Fischer 1

Darrell Fischer

Mrs. McCabe

APLAC

November 27, 2017

Think about gun control. Then write an essay that defends, challenges, or qualifies Samuel

Thomas's claim that gun control is unnecessary and causes more gun violence. Use specific,

appropriate evidence to develop your position

Whenever a mass shooting happens, it’s a time for grieving, prayer, and offering

condolences to the families of the victims. Unfortunately, it’s also a time for debate over one of

the most contentious issues facing the United States: gun control. Groups on the right argue

that the second amendment to the constitution, which states that “A well regulated Militia,

being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed” means gun control is unconstitutional, while many on the left argue that

gun control is a necessary part of stopping mass shootings from happening in the future.

Though Samuel Thomas argues from the first point of view, his claim is wrong, and common

sense gun control measures must be taken in the United States to prevent further gun violence

for the two major reasons that gun control has been shown to prevent violence and most gun

control legislation would not place a substantial burden on the individual liberties of the

citizens.

In other first world countries, notably England, Japan, and Australia, gun control is

simply a fact of life. In Japan, all guns except shotguns for hunting and sports are banned, and

in Australia, all assault rifles are banned. In England, the laws are similar to those of Japan,
 Fischer 2

albeit with more exceptions. Besides their gun laws, the one thing these three countries on

three different continents have one thing in common: they all see significantly less gun

violence than the United States, where gun control is comparatively nonexistent. This fact can

be directly attributed to the gun control policies of these countries. Before Australia’s 1996

National Firearms Agreement, Australia had seen thirteen mass shootings between 1976 and

1996. In the twenty years after the legislation, however, they have seen zero. Similar stories

exist for both Japan and England. However, as Thomas points out, some countries with lots of

guns have low gun violence rates, for example, Switzerland. What he ignores is that these

countries have extremely strict gun control regarding who can buy a gun. In Germany, one of

the countries with the highest gun to person ratio and the lowest gun violence rate, anyone

applying for a gun license must undergo a full psychiatric test and a mandatory 28-day waiting

period, as well as extremely comprehensive background checks. This kind of screening is

virtually unheard of in the United States, where often times, a person can buy a gun at a gun

show without any psychological testing, waiting time, background check, or training. At a gun

show, many vendors will sell you a gun if you answer the question “have you been convicted of

a felony?” with “no”. Whether we institute gun control by banning certain weapons, like

assault rifles, gun accessories, like bump stocks, or simply by creating a more thorough

background check requirement, it’s clear that the United States must do something to prevent

gun violence and mass shootings.

One reason Thomas states he believes that gun control is harmful to civil liberties is

because citizens should have the right to protect themselves, and this is a valid point. Every

person deserves to have a way to protect themselves from danger, but instituting gun control
 Fischer 3

would not remove this right. Handguns are by far the preferred weapon for self defense, and

this makes sense. Handguns are small, portable, and easier to use than most other firearms.

The important thing to note is that no gun control legislation being considered in the United

States has the aim of banning handguns. Most gun control advocates support banning assault

weapons and instituting more comprehensive background checks, neither of which would

prevent citizens from protecting themselves with handguns, provided they can pass the

background check, and if they can’t, they would likely cause more danger to others and

themselves with a gun than without. Additionally, in most situations, putting a gun in a

dangerous situation would only cause more danger. Consider the Aurora movie theater

shooting in 2012. If everyone in that movie theater had guns and had heard the shots, there is

no way any of them could have accurately shot the assailant because of the chaos of the

situation as well as the darkness of the theater. When gunshots aren’t accurate, this only

causes more danger and more casualties because the gunshots could hit other people.

Additionally, no mass shooting has ever been stopped because a person had a gun.