essay on gun control debate

• Share full article

Gun Control, Explained

A quick guide to the debate over gun legislation in the United States.

By The New York Times

As the number of mass shootings in America continues to rise , gun control — a term used to describe a wide range of restrictions and measures aimed at controlling the use of firearms — remains at the center of heated discussions among proponents and opponents of stricter gun laws.

To help understand the debate and its political and social implications, we addressed some key questions on the subject.

Is gun control effective?

Throughout the world, mass shootings have frequently been met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too.

After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like the ones he had used. It did the same with most handguns after a school shooting in 1996. It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks in which, by some estimates , as many as one million firearms were then melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted .

Only the United States, whose rate and severity of mass shootings is without parallel outside conflict zones, has so consistently refused to respond to those events with tightened gun laws .

Several theories to explain the number of shootings in the United States — like its unusually violent societal, class and racial divides, or its shortcomings in providing mental health care — have been debunked by research. But one variable remains: the astronomical number of guns in the country.

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per one million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership. Americans sometimes see this as an expression of its deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley. Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed , that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process. They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns. More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries , among American states , among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries. This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence. — Max Fisher and Josh Keller, Why Does the U.S. Have So Many Mass Shootings? Research Is Clear: Guns.

Every mass shooting is, in some sense, a fringe event, driven by one-off factors like the ideology or personal circumstances of the assailant. The risk is impossible to fully erase.

Still, the record is confirmed by reams of studies that have analyzed the effects of policies like Britain’s and Australia’s: When countries tighten gun control laws, it leads to fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, which leads to less gun violence.

What gun control measures exist at the federal level?

Much of current federal gun control legislation is a baseline, governing who can buy, sell and use certain classes of firearms, with states left free to enact additional restrictions.

Dealers must be licensed, and run background checks to ensure their buyers are not “prohibited persons,” including felons or people with a history of domestic violence — though private sellers at gun shows or online marketplaces are not required to run background checks. Federal law also highly restricts the sale of certain firearms, such as fully automatic rifles.

The most recent federal legislation , a bipartisan effort passed last year after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, expanded background checks for buyers under 21 and closed what is known as the boyfriend loophole. It also strengthened existing bans on gun trafficking and straw purchasing.

— Aishvarya Kavi

Advertisement

What are gun buyback programs and do they work?

Gun buyback programs are short-term initiatives that provide incentives, such as money or gift cards, to convince people to surrender firearms to law enforcement, typically with no questions asked. These events are often held by governments or private groups at police stations, houses of worship and community centers. Guns that are collected are either destroyed or stored.

Most programs strive to take guns off the streets, provide a safe place for firearm disposal and stir cultural changes in a community, according to Gun by Gun , a nonprofit dedicated to preventing gun violence.

The first formal gun buyback program was held in Baltimore in 1974 after three police officers were shot and killed, according to the authors of the book “Why We Are Losing the War on Gun Violence in the United States.” The initiative collected more than 13,000 firearms, but failed to reduce gun violence in the city. Hundreds of other buyback programs have since unfolded across the United States.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton announced the nation’s first federal gun buyback program . The $15 million program provided grants of up to $500,000 to police departments to buy and destroy firearms. Two years later, the Senate defeated efforts to extend financing for the program after the Bush administration called for it to end.

Despite the popularity of gun buyback programs among certain anti-violence and anti-gun advocates, there is little data to suggest that they work. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research , a private nonprofit, found that buyback programs adopted in U.S. cities were ineffective in deterring gun crime, firearm-related homicides or firearm-related suicides. . Evidence showed that cities set the sale price of a firearm too low to considerably reduce the supply of weapons; most who participated in such initiatives came from low-crime areas and firearms that were typically collected were either older or not in good working order.

Dr. Brendan Campbell, a pediatric surgeon at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and an author of one chapter in “Why We Are Losing the War on Gun Violence in the United States,” said that buyback programs should collect significantly more firearms than they currently do in order to be more effective.

Dr. Campbell said they should also offer higher prices for handguns and assault rifles. “Those are the ones that are most likely to be used in crime,” and by people attempting suicide, he said. “If you just give $100 for whatever gun, that’s when you’ll end up with all these old, rusted guns that are a low risk of causing harm in the community.”

Mandatory buyback programs have been enacted elsewhere around the world. After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia put in place a nationwide buyback program , collecting somewhere between one in five and one in three privately held guns. The initiative mostly targeted semiautomatic rifles and many shotguns that, under new laws, were no longer permitted. New Zealand banned military-style semiautomatic weapons, assault rifles and some gun parts and began its own large-scale buyback program in 2019, after a terrorist attack on mosques in Christchurch. The authorities said that more than 56,000 prohibited firearms had been collected from about 32,000 people through the initiative.

Where does the U.S. public stand on the issue?

