The Equality Argument For Gun Control- An Affirmative View

Those who are against gun control claim that it denounces our liberty as American citizens. Those who are pro-gun control have used public safety as their main argument, yet they have failed to convince federal government to increase restrictions on guns for the past 20 years.  However, what people aren’t that aware of is that the pro-gun control debate can be supported with another aspect of this issue: equality. With this argument, gun control advocates can focus on the relationship between guns and inequality and can argue that stricter restrictions for guns is an important step towards social justice and economic empowerment. The article The Equality Argument For Gun Control, sheds light on the concept equality and its relation to gun control.

Guns create inequality in our country because it tends to increase violence and instability for those who live in low income communities. It has been found that violent crime rates are higher in certain areas. The widespread availability of guns makes it easier to commit more crime and lead to more destruction. In July of 2016, 82 people were shot in Chicago and most of them were a part of the South Side community, where crime rates are 10 times higher than wealthy areas of the city. When comparing the wealth of two particular areas, it is clear that areas with high income are less likely to experience violent crime. Economic inequality plays a role in the prevalence of gun violence. It occurred to me, after reading this article, that certain people are more susceptible to either committing or being victim to gun violence simply based on demographics. When anti-gun control politicians argue in favor of guns it is biased view. Wealthy, white politicians are less likely to encounter gun violence in their life; therefore, it is not fair that their voice is the only one heard in the government. Citizens in Chicago, for example, should be able to voice their opinions during this debate. If there is a more diverse group of people controlling the legislation, there may be extreme change in regard to gun control. The inequality that occurs in our country may be unknowingly fueling gun violence

Gun violence is related to inequality due to the notion that particular groups of people fall victim to these shootings more than others. Unfortunately, every American can be a victim of one of these heinous crimes, however, mass shooters have targeted marginalized groups in the past. These groups include women, children, and religious and racial minorities. These groups do not have the power, resources, or influence to help enforce stricter gun laws. They become the victim due to the lack of restrictions that our country has and the underlying issue of inequality. These violent massacres stem from hateful people who are guilty of anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, and other social discriminations. Guns are too easily accessible and make these crimes deadlier.

“When it comes to gun policy, the equal protection of the law must be no less important than the right to bear arms.”

Gun control has been continuously debated and the population in favor uses their freedom to own a weapon as their main argument. The debate has always been between the right to bear arms and the dangers of the weapon itself, however, it needs to be reevaluated to discuss the issue of inequality within our country. The danger of gun violence is not distributed equally in our society, therefore a small group of people in government should not control the laws for the entirety of the United States. Low income neighborhoods and minority groups are at more of a risk to be victims of these crimes than others. This aspect of the gun control debate must be discussed in order to move forward with creating new policies.

Why Gun Control Loses, and Why Las Vegas Might Change That

After the recent mass shootings such as Las Vegas and Orlando, there have been complaints for more gun control laws in the U.S. According to The New York Times article, we need to have the debate about guns and mass murder that the Republicans and National Rifle Association (NRA) keep avoiding. Gun rights are one of the few issues where Republicans are actually in touch with what the Americans want. The article discusses why gun control is losing and how the recent events may change that. 

Gun Violence: How The U.S. Compares With Other Countries

With all of the violence related to gun control that occurs in America, it is important to note how we compare to other countries in our world. In fact, according to the National Public Radio, the U.S. has the 31st highest rate of gun violence in the world. From this chart, we can see how we rank amongst the countries with the highest rates of gun violence. However, although we rank 31, with a rate of 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people, it is not something we should be proud of. Instead of being compared to countries such as the Bahamas and Jamaica, we should want to be compared to countries such as the UK and China, who both have rates under 0.10 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people.

Why We Don’t Need Gun Control-Refutation View

Gun control is a highly controversial topic. When discussing the opposing sides, either pro or anti, the conversation can become heated. While researching anti-gun control arguments to try and better understand that point of view, I stumbled across a blog written by Justin A Perry. He makes three main points that I would like to discuss within this post. His stance is clear, anti-gun control and he believes the legalization of guns will do nothing to create a safer and more civilized society.

