More Guns or Less. Is It Really so Different?

Part 1: Personal Experience

Although I have grown up in a household which values both conservative and liberal
ideology, based on my experiences I have always leaned towards the side of my dad, the
conservative side. On most issues I look first towards the economy before the effect it may have
on people, which is where I draw the line between my ideology. I grew up with a sister and
mother who both sided with far left ideology, and although this has given me more insight into
seeing both sides of an argument, there have previously been some topics in which I had
originally decided to try to hold my ground. I didnt do this with many things, however the one
topic that is most deeply rooted in my memory is my experience with guns and the issues on
gun control. I had refused to open my mind since the beginning of my experience with guns, and
up until the last year I had kept my feet buried deep into my ideology.
As I have matured, I have opened up my mind more than I thought was possible. I have
come to realize the importance of compromise; however, this will be discussed later. For now let
me take you back to the beginning of my gun bias. I remember the first time that I held a gun;
the first time that I held a rifle almost twice my size. The gun was big and I was not only little, but
intimidated. My fingers grasped the bolt, pulled it back and let the bullet enter the chamber. I
was unbelievably nervous at this time and my dad, standing right behind me, put his hand on
my shoulder and told me to pull the trigger. I vaguely remember feeling the kick of the rifle as
the bullet left the chamber. I was slightly knocked backward, but what shocked me more was
how I had managed to completely miss the large bullseye downrange. My shot needed work yet
that would come later. I was less focused on what had just happened and much more focused
on the intricacies of the gun and in a way, its beauty.
This is where my fascination with guns began. From a young age, I have come to know
the physicalities of the guns we own in our household. When I was 9, my dad bought a pellet
gun for me to use against the hummingbirds which would constantly bombard the wooden
structures of our house. Since a young age I have always been drawn in by the craftsmanship
that goes into creating tools, and it started at first by researching the creation of swords and the
smiths that would create them. Over time this evolved into the creation of guns, the mechanisms
which operate them and, at this point and time, I can honestly say that guns are fascinating
objects. I was taught to look at a gun as a tool rather than a weapon, and through my own
research and the many hours I have spent learning the intricacies of guns, I have a solid respect
for the craftsmanship that goes into them.
I hold the experiences I have had with my guns close to my heart, however I recently
have come to feel that this can be both beneficial and limiting. When you hold something dearly,
anything that might threaten it causes you to immediately turn your head and ignore the threat,
yet I feel this is a major drawback in coming to a middle ground with those who oppose your
ideology. The importance of compromise, especially with political arguments, should always be
first and foremost on ones mind before entrenching their ideology.
As I have previously stated, the owning of guns has opened my mind to some extremely
fascinating work and research, but it comes at a cost. My dad, who has always been

conservative, would support my fascination with guns whenever I was curious, yet my mother, a
lifelong liberal, found my fascination to be counterproductive to my learning experience. At the
time, and as a kid, I shunned her advice to open my mind and come to a realization that guns
are also dangerous, yet now out of respect to her and the other people who disagree with my
ideology, I feel the need to find some sort of compromise to help both sides. Yes, my love for
guns is deeply rooted, yet the only way that gun control will ever be a solved issue is if we can
come to compromise and to respect my mother and others who support her I have made it a
priority to do so.
Part 2: Americans hold the right to bear arms
America as we know it was shaped over one hundred years ago by men who sought to
create a country that not only listened to its people, but also valued individual rights as a primary
source of a functioning system. These ideas which still drive us today are what allow for our
countrys ability to make someone great. With work anyone in America has the ability to change
their life. The amendments, which were the first rules established within our new country stated
guidelines and parameters for American citizens to follow, seen as rights that would not be
infringed upon. The first amendment stood as a way to let the citizens of this country not be
prohibited in their freedom of speech, as it prioritized individuality and less governmental control
over the ideas of each citizen. The second amendment states, "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" Although one hundred years ago this seemed perfectly normal, in 2016 there is
much debate on whether or not the controlling of the distribution of guns would not protect the
American people more. However, the proposed resolution for the second amendment would
ultimately make us Americans less safe where people would lose the ability to protect others
and themselves in dangerous situations, and guns do not pose the biggest threat to our
wellbeing, rather the culture of violence we live in.
Safety is a major part of what makes any country function, and to me safety not only
means the protection of oneself but also of others; gun control would destroy ones ability to
help others