Expanded background checks for guns purchased routinely receive more than 80 or 90 percent support in polling.

Nationally, a majority of Americans have supported stricter gun laws for decades. A Gallup poll conducted in June found that 55 percent of participants were in favor of a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semiautomatic guns. A majority of respondents also supported other measures, including raising the legal age at which people can purchase certain firearms, and enacting a 30-day waiting period for gun sales.

But the jumps in demand for gun control that occur after mass shootings also tend to revert to the partisan mean as time passes. Gallup poll data shows that the percentage of participants who supported stricter gun laws receded to 57 percent in October from 66 percent in June, which was just weeks after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo. A PDK poll conducted after the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde found that 72 percent of Republicans supported arming teachers, in contrast with 24 percent of Democrats.

What do opponents of gun control argue?

Opponents of gun control, including most Republican members of Congress, argue that proposals to limit access to firearms infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And they contend that mass shootings are not the result of easily accessible guns, but of criminals and mentally ill people bent on waging violence.

— Annie Karni

Why is it so hard to push for legislation?

Polling suggests that Americans broadly support gun control measures, yet legislation is often stymied in Washington, and Republicans rarely seem to pay a political price for their opposition.

The calculation behind Republicans’ steadfast stonewalling of any new gun regulations — even in the face of the kind unthinkable massacres like in Uvalde, Texas — is a fairly simple one for Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. Asked what the reaction would be from voters back home if he were to support any significant form of gun control, the first-term Republican had a straightforward answer: “Most would probably throw me out of office,” he said. His response helps explain why Republicans have resisted proposals such as the one for universal background checks for gun buyers, despite remarkably broad support from the public for such plans — support that can reach up to 90 percent nationwide in some cases. Republicans like Mr. Cramer understand that they would receive little political reward for joining the push for laws to limit access to guns, including assault-style weapons. But they know for certain that they would be pounded — and most likely left facing a primary opponent who could cost them their job — for voting for gun safety laws or even voicing support for them. Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country. Though the National Rifle Association has recently been diminished by scandal and financial turmoil , Democrats say that the organization still has a strong hold on Republicans through its financial contributions and support, hardening the party’s resistance to any new gun laws. — Carl Hulse, “ Why Republicans Won’t Budge on Guns .”

Yet while the power of the gun lobby, the outsize influence of rural states in the Senate and single-voter issues offer some explanation, there is another possibility: voters.

When voters in four Democratic-leaning states got the opportunity to enact expanded gun or ammunition background checks into law, the overwhelming support suggested by national surveys was nowhere to be found. For Democrats, the story is both unsettling and familiar. Progressives have long been emboldened by national survey results that show overwhelming support for their policy priorities, only to find they don’t necessarily translate to Washington legislation and to popularity on Election Day or beyond. President Biden’s major policy initiatives are popular , for example, yet voters say he has not accomplished much and his approval ratings have sunk into the low 40s. The apparent progressive political majority in the polls might just be illusory. Public support for new gun restrictions tends to rise in the wake of mass shootings. There is already evidence that public support for stricter gun laws has surged again in the aftermath of the killings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas. While the public’s support for new restrictions tends to subside thereafter, these shootings or another could still produce a lasting shift in public opinion. But the poor results for background checks suggest that public opinion may not be the unequivocal ally of gun control that the polling makes it seem. — Nate Cohn, “ Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different. ”

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

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Data and Reporting Analyst

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

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!

Related Articles

• Our Supporters

Waipio Soccer Complex Is The Frontrunner For Honolulu’s New Landfill, But Questions Abound

Shootz! A Week Of Turmoil And Tenacity

Ben Lowenthal: The Surprising Persistence Of Conservatism In True Blue Hawaii

Opponents Of Kauai Hydro Plan Drop Lawsuit But Project Is Still In Limbo

This State Agency Transformed Kakaako. Should It Do The Same For Lahaina?

• Special Projects
• Mobile Menu

In Gun Debate, Both Sides Have Evidence To Back Them Up

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, 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.

Increasing the number of police officers per capita decreases the number of mass shootings.

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.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

--> Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed. --> Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed.

Before you go.

Civil Beat is a small nonprofit newsroom that provides free content with no paywall. That means readership growth alone can’t sustain our journalism.

The truth is that less than 1% of our monthly readers are financial supporters. To remain a viable business model for local news, we need a higher percentage of readers-turned-donors.

Will you consider becoming a new donor today?  

About the Authors

• Jennifer Selin Jennifer Selin is the Kinder Institute Assistant Professor of Constitutional Democracy, University of Missouri-Columbia Use the RSS feed to subscribe to Jennifer Selin's posts today

Top Stories

Architect Laurel Mau Testifies In Bribery Trial About Abrupt Firing From Mitsunaga & Associates

A Project Aimed At Helping Upcountry Maui’s Water Shortages Is Getting Pushback From Residents

Maui Council Wants To Fund Recruitment And Retention For Understaffed Police Department

Ben Lowenthal: Hawaii’s Top Court Says A Fetus Is Not A Person. Alabama Could Not Disagree More

Scientists Are Deep-Freezing Corals To Repopulate Future Oceans

Get in-depth reporting on hawaii’s biggest issues, sign up for our free morning newsletter.

