why gun control doesn't work essay

Why Gun Control Won’t Work

This essay will present arguments against the effectiveness of gun control. It will discuss the challenges of enforcing gun laws, potential impacts on law-abiding citizens, and the argument that gun control does not address the root causes of gun violence. The piece will explore alternative viewpoints on gun rights and the debate over balancing public safety with constitutional rights. Moreover, at PapersOwl, there are additional free essay samples connected to Gun.

How it works

Society sees guns as a source of violence and evil. Consequently, society believes that there needs to be strict regulations on firearms. However, many fail to realize that enforcing strict gun control is not the solution to the problem. People are very ignorant on guns, and they just speak with the masses. Gun control is such a controversial topic because it isn’t stated in the constitution if the regulation and control of guns is constitutional or not. Most people on the left support gun control laws they are trying to pass because they believe it will decrease mass shootings, and overall homicides, but it hasn’t worked anywhere in America.

Gun control would never, ever work in the United States of America.

Gun violence will never be completely eradicated just by using gun control as a solution. Washington D.C has some of the strictest laws in the country surrounding guns, but the homicide rate is still very high. It is deemed the 5th most dangerous place in the U.S (Bandler). The gun laws consist of things like if you do not seem sound of mind you can be denied to purchasing the firearm, you cannot openly or conceal carry a weapon, transporting any loaded gun in a vehicle is illegal, etc. (Phillip). This shows that even strict gun control doesn’t mean it is a safer place. But Washington D.C isnt the only place in the world with the strict gun laws, Australia even did a mandatory gun buyback system. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott said, Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the [Australian] buyback, (Bandler). This suggests that the downward trend is mostly due to other factors, and the buyback may have had little to no effect, especially since the same study showed that non-firearm homicides decreased even more than the homicides with firearms.

People pushing gun control legislation are praising Australia’s gun buyback, when they really shouldn’t be, because it hasn’t done anything to help with crimes, other factors had bigger roles most likely. The other place they like to praise for gun control is Britain. But, after they banned handguns in 1997, there was a severe increase in the homicide rates (Bandler). Gun control legislation doesn’t even work in other countries, why would it work here? From the time period of 2007 to 2016, in America, eighteen to twenty-nine year olds had an upward trend of wanting to protect gun rights (BBC). People during that upward trend were most likely realizing that we were about to lose our rights as citizens to own a firearm. America has a gun culture so huge that gun control would most likely displease more people than those who would support it, especially since there is no supporting evidence that it would do much.

Bad people will always find a way to obtain firearms, no matter what. Illegal gun trades are real, especially where there is super strict gun control laws. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but the firearm recovery rate in crimes is seven times the amount in New York City. Many guns are put into the hands of criminals through straw purchasing, a process in which gun traffickers or criminals hire a legal gun buyer to buy guns for them (Office of the Mayor of Chicago). These facts indicate that people will find a way to get a gun if their intent is to do harm, regardless of law. Do you think that they have a care for the law of purchasing a firearm if their intent is to break the law? If they had a care for the law, they would follow gun free zones, but they obviously don’t because a whopping 98% of mass shootings have occured in gun free zones since 1950 (Lotte). Gun control and safety measures that are put in place do not work, it is a people problem, not a gun problem. When people say that the AR-15 needs to be banned but they are okay with handguns, the two weapon types do the same thing, the only difference for the most part is the caliber. Fully-automatic firearms are already outlawed, basically every gun people can own is a semi-automatic weapon.

A good guy with a gun, can stop a bad guy with a gun. The violent crime, not homicide, rate is about 300,000 times a year. The annual defensive uses of a firearm is at 500,000-3,000,000 times in the year of 2013 (Hsieh). But the homicides in 2013 are below 20,000. This is intriguing because you would never believe in the outrage culture we live in now, that we would have more defensive uses of a firearm than offensive. Those people that own firearms that are good people can also stop mass shootings from taking more lives. Take Stephen Willeford for example, who had stopped the mass shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He came out of his home and ran across the street and fired at the gunman with his AR-15, who now doesn’t have his attention on the innocent. Then Willeford followed the gunman in his car when he was trying to flee, until the gunman crashed, and decided to commit suicide (Thiessen). Willeford is also an instructor for the N.R.A. He wouldn’t have been able to stop the killer with a pistol, the chances of him stopping it would’ve gone down drastically and the casualties would’ve risen.