in need. In an article published in the A

merican Conservative, Jack Hunter lists a
few of the many criminal intent cases thwarted by a person carrying a firearm and states, There
were multiple different situations in which men and women upheld the law and used their guns
to protect others, including 8 different school shootings taking place in Utah, Colorado, Texas,
and Mississippi. Those who carried guns protected and saved the lives of many students.
(Hunter). Not only is it our right to uphold the law when we see some threaten the lives of
others; it is our civic responsibility. As Americans, we are lucky enough to be given the chance
to protect those around us, and for those who carry guns, it is extremely successful. Hunter
elaborates, Gun control deters violent crime about as well as the death penalty. Worse, stricter
gun control is the surest way to ensure that virtually every would-be shooter is successful
(Hunter). It is something often overlooked, however it is important to realize that by making guns
illegal, or creating a strict vetting process to greatly prohibit the chances of being able to obtain
a gun, it becomes more and more frequent that buyers who want guns for malicious purposes
will turn to illegal purchasing methods. This means that those who backed out of the tedious
vetting process would be left completely defenseless and unable to defend others against
anyone who used illegal purchase methods for malicious use of guns. Not only would this cause
America to become even more unsafe, but cartels and gangs would be able increase their
salaries ten-fold upon entering the black market gun trade. Just as banning knives would not

have stopped Jack the Ripper, banning guns will not stop the few crazed people wishing to
cause harm to others, and this is wear pro gun control ideology falls apart.
Guns are blamed often for the actions of those wielding them, yet it seems that those
who support prohibiting guns in our country do not realize that it is not the guns which pose a
threat. Our society lean towards violent culture and children, from a young age, are taught to
accept
violence into their lives. In an article written by James Wilson of the Los Angeles Times,
he states that:
If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns,
we should begin by realizing as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins
have shown that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than
the non-gun homicide rate in England. For historical and cultural reasons, Americans are
a more violent people than the English, even when they can't use a gun. This fact sets a
floor below which the murder rate won't be reduced even if, by some constitutional or
political miracle, we became gun-free (Wilson).
It is no surprise, nor does any doubt come to my mind upon hearing that America is more violent
that different countries around the globe, yet to blame this on accessibility to guns is ignorance,
and is ignoring the fact that we have set up a culture that welcomes violence. I grew up
watching movies like Saving Private Ryan, Star Wars, and James Bond, all of which depict
violence in different and similar ways. I grew up playing video games in which you are
responsible for shooting others, and although it seems unhealthy, I learned to see violence as
another part of the Americans life. Its Hollywood and the game companies which allow for
children to absorb graphic violence who should be held responsible for the crazed few who
decide to act upon what they see in the movies. Some might say that they understand violence
in our culture, yet we can impede it by allowing for the obtainability of guns to plummet, however
this is based in thought most commonly associated with the land of make believe. Later in
Wilsons article, he proclaims that, There are federally required background checks on
purchasing weapons; many states (including Virginia) limit gun purchases to one a month, and
juveniles may not buy them at all (Wilson). But even if there were even tougher limits, access to
guns would remain relatively easy. Not the least because many would be stolen and others
would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually
impossible to use new background checks or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people
from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow. This brings us back to
the idea presented in the previous paragraph, and draws attention once more on the flawed
idea that by making guns harder to obtain, less people will get killed. Our problem within this
culture is not with the danger of guns, rather the danger of what our brains consume, and for the
few who cannot tell fiction from reality it is especially dangerous.
We covered that guns create the ability for defense of others and oneself, yet just as
important is glancing at what has already been done to increase gun control and more
importantly the negative effects it has distributed. In an article written by Kimberly Leonard, and
in association with U.S. News, Leonard g
athered results from a series of death reports around
strict gun law regions and states that, Laws that appeared associated with higher gun deaths
included limiting the number of guns people can buy, a three-day limit for a background-checks
extension, and locks on firearms (Leonard). We look at the facts, and it shows us that we are
entirely backwards in our thinking on this issue. Although counterintuitive, the stricter the gun
laws, the more people end up paying the price. That being said, in no way is anyone calling for
free guns for all, but by restricting guns to an extreme point it has been proven that more people