You're officially signed up for our daily newsletter, the Morning Beat. A confirmation email will arrive shortly.

In the meantime, we have other newsletters that you might enjoy. Check the boxes for emails you'd like to receive.

• Breaking News Alerts What's this? Be the first to hear about important news stories with these occasional emails.
• Special Projects & Investigations What's this? You'll hear from us whenever Civil Beat publishes a major project or investigation.
• Environment What's this? Get our latest environmental news on a monthly basis, including updates on Nathan Eagle's 'Hawaii 2040' series.
• Ideas What's this? Get occasional emails highlighting essays, analysis and opinion from IDEAS, Civil Beat's commentary section.

Inbox overcrowded? Don't worry, you can unsubscribe or update your preferences at any time.

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].

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Uvalde elementary school shooting

12 stats to help inform the gun control debate.

Britt Cheng

Gun control advocates hold signs during a protest at Discovery Green across from the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Friday in Houston, Texas. Eric Thayer/Getty Images hide caption

Gun control advocates hold signs during a protest at Discovery Green across from the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Friday in Houston, Texas.

The nationwide gun control debate resurfaced on Tuesday, after an 18-year-old shooter entered Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and killed 19 students and two adults in the second deadliest school shooting in U.S. history . The mass shooting came just 10 days after another 18-year-old gunman opened fire at a Buffalo, N.Y. grocery store , killing 10 people and injuring three others.

In the aftermath, prominent voices have urged Congress to pass gun control laws and universal background checks, from Sen. Chris Murphy , who represents Connecticut where the Sandy Hook school shooting happened, to NBA coach Steve Kerr to the Pope . Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers said they won't back laws that limit gun rights.

The evolving narrative of what happened in the Uvalde shooting

While the push for accountability intensifies as details emerge from what happened in the hour after police officers arrived at the shooting up until they killed the gunman, let's look at these statistics that help inform the gun control debate in the United States.

Number of people killed by guns in the U.S., every day

Number of children who die every day from gun violence in the U.S.

School shootings since Sandy Hook , including 27 school shootings so far this year.

Peak ages for violent offending with firearms

Number of AR-15s and its variations in circulation

Number of people who will die after attempting suicide with a gun

Percentage of mass shooters who are men

Percentage of gun owners who favor preventing the "mentally ill" from purchasing guns

Percentage of gun owners who favor background checks at private sales and gun shows

Percentage of gun deaths that are suicides; 43% are murders

Percentage of murders that involved a firearm

Percentage of people who defended themselves with their guns in violent crimes

Did you know we tell audio stories, too? Listen to our podcasts like No Compromise, our Pulitzer-prize winning investigation into the gun rights debate, on Apple Podcasts and Spotify .

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
• My Account Login
• 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

250k Accesses

25 Citations

421 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

This article is cited by

Packing heat: on the affective incorporation of firearms.

• Jussi A. Saarinen

Topoi (2024)

Quick links

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

Gun Control Essay Guide: Titles, Example, Writing Tips

Writing against gun control essay follows the basic steps of an argumentative essay. The paper begins with an introduction which highlights what the entire essay will be about. Then, three body paragraphs follow: the second paragraph presents the first supporting reason; the third gives the second supporting argument, whereas the fourth paragraph offers the pro-gun control arguments to show the existence of opposing viewpoints.

The firearms debate is something that has been going for a while, and in light of increased mass shootings and a higher risk of terrorist threats, it will continue to be a hot topic. Here at EssayService , we have put together a handy guide to help you with creating any type of essay on this controversial subject.

What is The Gun Control?

The problem of mass shootings has been on the rise around the world, with the United States being the most affected. A report published by The Guardian in 2016 showed that in the United States, there are 265 million guns compared to the 242 million adults living in the country. Also, half of the guns are owned by 3% of the adult population, with each of these adults owning eight to 140 guns. The gun control law aims at regulating the manufacture, possession, transfer or use of firearms by civilians.

The use of guns is something that has to be regulated to maintain safety for everyone. Pro campaigners argue that with increased mass shootings and easy access to firearms, make it too difficult to prevent this kind of tragedies.

Anti-gun control crusaders argue that due to the failure of the governments to ensure their safety, they are forced to acquire guns to defend themselves. However, some pro-gun control campaigners argue that gun ownership should be limited to the police and army officers due to the increased shootings in high schools and colleges. The report published by The Guardian revealed that there are 30, 000 gun deaths in the US annually, the highest across the globe.

