Before we delve into the arguments for gun control, one must know that there is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind, regarding how Americans love their guns. A little arms survey that was conducted not so long ago showed that for every hundred Americans, there are about 88.9 firearms. This number is higher than the guns that are found in West Bank/Gaza, Pakistan, Mexico and Yemen combined. Well, that is a lot of guns.

There are incidents related to gun violence occurring all over the country, and there are researches which show that owning a gun will not make you that much safe. Check out the following best arguments for gun control.

The Best Arguments for Gun Control


More Guns Means More Homicides

It is generally considered that arming people with guns will reduce the overall homicide levels in the state or even the country. However, research has shown over and over again, that the increase in the number of guns owned by citizens of a country has gone hand in hand with the increase in homicide levels.

The Brady Bill suggested that the license to own guns must be passed only after doing a complete check on the person. But it has been seen that easy access to the guns, means that when in rage, the person owning a gun will more likely use it.


More Guns Also Means More Suicides

One of the major arguments for gun control is suicide. Considering the kind of lifestyle that we lead, a lot of people are getting depressed and are many of those contemplate committing suicide. Having guns or having easy access to the guns will simply push them over the edge. Instead of getting some help, they will feel that it is easier to simply end life and commit suicide.

Although this may seem a little vague, studies have shown that the states which have a higher number of guns owned by its citizens, also has a suicide rate.

But then again when you really think about it, how can we say that they will not commit suicide if they have no guns.


The Public Too Is Asking for Some Gun Control

A very large percentage of Americans want strict gun laws implemented in the country. Hence, it is no wonder that the Brady Bill was passed after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady. Unfortunately Jim Brady was left partially paralyzed.

Ever since then, many people have rallied to make sure that there are laws in place for controlling gun possession. What they are really asking for is that there should be background checks done before placing these guns in the hands of people.


Take UK as an Example

Let us consider UK as an example, to understand these arguments for gun control. After the Dunblane Massacre in UK, people in UK were no longer allowed to possess modern guns. This was done to reduce massacres and murder rates. However, that largely backfired since, with every passing year, the murder rates in UK have increased. Although the homicide rate has lowered considerably after the application of the law, the number of murders has gone up. This is what the gun violence statistics have shown.

You can ban guns, but murderers always find a way to kill their victims. So, if we have learnt anything from UK, it is that banning guns doesn’t really help.


Does A Civilian Need Assault Rifles?

The second amendment was put down in order to allow every citizen to protect himself against burglars, and maybe a military invasion by another country. While the latter seems planning a little too far, the former is something that can be considered. People do need guns to protect themselves, but do they really need assault rifles? A lot of people seem to think, that it may not be required. This is one of the strongest arguments for gun control.


Does Banning Guns Save Lives?

People have always said how banning guns can help in saving lives. Well, this worked in Australia. In the year 1996, thirty five people were killed in a massacre in Port Arthur in Australia. It was one of the most gruesome and depressing gun violence incidents in the country.

The then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard immediately clamped down on the ownership of guns and several weapons were destroyed. Ever since, the homicides and killings have reduced drastically in Australia, to the point where the number of massacres per decade has reduced to zero. We may have something to learn from here, possibly one of the best arguments for gun control.


Shooters Look For Soft Targets

Killers who go on a rampage, have just one thing in mind, they want to kill as many people as possible. A lot of them end up killing themselves at the end. Gun violence statistics have shown that these killers look for soft targets, where they know that people will not be armed, and hence, they can kill many people. These places can include schools, churches, malls or any such place. If the killers knew that every person in the church was armed, or that there were guards in school who possessed automatic weapons, then they would think twice before entering its premises.



Another major arguments for gun control placed by the people, is the fact that they would like to protect themselves with the arms that they own. In these days and times, a lot of us do not feel safe in our own homes or offices. There is a constant threat for our lives looming all over us. One may never know when a massacre may break out and he/she may be attacked.

In such situations, owning a gun will give the person a fighting chance for survival. Not only will the person possessing a gun save their own life, but also save everyone else’s. Everyone has a right to protect themselves, and hence, a lot of people argue that possessing a gun must be allowed.


Don’t We Have Enough Guns Already?

One of the most common arguments for gun control is reading the number of guns that are already available in the country. As mention in the very beginning, the number of guns present in United States alone, is higher than those present in a number of countries combined. When we look at the number of people possessing guns, in a country, then US is at the top of list. This list does not consider just the developed countries of the world, but the entire world.

Those countries which have terrorists in them or are overrun by the drug cartels too possess lesser number of arms as compared to the US. The country as a whole may have failed when a person sees a need to arm himself/herself. Considering that all the massacres and murders have lowered a life expectancy of a person by less than 50 years, we should think about slowing down. Is this one of the best arguments for gun control?


Arming Everyone with Guns Will Not Help

We can always think that if every single person is armed to their teeth, then a mass shooter will not stand a chance. Besides, we have the right to bear arms. However, on the contrary, there are very few instances where an armed civilian has managed to help subdue a killer. Although the citizens owning a gun may be great down at the range, they may not always fare so well in a real life situation. This may be because they have received absolutely no experience regarding handling these kinds of situations. So, even if they do possess guns, chances are that they may be absolutely useless in out of control situations.


Please Log In or add your name and email to post the comment.

  • Madie KranzApr.20 02:29
    Even before reading this article, I was against higher gun control laws and this article made me feel even stronger about it. The many different topics that you touched on happened to be very contradicting which hurt the effect of your claims severely. Such as the reason regarding suicide. You started it off very well which had me intrigued but then you ruined it by saying if the person was truly depressed and set on taking their own life, having a gun wouldn't change this feeling due to the fact that they would try to kill themselves in a different way. Your argument centered around the UK shooting also hurt the overall article due to the fact that it contradicted your entire paper. It started out giving factual evidence regarding the event and then moved to talking about how even after a ban on guns had occurred, the amount of murders continued to grow... The first argument that was presented here was centered around guns and the amount of homicides. This one wasn't too bad because it supported your argument the entire time, however the part about people "who are in rage will be more likely to use a gun if it is present" doesn't seem highly likely to me. Just because someone is angry doesn't always mean they will turn to violence because every person is different and just because they own a gun, doesn't mean they are going to resort to pulling it out every time they get into an argument with their wife or child. Another argument I'd like to address is the one about Australia and their choice to ban guns for the most part due to a massacre. Yes, their country did see massive improvements but how could this compare to a country with hundreds of thousands of more guns than Australia? If their rate of massacres per decade is now zero than what was it before? What many people don't tend to understand is the fact that guns are easy accessible in the United States even for the people who are not allowed to carry one legally. They could buy them off of their friends or connections that they have and the gun could still be registered to the person with the clean record. Requiring background checks on people before they purchase a gun is very smart, I agree, but who's to say that the people who fail these background checks can't acquire guns from other sources. Another part i would like to refute would be the statement that "citizens don't need assault rifles." If one is fighting for gun control rights, they are fighting for all guns not just specific ones which is why I don't particularly like this section; it's as if saying you want to monitor every candy that comes into your store but people just do not need to eat spicy candies so they shouldn't be allowed into stores at all. Overall, I think that this article hurt your argument more than it helped. The constant contradicting killed it for me.
  • Mister BooFeb.11 09:01
    Some of these are drivel, or like the UK example, actually counter-arguments. Plus, I'm not sure why the phrase "arguments for gun control" is italicized throughout. Looking for info to research for an academic paper, but this has not helped at all.
View All Comments /Add Comment