No Need for More Gun Control
Justin Sullivan
DeVry University
Prewriting

What is your narrowed topic? Be detailed in your answer. You can use any of the versions you’ve developed for prior assignments.
My chosen topic is the for less gun control in our society.

Who is your primary audience or reader? Why? Be detailed in your answer about your audience.
My paper is written towards members of our society that believe more stringent gun control is needed. However, the paper will be presented to my professor and classmates.

In a sentence or short paragraph, what is your thesis statement, including your angle? Write what will appear in your essay.
My point is that

What topic sentences will you use as the foundation of your communication? (If necessary, add more points.) * * * *

What method of organization and development will you use to develop your paragraphs? * Introduction: * * Body: * * * * * Conclusion:

No Need for More Gun Control Turn on a television to just about any news channel, or pick up a newspaper, whether it is local or national and you will most assuredly find a segment on some sort of gun violence. This may be a shooting at a movie theater, a busy market place, a gang fight, or God forbid, an elementary school. These events and other similar events have lead to a question that is prevalent across the country: Should there be more gun laws and therefore more gun control? Gun control is a topic that has been debated for decades and the debate rages on today and will continue for years to come. Though deaths that result from shootings are senseless, are guns really the problem? I venture to say that no they are not and therefore, there should not be more control.
Currently, enemy number one for gun control advocates is the venerable, “assault rifle”. What is an assault rifle? By definition “An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, fully automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine” (Gita Liesangthem, 2006). So what does this mean? Well, the modern day whipping boy is the AR15. It is a .223 caliber, semi-automatic rifle that looks just like the military’s M-16 rifle. But there is a major difference. The M-16 allows the soldier to choose between safe, semi-automatic or three round burst. The AR15 on the other hand, only allows for selections between safe and semi-automatic. This weapon does not fit the widely agreed upon definition of assault rifle. To take it a step further, if I were to show you a picture of two separate guns, one a Ruger Mini-14 and the other a Rock River Arms AR15 and asked you to choose the assault rifle, you would quickly choose the Rock River Arms weapon. But did you know that other than cosmetics, these weapons are the same? Both of them accept multi-round magazines, use the exact same caliber of ammunition (.223) and operate in a semi-automatic mode. The only difference is the stocks these weapons posses. One looks like the military’s version and the other a more traditional wooden hunting rifle stock. Needless to say, people are making rash decisions without being fully educated on the topic of guns.
We often hear the phrase, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This could not be a truer statement. Guns are often vilified as the bad guy in all of this mess, but what people do not seem to realize is guns are just a tool. Would you call for a baseball bat to be banned or controlled if it was used to commit a murder? How about a common framing hammer? Or even a bow and arrow, or cross bow? In January of 2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) released its annual report on violent crimes committed in America. In this report, it breaks down the crimes and what the weapon of choice was. There were 16,799 deaths caused by devices other than guns. These devices include hammers, baseball bats, fists and other non-firearm tools. But yet, fire arms were used in the deaths of nearly 12,000 persons (Paul Joseph Watson, 2012). Why is there not an outcry for more bat or hammer control?
Some say crimes are caused by guns and others say that it is the person using the guns. But which is it? Following in line with the gun is nothing but a tool, I say it is the person using the gun. Lets look at it like this: If I walked into your house, unarmed, and assaulted you, who committed the crime? Now, if I walked in brandishing a fire arm and then commenced to assault you, who now committed the crime? I bet the answer in both cases would be me. Now, what if again, I walked into your place of business (completely unarmed) and assaulted you to the point I cause your death; who or what is at fault? Same scenario but this time using a gun; if I assault you and shoot you, again resulting in your death, who or what is responsible for your death? The fire arm is nothing but a tool used by a person committing a crime. That is it, nothing less and nothing more. The gun cannot think and act by itself; it requires someone to load a bullet into the chamber and someone to pull the trigger. It cannot be done by itself.
So who commits crimes? That would be criminals. These are people who have zero qualms with breaking laws in an attempt to get something they desire. By their very nature, they have no regard for laws ("Rejecting gun laws," 2014). So when a new gun law is proposed, who is expected to follow this law? Advocates for gun control commonly say that more laws will equate to fewer gun related deaths. This may be true to an extent, but new laws only inhibit persons whom already follow the law. If I am a law abiding citizen and am placed under restrictive gun laws, I am at the mercy of those who choose to disobey these laws. Control advocates often try to turn this argument back against gun rights activists by mocking statements such as “but-but, criminals don’t follow laws anyway, so why do we need a law against rape?” you know what we’d have, a society with no laws whatsoever.” (Schlarmann, 2013). This is not what rights advocates are saying. Laws are needed, but they need to be sensible. If you restrict guns or ban them outright, you put people in harm’s way because criminals will get their guns regardless of existing laws.
