Saahil Thukral

FCWR101
Argument Essay
December 6, 2015

Further Gun Regulation

Gun control has been viewed as one of the most controversial debates
in our modern political and social world largely due to the relatively recent
increase in mass public shootings, including a movie theatre in Colorado and
Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. These fairly recent
shootings and murders show case for people with malicious intentions to
obtain various types of firearms without much difficulty. Thus, people have
used these incidents as a means to openly share their views on the subject.
Obtaining guns is a major aspect of gun control. If citizens can obtain
guns too readily, the amount of people who commit violence with guns
synchronously increases. This is why I believe obtaining guns should be
further regulated. I believe that the majority of citizens who should be
allowed to have guns, are those whose job it is to protect others.
Additionally, wealthy or famous people, should be allowed to obtain a firearm
if they wish to, as they might be high-value targets by criminals. The location
of citizens is also an important factor when deciding if a person can obtain a
gun. I believe that in large metropolitan cities; the majority of citizens should
not be allowed to have guns. This would reduce danger in these cities,
especially with numerous police officers readily available to protect and help

people if a situation arises. With guns involved, all it takes is someone losing
control and allowing their emotions to take control of a situation, to lead to
an injury or death. I also think that guns should be further regulated in rural
and suburban places, but not to the same extent as in large cities. It should
be mostly reserved for individuals who practice hunting.
Another reason to further regulate possession of guns is because some
people who purchase a gun may not be trained and educated on how to
exactly use one. Not only that but other family members and children may
get access to the gun and accidentally fire it, injuring or killing others. There
have been numerous occasions in which children get ahold of the gun to use
as a toy, and kill people. New York State passed the SAFE (Secure
Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act in 2013 which contains many
provisions which I believe correctly address gun control. One provision is that
all magazines (bullet feeding devices), are illegal to own if they hold more
than ten bullets- however, a legal magazine may be used if loaded with no
more than seven bullets. (Spitzer 753).
In order to sell guns only to people that are not likely to commit violent
crimes, universal background checks should be done on all people seeking to
purchase a firearm. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevent Act
required a waiting period and criminal records check before a dealer may
deliver a handgun to a purchaser. An amendment to the bill mandated its
replacement by an instant check system for all firearms sales by licensees
within five years. (Vizzard 883). The SAFE Act incorporated a very similar

provision which extends background checks, which were formerly limited to

commercial weapon sales, to private gun and ammunition sales. (Spitzer
754). Furthermore, the SAFE Act included laws similar to those passed in
previous years. For example, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a
federal ban on certain firearms defined as assault weapons and on the future
production of firearm magazine with a capacity exceeding ten rounds
(Vizzard 883). However, it contained a sunset clause and because Congress
failed to renew the bill, the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. The SAFE
act tightened up current restrictions by categorizing assault rifles as those
that can accept detachable magazines, and that have at least one additional
characteristic. (Spitzer 752). I believe the SAFE act in New York enacted an
effective series of laws to ensure that only the least dangerous firearms can
be given over to those that do not have criminal records. I also believe that
the SAFE act should serve as a model from which federal gun laws arise
from.
Despite these reasons to strengthen gun control laws, some people are
very reluctant about controlling arms. Stephen E. Wright argues as to why
gun control laws will not save lives. He places an emphasis on the statement
It is what is in the heart of a mass murderer, not what is in their hand, that
determines their lethality. He uses this statement to show that banning
large capacity magazines will not accomplish anything as a murderer will just
have numerous magazines. While I agree with this, I also think that there is
no negative effect of banning large capacity magazines. Even though a

person can purchase multiple magazines, it doesnt do any harm to reduce

the bullets in each magazine. In fact, when each bullet equals a potential
death, fewer lives could be lost if a person carries the same amount of
magazines of a smaller capacity than that of a larger capacity. Stephen also
says that A person doesn't commit murder or a robbery because they have
a weapon available, they choose to commit murder or a robbery and then
find the means to do it. While this is partially true, why not make it as
difficult as possible for people in general to obtain guns? This way, even if
they have ill intentions, obtaining a gun will not be so easy. Furthermore,
some rash individuals may commit a murder or crime just because a gun is
right in front of them, as if providing temptation; and not because they had
planned out a crime.
I believe that America, or any other place for that matter, will be safer
when very few, if any, people possess guns. I know that a completely gunfree society is impossible because of the black market, and that some people
will still commit crimes and kill others, but the amount of guns of the market
will fall tremendously if extreme gun laws are enacted. The amount of
murders and mass shootings will also decrease as the primary method for
both involves guns. This will also cause the prices of guns on the black
market to skyrocket, making it even more difficult for people to purchase
guns. Over time, politicians of this country will realize that more guns on the
market does more harm than good, despite allowing some people to practice
self-defense. The price of some peoples self defense are the lives of

numerous more people due to the ease of obtaining a firearm. Gun control
doesnt mean taking peoples guns away but rather making a promising
effort to give deadly weapons to those that are not likely to inflict harm.

Works Cited
Spitzer, Robert J. "New York State And The New York Safe Act: A Case Study In Strict
Gun Laws." Albany Law Review 78.2 (2015): 749-787. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
Vizzard, William J. "The Current And Future State Of Gun Policy In The United
States." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology 104.4 (2015): 879-904.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed.
Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "AntiGun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense."

StephenEWright.com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Nov.

2015.