The first point that he makes is, people cannot be deprived of gun rights because it aids their source of food and will decrease their quality of life. Although many people do hunt to kill animals for consumption, we are not an underdeveloped country in which this is the main source of survival. A study conducted by Responsive Management, shows that over 60% of hunters hunt for sport, bonding, trophy or nature as opposed to the approximate 30% of people who hunt for meat. Also, people who hunt for meat do not claim that this is there one and only source of survival and without it they would die. While many people enjoy freshly hunted meat, it is not a matter of life or death but rather preference.

His second argument claims that just because things are illegal, it doesn’t mean they cannot be obtained. He puts this into the perspective of drugs. Of course, LSD, Cocaine and Heroin are all illegal drugs but can unfortunately be found on the streets of the United States. He then draws the comparison that guns will be found on the streets even if they are illegal. I believe this argument is weak. The drugs he listed above are highly addictive after just one use. If they were legal we would have a much larger epidemic of drugs than we currently do. Making drugs illegal acts as a deterrent. Although it may be possible to find it on the streets, because it is banned, a large number of people abstain from using. This relates to guns as well. If a gun is legal, it is more likely to be used by every day people but once it becomes illegal it will deter the general public from purchasing it. Deterrence theory relates to three concepts, swiftness, severeness and certainty. If anti-gun laws are written clearly and there is strong enforcement of those laws, many citizens will become deterred. This will decrease the overall amount of people who physically own guns. Thus in turn, decreasing the potential for gun violence.

His third argument claims that, guns are not unsafe in households. The only way for a child to get into possession of a gun is by explicitly giving them access or teach them about the gun itself. This argument is extremely false. I recently watched a documentary called, Bully. It follows the lives of children who experience hardships at school. One girl, Ja’meye, was bullied so much that she found her mothers gun and brought it onto the school bus. She then attempted to shoot passengers but was luckily stopped in time. She now is in juvenile detention and will face most of her childhood behind bars. Her mother in the documentary claims she hid the gun and never spoke about the gun itself, where it was or how to operate it. This goes to show that Perry’s argument is not true. Just because we are not verbally teaching our kids about guns, their curious minds can get them into trouble. Children, in compromising situations, may turn to gun violence just like Ja’meye. The pure fact that her mother had that gun is what put Ja’meye behind bars and stripped her of her childhood. We are putting these weapons in front of our youth and presenting the opportunity to commit an act of violence.

Perry’s aggressive stance against gun control may excite others who agree with him but it is important to look at the facts of his arguments. With careful research and consideration it is clear that the anti-gun control claims are protecting a small group of people, those who enjoy guns, and harming the rest of the population. The presence of mass shootings and gun violence has gone too far. We need stricter laws relating to the ownership of guns.

We Don’t Need the 2nd Amendment — We Need a Real Debate About Guns

Unfortunately, every single time there is a tragic shooting in our country, anti gun control advocates resort to our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms as their most powerful tool in the debate against gun control. This article written by Timothy William Waters explains how the 2nd Amendment ends all discussion on the issue. He states that he heard an expert close a debate by shouting, “Too bad, it’s in the Constitution!” Through explanation and historical evidence, Waters explains that because of the serious disagreement about whether guns protect liberty or threaten it, Americans should be focusing on our responsibility to consider not just what the Constitution says, but what it should say regarding gun control. He claims that we do not need an amendment protecting or prohibiting guns, we just need the Constitution to be indifferent, so it allows for a proper debate in which the issues are truly spoken about, and not just our 2nd Amendment right.  Waters states, “There are good reasons to limit guns, and to have them. But the 2nd Amendment isn’t one of those reasons.”