We can continue the conversation on the effectiveness of gun laws by looking outside of the borders of the United States. Currently, a close neighbor of the US has more stringent gun laws yet has higher crime rates. This country is Mexico. With a lower overall population and stricter gun laws, gun control supporters would have you think the country would be safer, however, statistics show that this is not the case. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI), 2009 murder rates show there is “1 murder per 20,000 U.S. inhabitants. When compared to Mexico’s current rate of 1 murder per 8,300 Mexican residents” (Edwin Mora, 2010). This does not bode well for control advocates. We can take a different angle and look at a country with less restrictive laws than the US. Surely this will show that fewer laws are bad for a country and guns need to be regulated. Switzerland has a population of approximately 8 million residents. The Swiss have a gun ownership count of nearly 4 million. This puts the gun ownership just behind the US in terms of guns per capita. Yet, as of 2011 the United Nations (UN) reported there were .5 murders committed for every 100,000 inhabitants in Switzerland versus 5 murders for every 100,000 inhabitants in the US (Bachmann, 2012). How could this be? Are not guns bad? The answers are hard to pin down, because of the circumstances involved with these countries. Mexico has a huge drug war in its midst and leads to more people being killed. The Swiss do not have a standing Army, so their government arms all males between the ages of 20 and 30. They receive training on how to use fire arms and then are allowed to keep the gun as long as they remain citizens of the country. Again, this takes us back to a previous point; it’s not the gun but the person using the gun.
What if we had the same conversation within our borders? It is common knowledge that rural area gun ownership far outnumbers gun ownership in urban areas; yet again, murder rates are much lower in rural areas, even though there is more guns per capita (Sowell, Dec. 2012). Maybe this is because gun laws are less restrictive in cities. Well, our nation’s capital, until recently, had the most stringent gun control logs in the country. However, despite these laws, the city was given the moniker “the murder capital of the world” because crime was so high. After a recent Supreme Court decision, the city has had to change its gun ownership laws and thus has passed the moniker on to a new city. Chicago now has the luxury of this title. New laws as of 2011 make Chicago the least gun friendly city in the world. So this should solve the problem of violence, correct? Wrong, the murder rate has risen 17 percent since these laws have passed (Snyder, 2013).
A perfect example of where laws banning guns apparently do not work is locations that are labeled gun free zones. One such zone is schools. In theory this is a good idea. If the law was honored by all, teachers, administrators and most importantly, children would be protected from any kind of gun violence that may come their way. But tell that to the families of Columbine High School of Littleton, Colorado or Sandy Hook Elementary of Newtown, Connecticut. The law did not prevent the senseless shootings from happening. Instead, it made the innocent victims easy targets. The shooters knew there would be no one around to stop them until mass carnage had been caused. Only upon being confronted with someone else willing to shoot back did the shootings stop. The same principle was used in Aurora, Colorado. The Cinemark Theater showing “The Dark Night Rises” was not the closest venue to Mr. Holmes, nor was it the largest. What it had over the other seven theaters within a twenty mile radius was that it was the only theater that was posted as a gun free zone (Lott, 2010).
I grew up around guns. I am currently in the military and I purposely have my children around guns on a near daily basis. My family, immediate and extended, use guns all of the time. Yet for more than thirty-six years, there has never been an incident involving guns within my circle of friends and family. Does this make me an expert? Am I somehow immune to gun violence? As much as I would like to think I am, the reality is I know I am not. I would venture to say the reasons are training and familiarity. As with the Swiss, the military, the police, and residents of rural areas of the country, everyone has had and receives training with fire arms. Maybe the laws that need to be enacted are requirements for all citizens to take gun safety and usage classes.
In summary, are there bad things that happen to good and innocent people? Yes, there are. Are there bad people who will violate laws no matter the consequences? Yes, there are. Should these affirmative answers lead to governments restricting guns to good, law abiding citizens? No, they should not. Study after study shows data stating that more restrictive laws do not decrease murders or violent crimes. Laws provide guidelines and limitations for persons willing to follow and adhere to them. They do not and will not stop those who choose to disregard the stated laws. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

References
Gita Liesangthem, G. L. (2006, November). Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle/
Paul Joseph Watson. (Jan 2012). Retrieved from http://www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more guns-less-crime/
Rejecting gun laws on grounds that criminals won't obey them is not 'anarch'y. (2014, Jan 23). Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/rejecting-gun-laws-on-grounds-that-criminals-won-t-obey-them-is-not-anarchy
Schlarmann, J. (2013, March 23). Criminals don't follow laws anyway. Retrieved from http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/why-using-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-anyway-argument-makes-you-an-idiot/
Edwin Mora. (2010, November 12). Mexico's Violent Crime Rate is More Than Twice the Rate of USA. Retrieved from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mexico-s-violent-murder-rate-more-twice-usa
Bachmann , H. (2012, December 20). Retrieved from http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
Sowell, T. (2012, December 18). The Great Gun Control Fallacy. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell/
Kates, D. & Mauser, G. (n.d.). Gun Control is Counterproductive. Retrieved from http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Snyder, M. (2013, August 12). 18 little-known gun facts that make us safer [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013081233034/us/homeland-security/18-little-known-gun-facts-that-prove-that-guns-make-us-safer.html
Lott, J. (2010, September 10). Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/