Curtis 1

Both Sides Of the Story; Gun Control in the US

Does America need more gun control?
This is the question that has been on many citizens minds since the shooting at an Oregon
college campus earlier this month. There are pros and cons to both sides of this argument, and
my goal is to explain the arguments that proponents of each side often use as a basis for their
advocating.
26-year-old Chris Harper-Mercer left nine students dead and nine wounded after his rampage on
the campus of Umpqua Community College. Mercer had a total of 13 firearms, all of which were
obtained legally, either by himself or his family members.
Do fewer guns equal fewer shootings?
Many citizens immediately saw the shooting as a reason to support the implementation of stricter
gun control laws. Mercer, whom obviously had some type of mental instability, legally obtained
weapons that he later used to murder nine people. Following this logic, the gun control advocates
tend to point out that the obvious answer is to enact stricter gun control laws. Those against gun
control might ask the following question, though: do you think the lack of a permit wouldve
stopped Mercer from enacting his plans? That he wouldnt have been able to find a gun illegally
had he not already held a permit? The governments periodic Survey of Inmates in State and
Federal Correctional Facilities showed that roughly 40% of inmates who used a gun in their
crimes acquired their guns illegally. So, even if the extreme were to happen and gun ownership
was no longer legal at all, around 40% of the current amount of gun crimes would still occur. On
the other hand, this same study could be reversed to imply that 60% of current gun crimes would
be eliminated (in the extreme case of all personal guns being banned.)
Citizens against gun control often argue that something we need to take into consideration is the
criminals knowledge of probable resistance. This is purely hypothetical, but its still something
to consider. Not many criminals would put themselves into a situation in which they knew that
their victims had firearms of their own. Pro-gun activists have asked the following questions: If
Umpqua Community College had not been a gun-free zone, would Mercer have thought twice
about attacking it? And if gun control laws become more restrictive, will it cause a rise in
confidence of criminals because they know they will be met with less resistance?
The main argument Ive seen made from the pro-gun advocates is that making guns illegal will
only take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Many drugs are illegal in the US, but that doesnt
stop citizens from attaining and using them. Advocates believe that guns will be no different. If a
criminal wants to get his hands on a gun, chances are that he still will, despite the laws. Many
pro-guns advocates believe that, if the criminals intended victims have their own guns, then they
have a better chance of survival.
Proposed Gun Control Plans
In response to the shooting, Obamas administration has been pushing a major gun control
proposal. Among other things, it would set new guidelines on who is considered to legally be a

Curtis 2
gun dealer. Any person that sells more than a certain number of guns per year (they have
considered setting it at either fifty or one hundred) will be subject to gun dealership laws. One of
the necessary duties as a dealer will be to run background checks for potential buyers. This law
will cut down on criminals buying guns secondhand and forgoing background checks or mental
stability tests.
The above-mentioned detail is but one of many aspects of the proposed gun control plan. The
proposal is very detailed and complicated; not all of its tenets have been explained to the general
public.
Another aspect of Obamas gun control proposal includes the ban of military assault weapons.
Proponents of gun control advocate for this ban. They often question why a civilian would need
to have possession of guns with that much power. In many debates, they assert that basic
handguns are good enough to defend oneself with, rendering the bigger guns unnecessary.
To this, many opponents of gun control generally respond by pointing out the misconceptions
people have towards these guns. When the general public refers to assault weapons, they are
most commonly referring to semi-automatic firearms. It is important to understand that these
guns only shoot one bullet at a time and are often used for hunting. They are not machine guns
meant for war.
As a counter response, many proponents of gun control will refer to the 1994 assault weapons
ban, claiming that it helped reduce gun violence. This, in fact, is false. The comprehensive study
conducted by the Centers for Disease Control was inconclusive in this matter.
Guns dont kill peopleor do they? Of course, we cant neglect the most common slogan used
by pro-activists: Guns dont kill people. People kill people. This is undeniably true. A gun
unattended will never harm someone.
A pro-gun control advocate might respond by pointing out that, while this is true, it is too easy
for a gun to fall into the wrong hands. With the US having 88 guns for every 100 people, it seems
that limiting access to them is very difficult.
When presented with this prompt, many gun-control opponents will respond by referring back to
the aforementioned argument (gun illegality will only be respected by law-abiding citizens.) And
so the cycle continues.

*The information used in this article was provided by the following sources: nssf.org,
politifact.com, oregonlive.com, nbcnews.com, and foxnews.com.