Beware the Concern Trolls: The Nine Worst Arguments Against Gun Control

The gun control debate is filled with illogical support from anti gun control advocates. In an article published by Paste Magazine, written by Jacob Weindling, he discusses the nine worst arguments against gun control. Every time our country is mourning yet another mass murder is committed by a white man who has legally obtained a gun, this debate unfolds yet again. However, no progress is ever made in terms of gun control. About 90% of Americans support universal background checks, but that has yet to be enforced. According to Weindling, the main reason that no law enforcement is ever accomplished is because the 10% of Americans that are opposed to stricter gun control laws are way more committed to the cause than the rest of the country who support it. One of the most illogical arguments that Weindling mentions is an analogy of guns that are tools that can kill, compared to knives which are a tool that is not being banned. Anti- gun control advocates have yet to prove why gun restrictions will not work with concrete evidence. Their debate is always focused on our second Amendment right, and other arguments that do not seem viable to the debate issue, or the solution for our country.

I Used to Think Gun Control Was the Answer: My Research Told Me Otherwise- A Refutation View

In opposition to the enforcement of more aggressive gun control, Leah Libresco, a statistician and former news writer of FiveThiryEight, conducted research on reasons for deaths in America. She analyzed 33,000 lives ended by guns each year and concluded that the best way to prevent these deaths is through interventions. She presented her findings in the article, ‘I Used to Think Gun Control Was the Answer: My Research Told Me Otherwise.’

“The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.”

She continued to analyze these deaths and uses data to support her statements. She mentions that, anually, two thirds of gun related deaths in the United States are suicides and argues that no restriction on guns will make it meaningfully harder for people to use them. She then proceeds to discuss the next largest set of gun deaths. Statistics show, 1 in 5 young men between the ages of 15 and 34 are killed in homicides. She argues that those men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men anyway. She says that their
death would most likely be related to gangs or another kinds of street violence. This argument is contradictory in itself. The most popular way in which gang members commit homicides is via gun. She states these young men are doing to die “anyway”, but the only way to make that statement sound logical would be to prove they are dying from natural causes or other non- gun related issues. She is negating her own argument by basically saying, “they are likely to die by a gun because they are dying by a gun.” Which simply makes no sense. 

After collecting her data to support anti-gun control, Libresco concluded that more tailored interventions were the answer to less shootings, not stricter gun control. She explained that potential suicide victims, women experience domestic abusive, and kids who are approached by danger in the streets are all in danger of guns. However, they require specialized protection in which gun control cannot protect them. She insinuates that older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, do not need gun control to prevent their death. Rather, they need better access to mental health counselors who could care for them and get them help. She is deflecting the issue of gun control and blaming it on mental health, as well as assuming that these men need to be cared for to eliminate the risk of death. Although this statement can be supported, it is ignorant to assume more care is the way to protect people from using a gun to kill themselves. She is describing a utopia that is not obtainable. If everyone could be cured of mental illness by more care, it would have happened by now and less people would commit suicide. She also claims that in order to protect women in danger of specific men, they need to be prioritized by the police, who can enforce restraining orders and restrict these men from buying and owning guns. She argues that men at risk of violence need to be identified before they become violent need to be connected to mentors to help them mentally. This is another faulty argument. As research shows, women in violent and abusive relationships refrain from seeking help from authorities due to fear. It is highly unlikely these women will turn in their spouse, get his gun taken away, and continue or cease being in a relationship. This is another unrealistic solution to end gun violence. 

Libresco’s argument for anti-gun control and her solutions to the issue would not be effective in the real world. It is unrealistic to believe that moral support alone is the solution to limiting deaths involving weapons. Policeman cannot prioritize women who are potential victims of assault when there are a lot of other active crimes they need to attend to. It is also unfeasible to identify every male that could be a potential offender before they commit a crime. We would have to be able to predict the future in order for her argument to work. There are many pros and cons to the enforcement of gun control, however, the data and explanation that Libresco covered may have changed her opinion, but definitely did not change mine.