One of the pro-gun control arguments is that the law on gun ownership must be amended to control how guns are used and stored. They link the increased shootings in schools to unsafe storage of firearms. As a result, students quickly access their parent’s shotguns and carry them to school and use them to commit crime and murder. Although anti-gun control crusaders argue that the guns will ensure their safety, there have been instances where innocent people were hurt injured and even killed.

The pro-gun control campaigners advocate changing the constitution to either monitor the use of guns or totally ban gun possession among civilians. Also, parents and educationists have taken measures to educate children on the misuse of guns through lectures and open forums. One of the techniques professors use to educate students is by assigning them assignments to write an essay on gun control. That way, students can do adequate research and review existing literature before drafting the final gun control essay. Parents have also taken steps to monitor their children’s exposure to violent video games and videos that influence them to be violent.

In recent years there has been increased education in schools and universities to ensure fewer chances of this kind of tragedies happening again. A typical exercise can involve giving students a gun control essay to research and write. This way the students can see what are the current laws and do research themselves into what problems can be affected if you change them.

Things to Consider when Writing a Gun Control Essay

The law states that anyone in the U.S. can carry a firearm under certain conditions and restrictions depending which local authority governs them. Even tho there is Federal laws and local laws in place they can be confusing in some areas but generally, a version of the second amendment is followed.

The original text from the Bill of Rights 1789 which was later edited and ratified as the Second Amendment is as follows:

“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”.

There is debate over interpretation of this ancient text but it generally accepted as having a trained military or “state guard” and the people which is anyone native or considered part of the community to be able to keep and carry weapons.

Things to consider:

• When this law was drawn up the world was a very different place.
• Many laws have been changed to fit in with modern society.
• Other countries gun laws are much stricter.
• People owning guns would not protect themselves from the government.

Gun Control Essay Titles

It is an important part of your essay to include a catchy title, this will inform the reader of your stance and also intrigue them to read further. It can also help other people look for your article quicker. If at first, you can not think of a title then it's a good idea to write as much of the essay and come back to naming it. It should be a creative process and do not just rush in to label your work. Think of something different and fresh that could challenge the reader, so a question, for example, is a good way to do this. Imagine your gun control essay to be a movie and you need to title it suitably can be another useful trick.

When writing your essay, you need to include a memorable title for your article. Here are some examples from our paper writing service online to help you:

• Take a side, not a sidearm
• Violence in America, guns under fire
• Gun control under control
• Shooting holes in the second amendment
• Gun deaths on deaf ears
• Guns don’t kill people, husbands that come home early do
• Putting guns into the hands of the bad and leaving the innocent unarmed
• Gun control: deciding who's pulling the trigger
• How gun control can cost your life
• Gun control, man caught over a barrel

Pro Gun Control Essay or Against Gun Position Choice

Before embarking on writing your essay, it is vital you decide if you are pro or against the idea. Then you can plan out the essay according to your stance.

When you have decided which angle you are taking, research as much as possible and gain a lot of statistics that are already published. Remember hard facts are needed for your article.

Here is an argumentative gun control essay sample to give you clearer idea:

Then you can begin to outline your essay.

How to Write Your Gun Control Essay Outline?

Draw up a plan of what you need to do, a gun control outline will save you time in the long run which will help with planning and researching. Here is a free template to follow and fill in sections accordingly:

Introduction - Brief description of the article and stance taken, include a hook and thesis.

Body of text - Supporting evidence and statistics for the argument.

Conclusion - Present summary of the most important ideas.

Gun Control Essay Introduction

After crafting a worthy title, you can move onto a gun control essay introduction. Sometimes the best way to start is with a gun control essay hook which the reader will find interesting. Then proceed with a description of what the article will include and maybe some interesting background to the research undertaken. Include a gun control essay thesis. This will give you a target to aim for during your research to help focus on the important parts, it is also possible to come back and change the thesis statement later on. This is a very important part of the article as the audience will already have formed some opinions of the work after they have finished reading the opening paragraphs.

Body of Gun Control Essay

Depending on what type of essay you are writing will determine which style you adopt. Most common styles would include an argumentative essay or expository essay so check the links for free help on this style of writing. The vital part to presenting your side in these formats would be stating a fact or statistic to prove your point then writing a paragraph with your ideas and opinions on it. Make sure you use hard evidence for every point or it will just count as just commentary. Another popular style would include a research paper , here is free help with this format. Make sure your paragraphs flow well between points and ideas so that the reader will not be bored and use transition words and phrases to help with this.

Gun Control Essay Conclusion

When you write the gun control essay conclusion it is important to present a summary of the main ideas that back up your thesis or the point that is being proved. Depending on the style you can restate the thesis then lead into the summary. Whichever style adopted make the final sentence memorable which could include a dramatic plea or a question as this will be the last thing the audience takes away with them. Even try to challenge the reader.

