Persuasive Essays on Gun Control: One of the Best Examples to Follow

In the US, hardly a day goes by without someone becoming a victim of gun violence. Every time a high school shooting spree occurs, right-leaning media pundits dust off their time-worn rhetoric and try to explain away the problem. They don’t even bother to consider what would the audience be for their trite talking points; therefore, they are always the same: guns don’t kill people, a good armed guy vs. a bad armed guy, the Second Amendment, yadda, yadda, yadda. Then, the spiral of violence continues to whip. If you want to break the vicious cycle and issue a convincing thesis statement against the unrestrained distribution of firearms, try writing an argumentative essay on gun control. Even if your work doesn’t get published, you will have a chance to practice your persuasive skills.

Read this example to understand how to write a persuasive essay on gun control. Note that the first paragraph starts with a hook for drawing in the readers. Use it for inspiration if you are not sure how to start your own essays or research papers. Feel free to draw inspiration from the body paragraphs and conclusion as well. Let’s get started!

Introduction to Persuasive Essay on Gun Control Laws

One would think that 1,100 shiny rifle rounds fired at the unsuspecting audience of a music festival are enough to sparkle a productive gun control discussion. The National Rifle Association (NRA) members and gung-ho right wingers beg to differ. In the wake of yet another tragedy, the hackneyed talking points as well as almost proverbial “thoughts and prayers” started pouring in. The anti-gun control crowd blamed everyone and everything except bullet-spewing killing machines. Pro-gun control activists questioned the general applicability of the Second Amendment and criticized the much-invoked belief that the right to bear arms is somehow God-given. The same topics were discussed; the same arguments were brought forth; nothing moved.

The pros and cons of gun control come to the forefront of national discussion after every major instance of firearm violence. Public conflict over the Sandy Hook tragedy has forced public officials to draft a legislative proposal to expand background checks and enforce stricter gun ownership restrictions. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass the Senate. What happened was the exact opposite of gun control advocates’ intentions: firearm sales spiked by 60% following the legislation proposal (Derwin, 2014). Clearly, arguments made by the anti-gun camp failed. The aim of this essay is to present pro-gun control arguments that are more likely to move the heavily armed nation into the direction of change. The paper will argue that the full weight of the US government should be deployed to pass stricter gun control laws.

Persuasive Essay On Pro-Gun Control

A solution for a nagging and controversial conflict between gun control advocates and opponents is very much welcome even if long overdue. At its basis is the recognition of the simple fact that the gun control debate revolves around the two seemingly irreconcilable concepts: the protection of individual rights and the protection of a larger community. The existence of the individual-society dichotomy is implicitly acknowledged by the two sides of the argument whose disagreements seem to lie along the following dimensions: 1) place of acceptable gun operation, 2) the responsibility for the gun violence, and 3) the locus of firepower. In the following paragraphs, an attempt to dismantled the pro-gun arguments evoked by these four points of disagreement will be made.

The first point of contention is on the proper locus of gun operation. The proponents of the heavily armed citizenry state that a right to carry a gun in a public space is a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. For this reason, they argue, the gun operation should not be restricted solely to citizens’ homes and dwellings (Bradford, 2016). What the anti-gun control group fails to notice is that the mere occurrence of violence in public spaces is not the feature of a gun-less society. Rather, it stems from the occasional governmental failures to protects its citizenry. Crimes do happen in the US and gun-free societies alike. However, it is the preserve of the law-enforcement agencies to protect the public outside of their homes. Those who suggest otherwise would have to admit that the state owes them no protection and welcome vigilantes and militias who are all too eager to take justice in their hands. Clearly, this argument does not stand to scrutiny and, hence, should be discarded.

The second major disagreement between the two camps is about the locus of responsibility for gun violence. A vast majority of gun rights advocates is known for putting forth their argument using the simple “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” mantra. What is lost from sight, however, is that weapons can and often do function as an inducement to commit a violent crime. It does not matter how perturbed, hot-tempered, psychotic or inebriated a person is: gun violence does not occur as long as they do not have a gun within their reach. Conversely, there is no guarantee that firearms will not be wrongfully used even if the gun owner is a law-abiding, mentally sound, and responsible citizen. Even though the burden of responsibility lies on a perpetrator of a violent crime, the inducing role of a firearm should not be taken out of the equation. Therefore, it is only logical to suggest that the removal of the crime precursor will result in the uprooting of the social problem.

The pro-gun society maintains that the gun ban will shift the locus of firepower – from the hands of the citizenry to criminals who are not encumbered by laws. It can be argued that this fear is unfounded because the disarming of citizens will give much leeway to the government to survey, detect, and confiscate firearms. Additionally, if the US citizens relinquish their right to bear arms, they will have to place more trust in law-enforcement institutions, which will result in their natural empowerment and capacity-building. Consequently, the state will have more wherewithal to stop illegal firearm proliferation and protect its citizens.

It is high time to reconcile the two contending forces in the gun control debate. In light of the adversarial arguments presented and debunked above, it is reasonable to call for anti-gun legislative agenda. The incontrovertibly tangible benefits of having fewer firearm deaths should not be overlooked by policymakers whose responsibility is to promote the common good and general welfare in their jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The essay has presented and deconstructed the core arguments used by gun rights advocates to promote their agenda. It has been argued that the fundamental incoherence of the pro-gun arguments should be recognized in order to formulate and implement a reasonable gun control policy.