die. It is important, in scenarios like this, that comparisons are made between the topic argued
and other real life situations as it allows for those who may not completely understand the issue
to come at it from another angle. Taya Kyle, the wife of the famous army sniper Chris Kyle, said
it best in an interview with CNN, where she stated that, In this country, we give freedom and
take it away once you prove to be unworthy of the freedom we have given you. Nobody
suggests taking away cars or going through a battery of tests to determine whether or not you
might be a drunk driver one day (Kyle). She was using this metaphor as a way to connect both
guns and cars as a use of potentially deadly weapons. Both are capable of killing, yet one does
not need strict vetting to obtain a car, as one should not to obtain a gun. Although there are
common sense car regulations, the same goes for guns and in no way should anyone argue
that those be changed. The only difference between the two, is that guns can save lives, making
them even more beneficial to our society.
Gun control may seem to be a quick answer to a massive problem, yet it is not proven to
actually work, and looking at the facts those who possess guns are inevitably safer. However, it
has been proven that men and women who own guns, who are average Americans, can save
themselves and others. There are those, few and far between, who will do anything to incite
terror on the lives of innocents, however gun control would only boost their lust for pain and
suffering. They would obtain their guns illegally, and carry out their planned course of action
while also benefitting the black market illegal gun trade. We need good samaritans to act as our
heroes, and the only way to help them do so is by allowing them to fulfill their rights and
responsibilities as Americans to defend the public and continue to bear arms.
Works Cited
Hunter, Jack Q. "How Gun Control Kills." The American Conservative. TAC, 3 May 2015. Web.
12 Nov. 2016.
Kyle, Taya. "'American Sniper' Widow: Gun Control Won't Protect Us." C
NN. Cable News
Network, 8 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
Law School, Cornell University. "Second Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal
Information Institute, 2 May 2006. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
Leonard, Kimberly. "Some Gun Control Laws Result in More Death." US News. U.S.News &
World Report, 10 Mar. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
Wilson, James. "Gun Control Isn't the Answer." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Apr.
2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Part 3: America is unsafe, and guns are responsible.

Guns were not created to be used as tools, rather to kill, and the ease that one can buy
a gun proves our country has a real problem. Gun control needs to exist because otherwise,
more and more people will end up dead. Many think it is unrealistic, and those in favor of
keeping their guns insist on respecting the Second Amendment, yet most fail to see that we no
longer live in a time of revolution, and our country is much more evolved. In an article written by
Paul Barrett, and in coordination with the Bloomberg Foundation, Barrett collected data from an
interview with John Paul Stevens on legislative gun control laws, and specifically the
amendment of the Second Amendment where he later wrote that, Since Stevens believes that
the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national
standing army posed to the sovereignty of the statesas opposed to homeowners anxiety
about violent felonshe thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second
Amendment. Hed do that by adding five words as follows: A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when
serving in the militia shall not be infringed. (Barrett) Barrett and Stevens both hold true to an
important fact, and as stated before, we are no longer living in an age where rambunctious
minds filled with the fires of revolution rule us. The Second Amendment is now seen as an old
piece of writing which no longer applies to our culture. If we want a culture that does not
promote violence, we need to first put much more strict regulations on ammunition and gun
sales, and then limit the guns in which police officers can use to decrease the chance of death
by cop and the gun violence sprouting from that.
Guns are dangerous not only in the hands of citizens, but it can also be true for police
officers as well, and more and more often are we seeing cases where police shoot and kill
sometimes innocent, sometimes criminal suspects. In an article posted to the The New Yorker,
author Jill Lepore remarks on the recent police shootings and the gun issue being associated
also with the police, where she states, The day before T. J. Lane shot five high-school students
in Ohio, another high-school student was shot in Florida. The Orlando S
entinel ran a
three-paragraph story. On February 26th, seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin left a house in a
town outside Orlando and walked to a store. He was seen by a twenty-eight-year-old man
named George Zimmerman, who called 911 to report that Martin, who was black, was a real
suspicious guy. (Lepore) Zimmerman got out of his truck. Zimmerman was carrying a 9-mm.
pistol; Martin was unarmed. What happened next has not been established, and is much
disputed. Zimmerman told the police that Martin attacked him. Martins family has said that the
boy, heard over a cell phone, begged for his life. While George Zimmerman was a citizen, it is
also important to press upon the fact that it is not only citizens responsible for using guns in a
deadly manner. We often associate gun control with citizens who become radicalized and use
their guns to cause harm to others, but what about radicalized police officers? Their are some
who suggest that becoming a police officer should be much more strenuous than it already is,
and that by doing so the system would naturally filter out officers who would be questionable in
their line of duty. Others, however, suggest a more extreme approach of gun control for citizens
and police officers. In an article posted to the New Republic, the author, Phoebe Maltz Bovy,
stated that, We cant sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or
self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be knownas if it could