Citations or References Section of Gun Control Essays

Depending on the type of essay or work you are writing this will have an impact on how to reference material used. It is vital that you include a references section usually at the end of the essay.

Pro Gun Control Essay Tips

Here at essay writing service , we have collected some of the best top tips for writing your essay to help you out.

• Backup all your ideas. When you put a claim or point of view across make sure you have supporting evidence or statistics to back up. Most students forget to include the vital information to backup their ideas. Here is a good website for global firearm laws and statistics .
• Clearly structure each point or idea. Do not make the essay boring to the reader so include transition words and phrases and create one idea based on facts per paragraph.
• Look for fresh and new research. This topic has been covered a lot to a variety of different levels so try to get modern research and data to present the best ideas. There have been many students completing essays like this so try to stand out.
• Understand human psychology. Look and think outside the box because anyone can own a gun but not everybody has a strong enough mind to not pull the trigger. Guns are part of the argument but look at human thought and reasons.
• Be honest. With everybody under the sun having a say in this topic, just be clear and present your idea with truth and this will give you the best essay.

Gun Control Essay Example

Gun Policy: The Views of Republicans and Democrats

Do you know how many firearms are currently in civilian possession in the US? According to official numbers, over 393 million guns are owned by Americans, which makes up for 46% of the global stock of civilian firearms. This statement alone indicates how strong and well-developed gun culture is in this country. On the other hand, the rate of firearm deaths (both homicides and suicides) keeps growing at a rapid pace, causing the gun policy to be one of the hottest and most discussed topics. Unsurprisingly, the two major opposing parties in the US: Republicans and Democrats, are having very diverse opinions concerning this matter. While Republicans want to keep it easy, Democrats are voting for more restrictions, and they only agree on a couple of points.

To go into detail, Republicans are generally supporting gun ownership. They believe that it should be accessible to the majority of US citizens. According to the survey by the Pew Research Center, the majority of Republicans don't really see gun violence as a "very big" problem:

• 42% of the party representatives see the problem as "moderately big";
• And 23% believe there is no issue at all. 

Thus, when it comes to the majority of suggestions concerning stricter regulations of gun possession among civilians, Republicans vote for such changes very reluctantly. Instead, the party representatives strongly support the allowance of concealed carry of firearms in most public places. And, they also vote for allowing school teachers and authorities to carry guns at the workplace. All in all, Republicans are convinced that stricter gun policies cannot help minimize cultural brutality and prevent cruel crimes. But they believe that death penalties can.

Democrats, on the contrary, have a very different viewpoint on gun policy. According to Pew Research Center, as many as 65% of the party representatives believe that the problem of gun violence is very big. And another 26% think that it is moderately big. Due to their outlook on the problem, the majority of Democrats are strongly against making concealed carry of guns allowed. They also don't support reducing the waiting time for legal firearm purchases. They, on the contrary, support stricter background checks. Democrats even suggest creating federal databases to gain stronger control over gun sales. One more point in Democrats' policy is a restriction of sales of assault-style weapons.

Despite critically opposing ideas that Republicans and Democrats have regarding gun policy, they do find a few points of contact on this issue. Namely, the equal number of Republicans and Democrats vote for restricting mentally ill people from purchasing and owning firearms. Another shared idea with a small gap in the number of votes is that gun ownership should not be accessible to people who are included in no-fly or watch lists. Finally, the last policy update on which both parties somewhat agree implies the introduction of background checks for private sales and sales made at gun shows.

Overall, Republicans and Democrats have fundamentally contradicting views on issues related to gun violence. Despite the fact that the number of firearms crimes keeps striking, Republicans keep stubbornly voting for more sparing policies and less control. Democrats, on the contrary, are spreading awareness of the issue. They assure that the problem is real and suggest stricter policies. The goal of stricter gun policies is to minimize the danger for citizens. Interestingly enough, despite the strong gun culture in the country, according to surveys, most Americans would rather support democrats. 52% of citizens believe that gun control has to be stricter, and personally, I would also stand by the same ideas that the Democratic party is spreading.

Still Need Help with Your Gun Control Essays?

If you feel that you do not have enough time to gather the best research, do not worry you can order a custom essay online from professional writers. Have confidence in our expert team of writers from various academic backgrounds. There are also free guides and blogs to help you with any type of writing projects in the future. Thousands of happy students who graduated with our essay help. Buy an essay and check that there is no better way to write the essay than order an essay with us. Students which need a help with admission essay - we propose to use our admission essay writing service .

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

You Might Also Like

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

Gun control debate

Table of Contents

Introduction

The gun control debate has been ongoing for many years, with no end in sight. The issue is complex, and there are valid arguments on both sides. Proponents of gun control argue that these laws are necessary to protect citizens, while opponents of gun control argue that these laws infringe on the right to bear arms. Gun control laws are designed to regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms to reduce gun violence. Gun violence is a serious problem in the United States, and gun control laws are one way to try to reduce this problem. It is estimated that there are over 30,000 gun-related deaths each year in the United States (Enomoto, 2018). I believe that gun control is necessary to protect citizens, and I hope that in the future more people will come to see the benefits of gun control.

