able to respond to a situation in a timely manner.

We need to talk about responsible gun ownership. You want to own a gun—fine. Then you must demonstrate competency and financial responsibility. In other words, you get a gun license that requires annual training, carry insurance for when you do shoot someone, and store your weapons safely.

You may have the right to own a gun. The rest of us have the right to feel safe.

Gun Extremists Hold Us Hostage

By Betsy Schneier

This is a very useful point of departure for a debate on gun control! Why? Because one gets the sense that the writer is level-headed and thoughtful with respect to gun ownership. I totally agree that the divide between pro- and anti-gun rights has become so toxic that it’s basically a nonstarter.

That said, however, I inferred the writer was someone who was trained to use a weapon. And herein lies the problem.  

Let me state that I lost a dear friend and knew all four other badly wounded victims of the hostage shooting that occurred in downtown Seattle, at the headquarters of the Jewish Federation in July of 2006. I still suffer from survivor’s guilt. I dearly wish that no civilian would wish to own a gun in this society. I watch the NRA hold the entire public hostage, metaphorically, as do extremist groups who wish to flaunt their guns.

But I’m a realist. People wish to hunt. People who are scared would like protection that the cops can’t offer. Possessing a firearm is legal in this country if one is not a felon. Even so, I think the writer is missing one vital aspect of gun ownership: Most people are never trained in gun safety, nor are they required to learn how to operate the weapon. I know many people who own guns. They either served in the military or took courses, and they store their weapons in safes. They have no objection to registering them in a database, so they will never fall into the wrong hands. In other words, they know they possess lethal force. And guess what? They all are happy to register their firearms now that Washington state passed an initiative overwhelmingly—twice—to do this.

But what about the rest of us? Why put us at risk, when punks, thugs, and hypocrites whine about common-sense controls?  

I’ll end with another personal story. Decades ago I spent the summer in Israel on an archaeological dig. Some terrorist activity broke out not far from where we were digging. Since there were some Israelis in the group who were still subject to reserve duty, they were asked to go home and bring their rifles to the dig in case of trouble. I’ll never forget how one American young girl saw a rifle propped up next to one of these guys and got excited, dancing around as if he was a Hollywood extra in a shoot-em-up movie. The guy, who was normally mild-mannered, started to scream at her. “Do you think it’s fun to kill? Because I have been in battle, and it is no fun at all. I live for the day when I don’t have to carry one ever again.”

Make Gun Licenses Like Driver's Licenses

by Emily Brown

I live in East Texas, where even if you don’t own a gun—though many do—you’ve shot one at least once. When I was in school, I had a political-science instructor who talked to us about gun control. He asked how many people owned a gun, and about half the class raised their hand. He asked how many had their campus carry with them, and 20 kept their hands up. Then he posed this scenario: If a gunman walked into the classroom and pulled his gun, how many of them would pull theirs out and shoot back? Only one man kept his hand up. He was ex-Army, so he said it would be second nature to him. All this to say, the number of people who would actually step up and use their gun are a lot less than people think.

My Texas background keeps me from saying we should ban all guns, but I think there needs to be a more thorough process for obtaining a gun or a gun license. I've recently seen the argument about making gun licenses obtainable like driver's licenses. Driving a car takes months of practice with an experienced instructor because cars have the potential to hurt or kill. A gun's sole purpose is to hurt or kill. The fact that someone can get their hunting license at the local Walmart is absurd. I was allowed to go hunting with my family when I was 10 because I didn't technically need a license. I was 10 when I shot a gun for the first time. There's no logical reason a child should ever hold a gun. There's no reason a person should so easily be handed a weapon, either.

THE MEATY VERSION, PART II: JUSTIN RESPONDS

by Justin Robinson

Before I begin, please know that I appreciated having this opportunity, and I value all of your perspectives, whether I agree with them or not.

