Stricter Gun Laws






Tougher gun trafficking laws! Is it a solution to gun related crime in the American society or just another erroneous belief?

“After the tragedy that occurred at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama is seeking to change legislation to ban military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, expand background checks, and toughen gun-trafficking laws.” Whether this is potentially a solution to the problem at hand or not is a matter of debate. However having read from the thoughts of fellow Americans expressed in an array of articles both in support of as well as in opposition to the president’s plan, I am inclined to oppose the mentality that having stricter gun laws will relieve our society of the gun related tragedies we often witness with the school in Newtown, Connecticut as my point of reference.

Discussion of 1st article:

(Con Gun Control, by Storm Paglia in the Broadside of George Mason University Students Newspaper)

In this article, the author argues firmly against gun control noting that it is a highly contested issue in the country with opinions cutting cross the social strata that even politicians are not left behind. The author contends that thought the importance background checks on guns purchased should not be undermined, it is worth acknowledging that very strict gun control only leaves the citizens unprotected and doesn’t concentrate much dispossessing the bad guys of the dangerous weapons but the vulnerable law-abiding citizens. He further asserts that passing of gun control law that seeks to outlaw the possession of assault rifles and high capacity magazines does not stop gun related accidents from occurring. He concludes that guns need to be left in the hands of good people and out of the hands of criminals which is a very daunting task.

In my own analysis this author has a generally logical viewpoint especially in reasoning that tends to expose the indisputable fact that the problem is not gun ownership but the reason/motive for gun ownership which is quite difficult to establish.

However, I find part of his argument quite arbitrary and devoid of fact especially when he invokes statistical evidence without clearly stating the sources. For instance when he says: “According to statistics compiled from 100 fairly recent gun incidents, when the shooter continues until law enforcement arrives, an average of 14.29 people is killed. When an armed civilian is present, an average of 2.33 civilians are killed, a huge difference.”

Discussion of 2nd article:

(Negatives of gun control, by Jacob Garrison of Pleasant Hill, Ill.)Here the author begins by presenting a brief yet sensible historical orientation of the constitutional right to ownership of firearms by the American citizens. He then proceeds to align his argument on the economic impact of the enforcement of the gun control laws, reasoning that the move would assault the economy by undermining the gun manufacturing firms as well as arms dealers. I second this argument adding that this will also result in both direct and indirect unemployment

However just like Storm Paglia, Mr. Jacob Garrison has used arbitrary statistical support to his argument vaguely stating a study we cannot verify. I also find his conclusion: “There are always pros and cons with anything. Living in an imperfect world, the cons can never be eliminated. In the case of gun control, restricting guns won’t be able to eliminate the cons of guns. It will only eliminate the pros.” Quite vague.Discussion of 3rd article:

(Article from

Here the author begins by discrediting the contribution of law enforcement agencies in dealing with gun related cases. He alludes that there are laws already for addressing our concerns for instance children are barred by the law from owning guns and parents from leaving loaded guns within the reach of children. He has then gone ahead to dispute the need for licensing of a gun the same way a car is licensed giving an array of contrasts between the possession of a car an possession of a gun. To further support his argument, he gives an array of examples of countries that have enacted gun control and his perceived consequences.

This argument is logical in my judgment though I reserve that the examples given at the end of the article about gun control in various countries and their perceive consequences are far – fetched and highly inaccurate. They seem quite radical and not so well thought of. Take for instance when he says: “Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.” This is an erroneous statement as it cannot be verified.

Discussion of 4th article:

(What Gun Owners Really Want I’ve owned six guns. I’ve drawn them on bad guys. I want to be understood, by WALTER KIRN)

Walter, from his article in his argument is in favor of the gun control laws, while appreciating the importance of personal safety. He begins by narrating a childhood ordeal he encountered with his family in which he had initially thought his inherited shotgun would help only to discover the following day that the law doesn’t actually sleep. He further acknowledges that while his fellow gun owners may not agree with him, the gains of accepting the legislation cannot be underestimated. He therefore implore that they accept the passage of the law.

My Argument Concerning Gun Control and Gun Control Laws:

A weapon can be obtained from anything;

In every killing incident, the villain is not the weapon but the perpetrator of act. It therefore implies that anything can be use ranging from pencils to ropes to commit murder, for instance there was once an outcry in land over increased cases of murder among teens in the United Kingdom as a result of teens stubbing fellow teens. The solution could never be banning teens or even other citizens from procuring pen-knives.

Criminals do not care about laws

Now that the main target is supposed to be removing the guns out of the hands of the bad people, it is also worth acknowledging that these bad guys have no business obeying the law because they exist to break them. Therefore outlawing guns doesn’t stop they will simply acquire others illegally. For instance, how many Americans obtain marijuana illegally only to tell the authorities that they use them for medical purposes?

Refuting paragraph

They say there is need to change legislation to ban military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, expand background checks, and toughen gun-trafficking laws. But I contest this argument with the reason that it is the hand on the gun and the motive and not the gun that kills.


Having seen several pros and cons of gun control laws, certain questions arise, e.g. are guns our problem? Is the proposed monopoly of weapons the way forward? How do we control crime related crime in a system with democracy of weapons?

Work cited