The Arguments for Gun Control

Gun control laws would help to reduce gun violence. This is the most commonly cited reason for supporting gun control. Gun violence is a serious problem in the United States, and gun control laws are one way to try to reduce this problem. Supporters of gun control argue that such laws would help to reduce gun violence in the United States because they would make it more difficult for people with a history of violence to obtain guns (Price & Khubchandani, 2019). This would make it more difficult for people with a history of violence to obtain guns, and would therefore reduce gun violence in the United States.

Gun control would also help to reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States. In recent years, there have been a number of mass shootings, such as the ones in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Orlando, Florida (Galea et al., 2018). These shootings have led to calls for stricter gun control laws. This is because it is believed that if there were stricter gun control laws, then it would be harder for people with mental health problems to get access to guns. This would then lead to fewer mass shootings.

The Arguments against Gun Control

Gun control laws infringe on the right to bear arms. This is the most commonly cited reason for opposing gun control. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms (O’Shea, 2021). This right is not absolute, but it is very difficult to infringe on. This means that it is very difficult to pass gun control laws in the United States. Opponents of gun control argue that such laws would infringe on the right to bear arms, and that this is an unacceptable infringement on a fundamental right.

Gun control laws would also be ineffective because they would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals would still be able to obtain guns, even if there were stricter gun control laws. This is because criminals do not obey the law (Swanson et al., 2019). Therefore, they would still be able to obtain guns, even if gun control laws made it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to do so. This would mean that gun control laws would only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns, without having any effect on criminals.

My Position

I believe that gun control is necessary to protect citizens. Gun violence is a problem in our society. Gun control laws are one way to try and reduce this problem. While I also agree that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, I do not believe that this right is absolute. I think that gun control laws can be crafted in a way that does not infringe on the Second Amendment but still helps to reduce gun violence. I also believe that gun control laws would be more effective than they are currently. If we can make it more difficult for people with a history of violence to obtain guns, then we can help to reduce gun violence in our society. Furthermore, I believe that gun control laws would also help to reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States. Cases like the Sandy Hook shooting show that even people with no history of violence can commit mass shootings if they have easy access to guns. It was far too easy for the Sandy Hook shooter to obtain the guns that he used in his shooting. If we had stricter gun control laws, then it would be more difficult for people like him to get access to guns. This would lead to fewer mass shootings.

Guns must be regulated to protect citizens. Gun violence is a running issue in our society, and gun control legislation tries to lower the numbers. Although I uphold the Second Amendment, I don’t agree that this right is never-ending. There comes a time when safety trumps an amendment. Also, gun control measures would be more effective if they were better enforced. If we close the loopholes in our current legislation and make it harder for people with a history of violence to obtain firearms, then we can make our society a safer place.

•  Enomoto, T. (2018). Giving Up the Gun? Overcoming Myths about Japanese Sword-Hunting and Firearms Control.  国際武器移転史 : The journal of Research Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer , (6), 45-59.
• Galea, S., Branas, C. C., Flescher, A., Formica, M. K., Hennig, N., Liller, K. D., … & Ying, J. (2018). Priorities in recovering from a lost generation of firearms research.  American journal of public health ,  108 (7), 858-860.
• O’Shea, M. P. (2021). The Concrete Second Amendment: Traditionalist Interpretation and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. ,  26 , 103.
• Price, J. H., & Khubchandani, J. (2019). School firearm violence prevention practices and policies: functional or folly?.  Violence and Gender ,  6 (3), 154-167.
•  Swanson, J. W., Easter, M. M., Alanis-Hirsch, K., Belden, C. M., Norko, M. A., Robertson, A. G., … & Parker, G. F. (2019). Criminal justice and suicide outcomes with Indiana’s risk-based gun seizure law.
• Bill of Rights
• Civil Disobedience
• Drunk Driving
• First Amendment
• Forensic Science
• Gang Violence
• Human Rights
• Identity Theft

16 Controversial State Gun Laws And Bans That Sparked Major Debate

Posted: April 6, 2024 | Last updated: April 6, 2024

Across the United States, state legislatures are fiercely debating and enacting a variety of gun laws, reflecting the nation’s deeply divided stance on gun control and Second Amendment rights. From permitless carry to sweeping assault weapons bans, these laws are at the heart of contentious political and public safety discussions.

Each legislation brings to light the complex balance between ensuring public safety and upholding constitutional rights, sparking legal battles and public outcry. Here’s a look at some of the most controversial state gun laws that have recently made headlines, illustrating the varied landscape of American gun legislation.