In less than 1,000 words, my essay tried to articulate the self-defense argument for gun ownership and explain how gun-control advocates could benefit from addressing the argument head-on. Gun-control advocates mostly dismiss self-defense. Instead, they use versions of the following arguments:

• The number of self-defenses cannot make up for the lives lost. Show me math. Otherwise, gaze upon my stats and despair!
• Most folks would just make things worse by shooting the wrong people.
• If nobody had guns, then good guys wouldn’t need them.
• A single data point is an anecdote unless it’s Australia’s buyback program.

Arguing in this way dismisses the gun owner’s right to agency, and inadvertently brings up the specter of confiscation, whether or not we intend to do either. I fear that not adapting the argument will lose key allies we need to implement controls that are achievable.

Virtually all of the pro–gun-control responses to my essay used some part of the outline above to dismiss self-defense. I often agree, but I hope I can reinforce which bits of these arguments may be counter-productive.

Cut the Cowboy References

When it comes to guns, we seem to want moral victory more than progress.

I’m sure that Jonathan Spoon’s heart is in the right place. He raises good points and offers concrete suggestions. But he says I’m arguing in favor of "the good cowboy" as a "neat way to skirt" issues. He goes on, but basically suggests that self-defense is a diversion from what he'd prefer to be talking about.

I don’t appreciate the cowboy comparison. I live in the Old West, 20 minutes from Tombstone. Here, the Cowboys were murderous thieves who disobeyed gun control regulations. This line of argument may feel good, and I'm guilty of excessive snark often enough that I'm not passing judgment, really. But we argue like this all the time, both as liberals and conservatives. It doesn’t get us what we need.

How to Understand That Video

We all agree: The more data analysis we have, the better this debate will go. And John Harland is right: we need to legalize and fund better research .

But the video I shared is a data point , not an anecdote . It shows that an individual:

• can be in a situation where the choices are only using a gun or capitulating;
• can be trained as well as cops;
• and can respond to a crime without harming bystanders.

I acknowledge that these results are not uniform, and perhaps not even typical. We can and should fix that.

A Gun's Purpose Is Beside the Point

Jonathan Spoon also offers the Lynyrd Skynyrd/“.38 Special” argument. It often pops up in response to a gun-rights advocate pointing out that cars or swimming pools kill more people every year than guns do (to downplay gun violence statistics). The ".38 Special" argument responds that unlike cars or swimming pools, guns are only meant to kill (and so are more "worthy" of restriction).

Emily Brown also brings this up. Michael Grattan hints at it by asking, essentially, what if the good guy misses? Let me try to show why the ".38 Special" isn't as definitive as it may seem.

• Swimming pools and cars are not for killing people. They only kill people when misused.
• Guns have three legitimate intended uses: threatening or harming people who can credibly, lethally harm you (we can argue what’s credible); sport (again, open to definition); and practicing for the first two.
• Pools and cars do kill more people than guns , despite safety controls. (Tragically, cars at least are sometimes used to kill people on purpose .)
• Of the people who are harmed by guns each year, that number breaks down into legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. Cops, for instance, legitimately deprive criminals of life, liberty, or property with guns. (Though Michael Grattan points out they could be doing it better.)

If we're banning guns based on the pure numbers of deaths involved, we should ban personal cars first. If we argue that what’s decisive is how guns and cars are meant to be used, we shouldn't totally ban guns unless we also argue that guns should never be used by anyone . If we accept that using a gun is okay in even one case , then a gun's purpose is irrelevant.

I will admit that we don't control guns as well as we do cars, and that's insane.

TODAY’S WRAP UP

• Question of the Day: What argument in this debate moved you most? What was most persuasive?
• Your feedback: We’d love to know what you thought of this experimental debate format. Take our survey and let us know how you liked it, and what we can improve. (And feel free to suggest other topics for debate.)
• What’s coming: Tomorrow, Caroline looks to Magnolia, Mississippi, a small town that has become the surprising vanguard for nondiscrimination policies.
• What we’re thinking about: We’re getting ready for our call with Jeff Goldberg on Monday, November 6, at 1 p.m. EST. Register here , and send us your questions.

