Gun Control Thesis

Gun control, known as the laws, policies, and regulations regarding the usage and manufacturing of guns, in the modern world, seems to be one of the most vexed issues in society. Pertaining to gun control in America, this issue arises in the Second amendment, referred to colloquially as “the right to bear arms”. Many people believe that the right to have and use guns is ensured by the constitution, additionally claiming that the usage of guns is a mechanism for self-defense. Allowing access to guns in American also gives the opposite side an argument due to many mass shootings and other catastrophes relating to guns. While it is necessary to have some form of self-defense, guns exceptionally do more harm than good in today’s time. Most people recite that guns are our initial self-defense, but even so guns are so easily accessible, more importantly easily accessible to the deranged and individuals with criminal intent. St Petersburg times states that “Something on the order of 30,000 Americans are dying every year as a result of gunshots, and somehow or other, we 've been lulled into the idea that such terrible losses are acceptable” (St Petersburg). St Petersburg continues and says that if we were to ban guns altogether, then naturally guns will be less accessible (St Petersburg).This conveys the belief that if gun control laws that hinder the usage and manufacturing, then gun violence in return would dwindle. Additionally, in the same article St Petersburg states that strict gun control laws don’t seem to do much to stop mass shootings in Massachusetts, a state with one of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. The author writes “timid laws that require trigger locks or background checks or limit the number of gun purchases per month are meaningless when an individual is determined to commit gun violence” (St Petersburg). The general proposal is that guns protect us, in actuality they don’t necessarily guarantee safety from an intruder or assailant. Given that, stricter gun laws would be more beneficial to the nation. David Robert Grimes takes account the research of Charles Branas, Professor at University of Pennsylvania who did a study of 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident. Professor Charles Branas found that victims who possessed firearms during the shooting were nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who were unarmed (David Robert Grimes). Charles Branas backs up this study by stating “A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons” (David Robert Grimes). This blatantly discredits the claim that potential victims who are armed can stop a criminal from wreaking havoc, while positively acknowledging that guns do not directly protect us, leading to stricter gun laws a better approach for society. Additionally Grimes states that “… the Branas …show more content…
Not only are guns disastrous machines that are designed solely for killing and are easy accessible to unqualified individuals, in a gun related crime, they do not guarantee safety if armed by a civilian. With all the devastating mass shootings across the country, it should be the nation’s upmost concern that gun control is handled with the most appropriate action. In the future, restraining the gun issue will stop all of the countless lives lost to a simple click of a trigger and will lead our nation into a better