Permitless Carry in Florida

Florida’s recent legislation allows adults to carry concealed firearms without a license or training, joining over half the states in the country adopting permitless carry. This law raises debates about public safety and the balance between Second Amendment rights and gun control efforts. Critics argue it may lead to increased violence, while proponents see it as a victory for gun rights​.

Tennessee Assault Weapons Ban

Tennessee proposed bills to prohibit the sale or purchase of assault weapons, reflecting a growing trend among states to regulate firearms more strictly. This move has sparked discussions on the effectiveness of such bans in preventing gun violence versus the infringement on gun ownership rights.

Washington State Assault Weapons Ban

Washington enacted a comprehensive assault weapons ban, which includes restrictions on a wide range of firearms and features. The law faces several legal challenges, highlighting the tension between state-level initiatives to control gun violence and the rights of gun owners​.

Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act

Missouri’s law aimed to invalidate federal gun laws within the state and penalize law enforcement agencies enforcing such laws. The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to reinstate the law after a lower court ruled it unconstitutional underscores the complex interaction between state and federal jurisdictions over gun control​.

Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

Illinois’ ban on a broad range of semi-automatic firearms and features marks one of the most sweeping state-level gun control measures. The law’s constitutionality was upheld by the state supreme court, despite numerous legal challenges. This legislation exemplifies the deep divisions over gun control in America.

Arkansas Redefines Loaded Firearm and Enacts Permitless Carry

Arkansas amended its definition of a loaded firearm, potentially affecting gun safety and use regulations. Additionally, the state’s enactment of permitless carry continues the national trend towards less restrictive gun carrying laws​.

Connecticut’s Ghost Gun Ban

Connecticut’s legislation against ghost guns, which are firearms without serial numbers, aims to curb the untraceable nature of these weapons. The law reflects growing concerns over the difficulty of tracking and regulating these firearms.

New York’s Concealed Carry Restrictions

New York tightened rules on concealed carry, specifying where firearms can be carried and increasing permit requirements. This law was a response to the Supreme Court ruling on public carry rights and has been controversial among gun rights advocates.

California’s Microstamping Requirement

California requires new handguns to have microstamping technology, which imprints a unique code on cartridge cases when fired. This law aims to help solve gun-related crimes but has been criticized for its technological and practical feasibility.

New Jersey’s Magazine Capacity Limit

New Jersey limits the magazine capacity for firearms, a measure intended to reduce the lethality of mass shootings. The law’s opponents argue it infringes on gun owners’ rights and effectiveness in preventing crime.

Maryland’s Red Flag Law

Maryland allows for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others. While aimed at preventing gun violence, critics argue it may infringe on due process and Second Amendment rights.

Colorado’s Background Checks for Private Sales

Colorado requires background checks for all gun sales, including private transactions. This law seeks to close loopholes in gun sales but has faced opposition over concerns of enforceability and privacy.

Oregon’s Safe Storage Law

Oregon mandates that guns be securely stored and inaccessible to minors, aiming to prevent accidental shootings and suicides. The law highlights the balance between gun safety and individuals’ rights to self-defense.

Virginia’s One-Handgun-a-Month Law

Virginia reinstated its law limiting handgun purchases to one per month for most citizens, aiming to reduce gun trafficking. This measure has been contested as a restriction on the lawful purchase of firearms.

Rhode Island’s Assault Weapons Ban Proposal

Rhode Island proposed a ban on the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons, with legislation introduced in February 2023. This measure highlights the state’s effort to address gun violence through restrictive gun ownership laws, reflecting a broader national debate on the balance between public safety and Second Amendment rights.

Louisiana’s Attempt at Constitutional Carry

Louisiana considered a bill for constitutional carry, allowing residents to carry concealed weapons without a license. Although the bill made progress in the legislature, it was ultimately deferred due to amendments that the bill’s sponsor did not support, showcasing the complex dynamics and varied opinions within states on gun control and rights.

The landscape of gun legislation in the United States is a testament to the ongoing debate between safeguarding public safety and protecting constitutional freedoms. These controversial laws, varying widely from state to state, underscore the complexities and challenges of addressing gun violence while respecting individual rights.

As legal challenges continue and public opinion shifts, these laws may evolve, reflecting broader societal changes and the ongoing American discourse on gun control and rights. The future of gun legislation will undoubtedly remain a pivotal issue, requiring careful consideration of both safety and liberty.

