Floisand 1

Josh Floisand
Professor Celestino
English 1010
5-3-16
Argument Essay
Argument Essay: Gun Control
According to an article published by CNN in October 2015, there were 51 mass shootings
between 1997 and 2015 in which four or more people were killed (Sanchez). With numbers like
these it is easy for us to fear for our safety and the safety of our loved ones no matter where we
are. Its no secret that gun violence is an issue in our country, but what we must understand is
that every American citizen plays a part in making our country a safer place. That the American
people may better influence the extremely high number of deaths caused by firearms in the
nation, this invitation is extended to all my fellow American citizens to consider the benefits of
either restricting firearms or allowing them, the negative effective of both of those actions, and
the importance of combining the benefits of both of those actions with increased firearm
education.
In the current argument, there are a lot of ideas out there on how American citizens can
reduce the amount of firearm related violence. Two of the extreme ideas are complete opposites.
Anti-gun advocates argue that it is more effective to eliminate or outlaw firearms in every way
possible, while the pro-gun advocates argue that it is more beneficial to in fact allow more
citizens to own a firearm and argue the idea that guns make us safer. In defense of the
arguments of these two groups, both sides have some reasoning to back them up. With guns
being more difficult to obtain they are less likely to fall in the hands of those who aim to do harm

Floisand 2
with them. Teens would have less access to a firearm and it is very possible that the amount of
accidental shootings would be reduced. All this would be related to the simple fact that there
would be less guns in circulation among the public.
The other side as mentioned, argues that guns make us safer. This group argues that
arming more of the responsible citizens would provide a method of self-defense to those people.
As far as prevention, it is argued that with more armed citizens, criminals are less likely to
commit violent crimes simply out of fear and intimidation. This statement is usually
accompanied by the argument that many of the mass shootings in America have been in an area
where guns were either banned, or there were simply very few who even owned a firearm, let
alone actually carried one. Some examples of this would be schools, movie theatres, government
buildings or churches and other places of religious worship. In school shootings like Columbine
High School in 1999, Virginia Tech in 2007 or more recently Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012,
these are places that are mainly filled with the younger generation working to develop their
minds. The majority of these people are usually too innocent to believe they need protection, too
young to own a firearm or in some other way, whether by choice or not, are not able to carry a
firearm. In places of entertainment like malls or a movie theatre many people are there to have a
good time, maybe to enjoy themselves after a long week. Taking a gun to watch the latest release
of a super hero movie with your small child is arguably the last thing on ones mind. These,
along with many other common places for a mass shooting to occur, all have large groups of
people with little to no protection from someone holding a high powered weapon with an
unstable mind.
Many of those that argue that guns make us safer also believe that introducing guns to
more people would allow those people to gain a greater respect for the proper handling of a

Floisand 3
firearm. This idea is that we do not shelter the innocent from the unrestricted knowledge of a
firearm that they may learn from a trusted source, rather than learning about how one could use a
gun from the internet, a violent video game, peers or other unsupervised sources. One could also
argue that understanding the damage that could be done if one doesnt properly handle the
weapon could promote firearm education.
While both sides of the argument provide valid points to reason their claims and we all
agree that every American citizen plays a part in the solution to this problem, what American
citizens must do is step away from their opinion for a moment and critically analyze the issue.
Americans must recognize the fact that both ideas are impossible and not entirely effective
because they each come with their own consequences. In regards to laws against guns and
speaking of a recent mass shooting in Ohio, Jessie Balmert and Hannah Sparling wrote Would
[law] changes even prevent the next shooting? Gun advocates say "no." If someone wants to
hurt others, then laws won't stand in the way. Ohio has laws against individuals younger than 21
carrying concealed guns, against having guns in schools, against carrying concealed weapons in
schools and against endangering others. None of those laws helped (1).
As previously stated, many of the mass shootings in America do actually occur where
guns may be banned like schools or universities where the only armed individuals are the
understaffed security guards or campus police. This provides an advantage to a shooter aimed to
do as much damage as possible. In the city of Kennesaw, Georgia a law was passed on May 1,
1982 ordering every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition
(Kennesaw). Many across the United States criticized the city saying that there would be an
uncontrollable amount of mass shooting, crime and violence as a result of the law. Surprisingly,