Matt Peterson

EDITOR, MASTHEAD

* Correction: An earlier version of this article used the wrong first name for one of the contributors. It is Jonathan Spoon, not John. We regret the error.  

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to [email protected].

Simone Pathe Simone Pathe

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/speaking-of-guns-examining-rhetoric-of-heated-debate

Loaded Words: How Both Sides Are Using Persuasive Rhetoric About Guns

When voters in Illinois’s 2nd congressional district head to the polls next week, they’ll be choosing between candidates whose A-plus and F ratings from the NRA have thrust the gun debate into central focus. The 16-person race in Chicago, a city plagued by gun violence, is primarily a contest between between former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, a Democrat whose seat used to be considered more of a suburban swing district, and former state Rep. Robin Kelly, also a Democrat. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending as much as $2 million to help Kelly.

The urban-rural split dividing Halvorson and Kelly on gun control highlights the extent to which the current gun debate — and the political frames used on each side — transcends pure partisanship. The lasting impact the shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn., has had on the political debate over guns has brought heightened attention to the language both sides are using.

The traditional “gun control” side has zeroed in on the negative effects of guns, namely violence. Meanwhile, as Republican operative Ron Bonjean points out, the traditional “gun rights” side is talking less about guns and more about how they are misused, shifting the focus to mental health and tougher enforcement of current laws.

Gun Control to Gun Safety

While the shift in language on the left has garnered greater attention since the Dec. 14 shooting, it’s an evolution 20 years in the making. The Atlantic’s Molly Ball traces the concerted efforts behind this shift in messaging in her article titled, “ How the Gun-Control Movement Got Smart .” Perhaps most illustrative, she recounts how the National Council to Control Handguns rebranded itself as the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

As Ball notes, Democrats were growing weary of a gun control message that they felt contributed to their loss of congressional control in 1994 and of the presidency in 2000. Democrats were losing voters they should have been winning over, all because of the gun issue.

George Lakoff, cognitive linguist at the University of California, Berkeley and co-author of “The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic,” has been working since 1996 to help the left reframe its position in a debate he sees dominated by conservative framing gone mainstream. As Lakoff explained, there are two competing moral systems — one favoring individual responsibility and liberty, and another more collective, progressive vision — each of which is controlled by a different neural network. But many people are hybrids; they’re both liberal and conservative, depending on the issue.

The task for liberals, Lakoff explained, has been to find a language that appeals to that overlap — the liberal hunter, if you will. The language of gun “control” automatically alienates the individual liberty moral system. Gun “safety,” however, appeals to the same person’s sense of personal responsibility.

Lakoff sees the control frame beginning to recede in favor of the safety frame. In announcing his 23 executive actions on the issue, for example, President Obama did not use the word “control” in his remarks . And in his most impassioned call to action on the gun issue, at the conclusion of his State of the Union address last week, he targeted violence, not guns.

The Brady campaign, too, has moderated its language , pushing Vice President Biden on a universal background check that it said “would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns.”

Congressional Democrats seem to be on board, moving away from the risks associated with the rhetoric of control and bans, naming their task force the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. As Task Force Chairman Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., told Politico , “Anytime you try and prohibit what kind of gun people has it generates some concern.”

The Rhetoric of Rights

The other side of the debate uses the rhetoric of rights to lend legitimacy to its argument. It’s a simple message, according to Bonjean, a former top GOP staffer on Capitol Hill. Testifying before Congress, for example, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre invoked a “ God-given, fundamental right .”

Given that people — not guns — enjoy rights, a rights-based frame is a kind of code, notes Richard Feldman, president of Independent Firearms Association Inc. and author of “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist,” which calls attention to the human agency needed for guns to be dangerous.

Like all interest groups, including the Brady Campaign, the NRA relies on scare tactics, such as LaPierre’s recent Daily Caller op-ed that notes, “Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face — not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival.”

But the NRA has not had to communicate with the public at large; they communicate with their members. Gun control advocacy groups, by contrast, are more invested in swaying public opinion, explains Democratic strategist Mo Elleithee.