What To Read Next

• This Genius Trick Every Online Shopper Should Know
• Best High-Yield Savings Accounts This Month
• Best Gold IRA This Year
• Deals On Popular Cruises
• The Best Internet Deals For Seniors
• Affordable Life Insurance Options for Seniors

For the Latest Breaking Crime & Justice News, Headlines & Videos, head to Body Cams+

More for You

Retired judge says statute cited in Trump’s motion raises concerns about judge in hush money case

Winter Storm Warnings for 5 States With Travel 'Difficult to Impossible'

The 10 movies everyone's watching on Amazon Prime Video this week

13 Things You Should Never Keep in Your Wallet

Over 150 Jewish creatives sign open letter defending Jonathan Glazer for Oscars speech on Gaza

Greta Thunberg dragged away from Dutch climate protest by police

This new 'blended-wing' plane looks like a military stealth bomber and just got the green light to fly after decades of development

Gavin Newsom's Restaurant Offers $16 Hourly Wage To Employee

Buffalo Nickels Could Be Worth Thousands — How To Spot One

Christian Bale Transforms Into Frankenstein's Monster in First Look at The Bride

17 People in History Who Were Unfairly Painted as the Bad Guy

They were thought to be hostages in Gaza. Israeli raids found they were dead.

I quit sugar for 6 months and this is what it did to my face and body

Should you tip on restaurant takeout? Or a coffee order? We're being asked for tips more often — here's when it's OK to decline.

5 Things Nearly Every Wealthy Person Does, According to Jaspreet Singh

15 Most Valuable Wheat Pennies, Ranked

5 people explain what it actually feels like to die

Lauren Boebert Gets Good News Out of Colorado

The Acolyte: New Look at Carrie-Anne Moss' Matrix-Inspired Jedi Master Revealed

West End theatre company blasts racial abuse directed at Black actor starring in Romeo and Juliet

Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel

Account Subscription: ACTIVE

Questions about your account? Our customer service team can be reached at [email protected] during business hours at (207) 791-6000 .

Maine Compass: In gun control debate, we should put children’s safety first

Children shouldn't have to live in fear that they'll be the next victim of gun violence,

You are able to gift 5 more articles this month.

Anyone can access the link you share with no account required. Learn more .

With a Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel subscription, you can gift 5 articles each month.

It looks like you do not have any active subscriptions. To get one, go to the subscriptions page .

Loading....

What is tragically missing in this tug of war with gun safety legislation is the reason why a person’s right to have any weapon takes precedence over the safety and future of our children. A comment by a legislator at the judiciary hearings on March 7 underscored this misplaced understanding. After testifying about how upsetting it was to watch a young child being passed out a window during a safety drill at her child’s school, one of the legislators on the Judiciary Committee responded by asking if the women was against gun safety drills. I was appalled when I heard this.

I am a grandfather. All of my grandchildren have grown up in a world in which they have gone to school wondering if they will be the next victim of gun violence . That fear has shaped who they are and how they are able to learn. If only one child is so affected, it is one too many. That fear has profoundly affected the parents of these children as well as their teachers, and is exacerbated by the need to have ongoing active shooter drills to be prepared for the possibility. In the midst of this, to ask a parent if they are against these drills is a response that is seated in ignorance, a disregard of children, or a blatant attempt to placate their voter base.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dana Williams is a member of the First Church in Belfast Gun Safety Work Group.

In the 25 years since the mass murder at Columbine, the majority of the responses speak of the infrequency of these tragic incidents being the reason for not enacting gun safety legislation. It is as though we are looking for some sort of magic number to decide whether protecting our children is more important than having whatever weapons we desire. Apparently, we are still looking for that magic number.

The AR-15 was developed in the 1950s. Its presence became dominant in the early 2000s. Since then, it has become the weapon of choice by mass murderers. Before 1999, the kind of mass murders that have become so commonplace in our country were rare. I honestly don’t know why the availability of this type of weapon changed who we are as a nation. It is, however, evident that it did.

I’m a 70-year-old disabled veteran. That likely does not give me much credibility before Maine’s Legislature. It just gives me a longer history as a citizen of this country. I don’t long for the way our country looked in the 1950s or 1960s. I do, however, want my grandchildren and their children to feel that they have the hope of growing up with the same level of security in this terribly violent nation as I did. It is past time to start putting our children first. I urge you to let your legislators know that without doing so, we are condemning our progeny to a life of fear.

Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.

Enter your email and password to access comments.

Forgot Password?

Don't have a commenting profile? Create one.

Hi, to comment on stories you must create a commenting profile . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login. Already have a commenting profile? Login .

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Create a commenting profile by providing an email address, password and display name. You will receive an email to complete the registration. Please note the display name will appear on screen when you participate.

Already registered? Log in to join the discussion.

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why .

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Send questions/comments to the editors.

Free beer, muddy camping, gasoline: Bingham businesses gear up for eclipse day crowd

Reporting aside: an accidental friendship in downtown waterville, farmingdale senior heads to high school powerlifting nationals as part of unique school project, frustrations brew over skowhegan athletic complex project with no firm timeline, new lebanese restaurant in waterville harkens to immigrant roots, family recipes, member log in.

Please enter your username and password below. Already a subscriber but don't have one? Click here .

Not a subscriber? Click here to see your options