Floisand 4
since the law was passed, crime rates have dropped significantly including that of murder, rape
and most drastically crimes of burglary.
Along with this is the simple fact that it would be impossible to take away guns from so
many people and the people that do obey would be the ones that were never a problem in the first
place. It is very likely that this idea would give criminals an advantage over other people and
they would be more likely to take advantage of others who are more defenseless.
On the other hand, promoting ownership of firearms could also be considered to be
ineffective and even irresponsible. As responsible citizens, we must understand that this is a valid
point since this entire argument exists because of the simple observation that there are unstable
people who obtain a firearm, and then use it to harm others. It is very common that many of the
people behind some of the most recent mass shootings were not at all stable enough to handle, let
alone own a firearm. This provides additional support to the argument that there are in fact many
people that may not be able to use a firearm without supervision and should not be allowed to
own one. Even if there are efforts to evaluate those who purchase firearms, it would be
impossible to entirely evaluate those who may or may not commit a violent crime with the
weapon they are trying to obtain.
The ideal situation is that the people of America do not dismiss these ideas because of
their flaws, but combine them because of their benefits. This idea, along with the understanding
of the great role that proper education could have on the matter, is crucial. Firearm education
creates awareness and safety. Better prevention of accidents is possible through better knowledge
of handling a firearm and its safe keeping away from those that would not use it properly.
Educated gun owners and carriers in combination with stricter regulations on those who can
become a gun owner have a much greater possibility of a safer neighborhood.

Floisand 5
A concealed weapons permit can save the lives of many if used correctly. Speaking of a
time in the great state of Utah, Patrik Jonnsson wrote In 2007, an off-duty police officer having
an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife shot and killed an 18-year-old gunman at an Ogden,
Utah, mall, stopping a rampage where five people died. "There is no question that his quick
actions saved the lives of numerous other people," then-police chief Chris Burbank said at the
time (2). As this example shows, a responsible person with a concealed weapons permit is a
good thing for society. However, this also brings up another issue on the matter of carrying a
weapon, that is what is called open carry. A concealed weapon is, as defined by its name, a
weapon one carries that is hidden or concealed from the view of others. Therefore open
carry is referring to openly carrying a weapon for all to see and know that the person is carrying
a weapon. This is another example of the need for combining the benefits of both pro and antigun arguments. Many extreme, pro-gun, advocates argue that there is no difference between this
and a concealed carry. This is indeed true, in the end there is no difference in whether the weapon
is under your clothing or over it, you are still carrying it. Nevertheless, it is completely
unnecessary since all this does is make those around the holder nervous and in the event of a
shooting, the offender knows exactly who to target first. The pride of the one holding the weapon
could be the cause of his own fate in the end.
Again, the answer is not simply allowing more people to carry guns but it is in
combining educated, responsible gun owners with the efforts of stricter requirements of any
firearm purchase. This may include drug testing, more thorough background checks, mental
evaluations, heavier requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and proof of qualifying
gun safes for every owned firearm. All these factors can be directly related to much of todays
gun violence.

Floisand 6
It will never be possible to completely eliminate violence in the American nation of
millions of people. However, the American people as a whole, are capable of reducing gun
violence. This becomes a greater possibility through combing the ideas of pro and anti gun
advocates in combination with higher qualifications to own firearms and the education of both
self-defense and the proper handling or storing of a firearm. Every American citizen in the
country plays a part in the safety of their family and friends in regards to gun violence. It is
everyones responsibility to ensure that we taking steps in our own personal life to promote a
safer America. It is everyones responsibility that we elect leaders of America that are
recognizing the importance of proper regulation of firearms in our country while still allowing us
to properly and reasonably use our constitutional rights to self-defense. Think about it America,
because next time the victim could be closer to you then you think.

Floisand 7
Works Cited
Balmert, Jessie, and Hannah Sparling. "Can Laws Help Prevent the Next School Shooter?"
Cincinnati Enquirer. 01 Mar. 2016: A.7. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Mar. 2016
Jonsson, Patrik. "Five Ways the US Can Reduce Mass Shootings." Christian Science Monitor.
05 Dec. 2015: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Kennesaw. Our History. The Gun Law.
http://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/our-history/
Sanchez, Ray. CNN. Updated 9:01 PM ET, Sat October 3, 2015.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/