Bonjean argues that the NRA is doing a good job of showing that more laws on the books will only curb the rights of Americans. Other gun rights organizations, such as the Second Amendment Foundation and Virginia’s Citizens Defense League, employ a similar frame that taps into American rights culture and the power of the people to topple tyrannical governments.

Mapping the Middle

Gun rights defenders’ fears of having guns taken away — intensified since Newtown — means NRA members will turn out at the polls in force in 2014, predicts Harry Wilson, director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College and the author of “Guns, Gun Control, and Elections.” Supporters of gun control, by contrast, usually struggle to capitalize on the much more ephemeral motivation to take action following shooting tragedies.

Supporters of “common sense reform,” Elleithee argues, need to look toward the middle — political power bases in the suburbs — and use the rhetoric of safety to mobilize unaffiliated suburban moms upset about the shooting of 20 children. “If there’s one group Republicans are afraid of, it’s suburban moms.”

Loaded Language

The language that drives the gun debate is peppered with other terms that carry loaded meanings.

Gun show “loopholes,” for example, are a frequent target of the gun control movement. “Loophole” evokes tax avoidance and other shady behavior. But to the gun rights side, these loopholes are simply private sales.

The term that seems to anger gun rights folks the most is “assault weapons.” Gun rights defenders fume over the prioritization of aesthetics over functionality when government attempts to apply that label. As Feldman sees it, any weapon — even the most rudimentary musket — is capable of assault in the hands of a dangerous person.

Gun control advocates, however, counter that assault weapons are not something that any law abiding shooter or hunter would need. That word “need” is key, Wilson says. “The onus is on gun owners to demonstrate that they need this. But for gun rights people, need is irrelevant because ‘it’s my right.'” This discursive fight is typical of how both sides of the gun debate talk over one another, speaking two different languages.

If there’s one phrase shared by the vocabularies of both sides, it’s “common sense.” Mr. Obama called for “common sense reform” during last week’s State of the Union address. And the NRA touted LaPierre’s call for armed guards in schools as a “common sense solution,” the exact same phrase used by Americans for Responsible Solutions .

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

International considerations

Historical origins of gun control.

• Gun control in the United States
• Is Internet technology "making us stupid"?
• What is the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technology on society?
• Does the Second Amendment allow owning guns for self-defense?
• Which U.S. Supreme Court justices think the Second Amendment recognizes the individual’s right to bear arms in self-defense?

gun control

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• gun control - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

gun control , politics, legislation, and enforcement of measures intended to restrict access to, the possession of, or the use of arms, particularly firearms. Gun control is one of the most controversial and emotional issues in many countries, with the debate often centring on whether regulations on an individual’s right to arms are an undue restriction on liberty and whether there is a correlation between guns and crime. Proponents of gun-control legislation assert that the strict enforcement of gun-control laws saves lives and reduces crime. By contrast, opponents of gun control assert that minimal restrictions on guns ensure that individuals have adequate means for self-defense and that a wider distribution of firearms results in safer communities .

Gun control is an issue throughout the world, with each country having the sovereign authority to regulate firearms within its borders. The vast majority of industrialized countries have strict gun-control regulations. For example, Japan places restrictions on the possession and use of all firearms except in limited instances (e.g., hunting, athletic events, and research). Canada permits the possession and use of firearms for competitions and target practice, but it forbids the possession of handguns unless an individual can show that a handgun is needed for self-defense. The United Kingdom has banned handguns altogether and limits the possession of firearms to activities such as hunting, target shooting, pest control, and slaughtering. Meanwhile, Germany permits the ownership of certain firearms so long as an individual meets the requirements for a firearms ownership license, which include that the applicant be age 18 or older and have expert knowledge in the handling of firearms and have the necessity to possess such firearms.

If gun control is defined as placing legal restrictions on arms to protect civil society , its origins can be traced back to ancient Rome . In Rome arms were seen as the means to maintain standing armies. To prevent these armies from undermining and overthrowing civil authority, Roman law forbade military arms from crossing the Rubicon . This law would remain in effect until Julius Caesar violated it when he maintained a standing army to assume power as emperor of Rome, a historical event that was etched as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire. In fact, this historical event is of such significance that both the English Bill of Rights (formally An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown; 1689) and the U.S. Constitution (1789) include provisions that prevent the maintenance of standing armies during times of peace without the consent of the legislative branch.