be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns!
Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
And for everyone, not citizens but police as gun violence is far to common for them. (Bovy) This
may seem a bit extreme, yet some are worried that police are given too much power, and that in
order to carry their jobs out safely, nonlethal weapons such as tasers are the best option.
Although some may believe this, it is easy to say that the author if this article, Phoebe Maltz
Bovy, is completely inaccurate and unrealistic with her assumption that a complete ban on guns
would help solve our problems. This also being said, disarming police would be counterintuitive
to the idea that they protect and serve against major threats.
Safety should not come from the arming of more citizens, and several states have
declared their feeling of anxiety on how they are not feeling as safe as they should. The
consensus from those who support gun control is that we need a safer country, and although
those against it agree with this, both sides have different ways they think it can be achieved. In
an article written by the L.A. Times Editorial Board, and published to their website the L.A.
Times, the authors expressed their feelings on how gun and ammo control could be used as a
means to make a safer nation where they state, How big a problem (not feeling safe) is this?
The gunman who shot and killed five people in Santa Monica three years ago was banned from
owning a gun, so he bought the parts and made his own. And in recent months, local and
federal law-enforcement agents have arrested at least eight people in Northern California on
charges relating to the sale of such guns, and have confiscated hundreds of the firearms. These
are good laws to have on the books because they make it harder for people barred from having
guns and bullets to obtain them. While they alone may not forge a radical transformation of our
gun-loving culture, they represent a few small steps forward in making Californians safer. That
alone makes them worth embracing. (Editorial) Although they are speaking for Californians
within their article, the authors are also trying to express their desire to move towards a safer
society. They acknowledge the belief that gun control may not solve all issues, yet as they
stated, it is the small steps that would count towards this one major movement. Being safe is
what every culture desires, and so the major argument from those who support control is based,
again, in the belief that less guns equals more safety. These authors also introduced a
sub-issue that is many times overlooked, which is the retail of ammunition for different kinds of
guns. Most people think of gun control and associate it with just guns, but what the L.A. Times
was trying to introduce was this idea of also controlling the distribution of ammunition. The belief
here is that by prohibiting the sale of ammunition, those who may find guns illegally will not be
able to use them due to the implemented ammunition control laws.
In conclusion, for those that support the gun control it is very much a strongly implanted
idea that safety in our culture should not be promoted with more violence, and that by allowing
for guns to stay as easily accessible as they are now, the creation of a violent culture becomes
easier and easier. Others think that in order to create a culture that promotes the wellbeing of
all, we need to not only prohibit the guns that citizens can obtain, but also the guns that are
given to police officers as they can sometimes be dangerous. While, finally, some believe that
the problem does not originate from the ease of access to guns, rather that it comes from the
Second Amendment, and that by amending the Second Amendment, most if not all will be
forced to evolve into the present day, rather than being stuck in an age where revolution was
what this government strived for.

Works Cited
Barrett, Paul M. "Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second
Amendment?" Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 17 May 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
Bovy, Phoebe Maltz. "Its Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them." New Republic. New Republic,
10 Dec. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
Editorial Team, L.A. Times. "California's Proposed Gun Laws Won't Change Our Culture of
Violence, but They Will Make Us Safer." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 22
Apr. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
Lepore, Jill. "Battleground America." The New Yorker. The New Yorker LLC, 16 Apr. 2012. Web.
12 Nov. 2016.

Part 5: Looking Back

I definitely came into this project with a bias, and although maybe less extreme, it
shaped how I constructed parts 2 and 3 at first. I was confident with part 2, and I consistently felt
comfortable writing and creating a flow with my writing. I found on my third part, and because it
was coming from a place that I wasnt associating personally with, I had a lot of trouble creating
a flow. I was creating a strawman fallacy without even knowing it, and although I was trying to
intentionally produce an argument that had no fallacies and was solid I still find myself doing the
opposite. After critique from my teacher, I was then able to redevelop my third part to make it
much less biased and I feel this really helped to change my perspective. I have, throughout this
year, been able to slowly learn of the importance of viewing the opposing side of any argument,
as it allows for me to develop my own argument at the same time and work towards the
overarching goal: compromise. I understand now that both values tend to become so extreme
when brought into argument, and upon the research I conducted the MAJORITY of people
actually hold a lot of the same values.
Todd and I, although arguing different sides, hold common ground in multiple different
spectrums of gun control, as for example we both agree that background checks are an
important part of compromise. I have ultimately learned, when looking at and comparing both
values, that people tend to hold a lot of common ground, and I realize that political ideology can
create a barrier even if so much common ground is held. I have discovered throughout this
project that those who I have thought to be complete political opposites with myself actually hold
a lot of the same ideas as I do.
Democracy is a system that allows for a lot of difference. The goal for democracy in my
opinion is to compromise with those who disagree with you, as you both end up not only
learning something but coming away feeling satisfied with both ideas being valued. In no way is
it wrong to hold the opinions that you do, but throughout this project and when learning about
democracy it is vital to keep an open mind. This project has allowed me to become less
entrenched in my conservative beliefs, as I know it has with other students with their liberal
beliefs. My personal political beliefs have and will remain the same, but it is becoming easier
and easier for to ask myself what its like to view issues from the opposing side.
As stated before, there is nothing wrong with continuing to hold the beliefs that you do,
yet open minds allow for the ability to connect with others. Overall, this project allowed for me to
feel much more at home with the people who I previously thought I was unable to connect with. I
have come to a realization that political ideology can only take you to a certain point, and in
order to see people as people and not as enemies, take politics with a grain of salt.