In England arms were always controlled by Parliament and the crown according to socioeconomic status. As English reformer and MP John Sadler wrote in 1649 in his pamphlet titled “The Rights of the Kingdom,” “Men ought indeed have Arms, and them to keep in Readiness for Defence of the King and Kingdom,” but Parliament defined which men were to “provide and bear arms, how, and when, and where.” It should be emphasized that arms were primarily seen as tools for the common defense of the realm. Even for this purpose, however, arms were strictly regulated by the government to ensure that they were readily available for the common defense and were out of the hands of dangerous persons. For example, during the reign of Henry VIII (1509–47), restrictions were placed on “weapons” and “defensive armour” being brought to any town, church, market, or other congregation except upon the hue and cry (a practice whereby criminals were pursued with cries and sounds of alarm). Henry VIII had enacted other gun-control laws, including restrictions on the length of guns, on who was qualified to possess guns, and on when and where they may be fired.

Gun restrictions in England were rarely the subject of parliamentary debate. However, from the mid-17th to the late 18th century, members of Parliament periodically proposed laws that would remove gun restrictions and allow English householders to have and maintain guns for the defense of the realm. For instance, during the convention in 1689 that drafted the English Declaration of Rights, Thomas Erle, who had served as a general and was a member of Parliament, proposed that “every substantial householder in any town or city should be provided of a good musket in case of invasion.” In 1693 a similar proposal was made to allow every Protestant to keep a musket “for the security of the government.” Such proposals failed, however, because they would “arm the mob” and thus were considered “not very safe for any government.”

Naturally, the safety of the government was not the only reason restrictions on guns were imposed in England. Gun-control restrictions sometimes supported the hunting of game or the access of hunters to game preserves, as well as to prevent crime and murders. In the 1750s the Scottish philosopher and historian Adam Ferguson opposed such restrictions as preventing the establishment of a national militia because, although a “few domestic inconveniences” would occur, this should not “deter us from the necessary Steps” in arming the people for “our own Defence, against a foreign Enemy.” The English writer and MP Soame Jenyns also justified the removal of gun restrictions to further the establishment of a national militia. Although “Accidents [such as murder] may sometimes happen,” it did not matter, he argued, because “every man” in the militia will “beget three Children before he kills one Man.”

In the end, neither of these arguments affected the well-established gun restrictions in England. In fact, when mid-18th century militia reform was finally adopted, George II (1727–60) ensured that all militia arms were kept by local lord lieutenants and only distributed during times of militia muster and training. This was a practice that dated to the 1550s, during the reign of Mary I , when the law required that all guns and arms in cities, boroughs, towns, parishes, and hamlets were to be kept by local government officials and in places of safekeeping.

Review Essay of In Defense of Gun Control by Hugh LaFollette

• Book Review
• Published: 15 April 2021
• Volume 15 , pages 311–316, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Bradley Jay Strawser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0319-0458 1 &
• Bart Kennedy 1  

355 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Firmin DeBrabander, review of  Debating Gun Control: How much Regulation do we need?  By David DeGrazia and Lester Hunt,  Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , December 20, 2017.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA

Bradley Jay Strawser & Bart Kennedy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley Jay Strawser .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Strawser, B.J., Kennedy, B. Review Essay of In Defense of Gun Control by Hugh LaFollette. Criminal Law, Philosophy 15 , 311–316 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09565-w

Download citation

Accepted : 19 February 2021

Published : 15 April 2021

Issue Date : July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09565-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Watch CBS News

Gun policy debate now includes retail tracking codes in California

By Kate Gibson

Edited By Alain Sherter

July 1, 2024 / 4:47 PM EDT / CBS News

Laws taking effect Monday in California and Tennessee highlight the nation's stark divide over guns: While the former is looking to help banks track potentially suspicious gun purchases in hopes of thwarting mass shootings and other firearm-related homicides, the latter is seeking to prohibit the practice. 

Major credit card companies as of today have to make a merchant code available for firearm and ammunition retailers to comply with California's new law to aid banks in monitoring gun sales and flag suspicious cases to authorities. The law requires retailers that primarily sell firearms to adopt the code by May 2025.  

Democratic-led legislatures in Colorado and New York this year also passed measures mandating firearms codes that kick in next year. 

The idea behind a gun merchant code is to detect suspicious activity, such as a person with no history of buying firearms suddenly spending large sums at multiple gun stores in a short period of time. After being notified by banks, law enforcement authorities could investigate and possibly prevent a mass shooting, gun control advocates contend.

On the other side of the issue, gun-rights advocates are concerned the retail code could impose unfair scrutiny on law-abiding gun purchasers. During the past 16 months, 17 states with Republican-controlled legislatures have passed bills banning a firearms store code or curtailing its use. 

"We view this as a first step by gun-control supporters to restrict the lawful commerce in firearms," Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told the Associated Press. 

California's measure coincides with a separate state law in Tennessee that bans the use of firearm-specific merchant codes , with the National Rifle Association lauding it as protecting the financial privacy of gun owners. 

Mastercard, Visa and American Express worked to comply with the new California measure, as CBS News reported earlier in the year . The credit card networks had initially agreed to implement a standalone code for firearm sellers, but put that effort on hold after objections from gun-rights advocates. 

Credit cards are used to facilitate gun crimes all across America, according to Guns Down America, which argues at retail codes could prevent violence stemming from cases of straw purchases, gun trafficking and mass casualty events. 

A report by the nonprofit advocacy cited eight mass shootings that possibly could have been prevented, including the  Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting  and the  Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida , because each perpetrator used credit cards to mass arsenals in a short period of time. 

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy last week decried gun violence to be an escalating public health crisis, with  more than 48,000 Americans killed  with firearms in 2022.

—The Associated Press contributed to this report.

• Gun Control

Kate Gibson is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch in New York, where she covers business and consumer finance.

More from CBS News

4 signs credit card debt forgiveness may not work for you

New cyberattack targets iPhone Apple IDs. Here's how to protect yourself.

RNC panel approves Trump-influenced 2024 GOP platform

Spanish anti-tourism protesters harass foreign visitors in Barcelona

The Supreme Court upended gun laws nationwide. Mass confusion has followed.

Semiautomatic weapons. Large-capacity magazines. Guns with scratched-off serial numbers. Ghost guns. Guns in bars and restaurants. Guns in the hands of people who have threatened to kill themselves or someone else. Which firearms are legal and who can have them all expanded after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision two years ago in its Bruen case, which strengthened Second Amendment rights in America and launched hundreds of lawsuits challenging gun restrictions nationwide.

This summer, the Supreme Court said it had been misunderstood: Courts were taking too far Bruen’s guidance that gun laws must align with US “history and tradition.” People under domestic violence restraining orders, the justices decreed, could be barred from having guns, allowing a looser interpretation of its decision from two years ago.

But on both sides of the gun-control debate, people say the ruling will do little to ease the confusion and disruption unleashed by the high court’s 2022 historical mandate. Only eight of roughly 500 federal court cases that are challenging the constitutionality of firearms restrictions since the Bruen decision that are being tracked by the gun-control advocacy group Brady involve the law recently upheld by the Supreme Court, according to a Washington Post review of the data. Those opposing gun regulations said they still plan to aggressively target laws that they believe violate the Constitution.

Advertisement

The high court also didn’t clarify how far back in American history judges must go to justify allowing firearms regulations. That leaves other major gun laws vulnerable at a time when the surgeon general has declared gun violence a public health crisis and as a new study reports that gun rulings have become more politically polarized, experts said.

The Bruen test was created in response to conservative complaints that the Second Amendment was not taken seriously enough, with courts too often prioritizing public safety concerns over gun rights. In Bruen, the court said no such choice was allowed — all that matters is whether there is a historical analogue for the regulation being challenged.

The prospect of implementing that decision helped drive Judge Paul Watford, 55, to retire from his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“If the Supreme Court hands down a decision like Bruen that imposes a mode of analysis that you think is completely misguided, that leads to results you think are incorrect under the Constitution … if you’re not comfortable doing that, if you don’t want to be implicated in the process, you should find another job,” Watford said.

He said the conservative Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in ruling that domestic abusers could not be deprived of their weapons, “took Bruen seriously and applied it to a logical end.” After all, domestic abuse was not considered a crime in the periods the Supreme Court had deemed relevant for gun regulations: the late 1700s, when the Bill of Rights was written, and the 1860s, when it was applied to state laws.

United States v. Rahimi, decided last month by the high court, emphasized that the historical analogue didn’t have to be so strict. Laws about general dangerousness could justify the federal law making it a felony to possess a gun while under a domestic violence restraining order. The justices sent challenges to federal bans on firearms for felons and drug users back to lower courts for review with Rahimi in mind.

But experts say the decision was written so narrowly that it does not make clear how to address other clauses of the same federal law. The court also declined to clear up a dispute over whether judges must find historical analogues from the late 1700s or the 1860s.

Critics say the Rahimi ruling does not solve the inherent problem created by Bruen: that judges are being asked to evaluate history, based on limited records assembled by dueling teams of lawyers.

"We're not really equipped to play historian," said Lee Yeakel, a George W. Bush appointee from West Texas who also retired last year. To start with, he said, "we might not know what got left out." A lack of regulations might simply reflect a lack of need or political will, not a belief that the law would be unconstitutional. Also, he said, the history that is recorded can't be easily applied to modern-day problems: "If you look at historical writings about regulating firearms, you're not going to find anything about regulating assault weapons."

Yeakel said he found persuasive an opinion from a Biden-nominated judge lamenting that “we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791.”

That opinion was one of a dozen cited by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in June in her concurrent opinion to the domestic violence case. Lower-court judges, she said, think “there is little method to Bruen’s madness.”

In the absence of clear guidelines, according to a recent study, an ideological divide has emerged. Judges nominated by Republican presidents are twice as likely to support undoing firearms restrictions in significant decisions, a shift fueled in large part by Trump nominees.

“The Trump judges are close to casting 50 percent of their votes in favor of gun rights, when the average for other Republicans is 28 percent,” said the study from three university professors reviewing more than 1,000 gun-related decisions in the 18 months after Bruen.

In part, experts say, the polarization is driven by advocates choosing the courts considered most friendly to their views. But they also say Bruen made it easier, not harder, to rule based on political preferences rather than the law.

“It’s not good to have a legal test that doesn’t work; it just invites courts to apply the test dishonestly,” said Nelson Lund, an academic who favors a broad reading of the Second Amendment. “There are going to be a lot of issues on which text, history and tradition do not provide reliable guidance.”

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Why Britain Just Ended 14 Years of Conservative Rule

Last week, the center-left labour party won the british general election in a landslide..

Hosted by Natalie Kitroeff

Featuring Mark Landler

Produced by Rob Szypko ,  Nina Feldman and Will Reid

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Dan Powell ,  Diane Wong and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

For more than a decade, Britain has been governed by the Conservative Party, which pushed its politics to the right, embracing smaller government and Brexit. Last week, that era officially came to an end.

Mark Landler, the London bureau chief for The Times, explains why British voters rejected the Conservatives and what their defeat means in a world where populism is on the rise.

On today’s episode

Mark Landler , the London bureau chief for The New York Times.

Background reading

Five takeaways from the British general election.

The Conservatives have run Britain for 14 years. How have things changed in that time?

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Natalie Kitroeff is the Mexico City bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. More about Natalie Kitroeff

Mark Landler is the London bureau chief of The Times, covering the United Kingdom, as well as American foreign policy in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. He has been a journalist for more than three decades. More about Mark Landler

Advertisement