Other factors could be blamed for why mass shootings are not controlled well. Like at Parkland, the fact that Nikolas Cruz, the shooter, had posted in a YouTube comment section, I’m going to be a professional school shooter, and the FBI didn’t do anything about it (Halbrook). Also the fact that the officer at the school fled the scene at the sound of rifle rounds going off. The failure on many different levels of protecting all people from this man, and many others like him, is irresponsible. The AR-15 was not the problem, the failure of law enforcement to comply to what would help prevent deaths was.

All in all, the gun control agenda is largely flawed. They do not realize what they are pushing for is an authoritarian regime in which only the military, the police, and criminals possess firearms. We as Americans deserve to have our second amendment enforced, and all the legislation pushing gun control should be unconstitutional. The biggest problem with gun control is that if we cannot protect ourselves, we have to rely on only the government, and that is a scary thought. The second amendment was created to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, so if they take away our guns, we wouldn’t ever be able to push back. Gun control wouldn’t do anything in America, we would turn into the next Britain or Australia by being the newest addition to the list of countries to disarm their citizens.

Cite this page

Why Gun Control Won’t Work. (2020, Apr 13). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/why-gun-control-wont-work/

"Why Gun Control Won’t Work." PapersOwl.com , 13 Apr 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/why-gun-control-wont-work/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Why Gun Control Won’t Work . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-gun-control-wont-work/ [Accessed: 17 May. 2024]

"Why Gun Control Won’t Work." PapersOwl.com, Apr 13, 2020. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/why-gun-control-wont-work/

"Why Gun Control Won’t Work," PapersOwl.com , 13-Apr-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-gun-control-wont-work/. [Accessed: 17-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Why Gun Control Won’t Work . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-gun-control-wont-work/ [Accessed: 17-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Why gun control laws don’t pass Congress, despite majority public support and repeated outrage over mass shootings

Professor of Political Science, Fordham University

Professor of Political Science, Baruch College, CUNY

Disclosure statement

Monika L. McDermott is a consultant for brilliant corners Research and Strategy.

David R. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

With the carnage in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York in May 2022, calls have begun again for Congress to enact gun control . Since the 2012 massacre of 20 children and four staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, legislation introduced in response to mass killings has consistently failed to pass the Senate . We asked political scientists Monika McDermott and David Jones to help readers understand why further restrictions never pass, despite a majority of Americans supporting tighter gun control laws .

Mass killings are becoming more frequent. Yet there has been no significant gun legislation passed in response to these and other mass shootings. Why?

Monika McDermott: While there is consistently a majority in favor of restricting gun access a little bit more than the government currently does, usually that’s a slim majority – though that support tends to spike in the short term after events like the recent mass shootings.

We tend to find even gun owners are in support of restrictions like background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows. So that’s one that everyone gets behind. The other one that gun-owning households get behind is they don’t mind law enforcement taking guns away from people who have been legally judged to be unstable or dangerous. Those are two restrictions on which you can get virtual unanimous support from the American public. But agreement on specific elements isn’t everything.

This isn’t something that people are clamoring for, and there are so many other things in the mix that people are much more concerned about right now, like the economy. Also, people are insecure about the federal budget deficit, and health care is still a perennial problem in this country. So those kinds of things top gun control legislation in terms of priorities for the public.

So you can’t just think about majority support for legislation; you have to think about priorities. People in office care what the priorities are. If someone’s not going to vote them out because of an issue, then they’re not going to do it.

The other issue is that you have just this different view of the gun situation in gun-owning households and non-gun-owning households . Nearly half of the public lives in a household with a gun. And those people tend to be significantly less worried than those in non-gun households that a mass shooting could happen in their community. They’re also unlikely to say that stricter gun laws would reduce the danger of mass shootings.

The people who don’t own guns think the opposite. They think guns are dangerous. They think if we restricted access, then mass shootings would be reduced. So you’ve got this bifurcation in the American public. And that also contributes to why Congress can’t or hasn’t done anything about gun control.

How does public opinion relate to what Congress does or doesn’t do?

David Jones: People would, ideally, like to think that members of Congress are responding to public opinion. I think that is their main consideration when they’re making decisions about how to prioritize issues and how to vote on issues.

But we also have to consider: What is the meaning of a member’s “constituency”? We can talk about their geographic constituency – everyone living in their district, if they’re a House member, or in their state, if they’re a senator. But we could also talk about their electoral constituency, and that is all of the people who contributed the votes that put them into office.

And so if a congressmember’s motive is reelection, they want to hold on to the votes of that electoral constituency. It may be more important to them than representing everyone in their district equally.

In 2020, the most recent congressional election, among citizens who voted for a Republican House member, only 24% of those voters wanted to make it more difficult to buy a gun.

So if you’re looking at the opinions of your voters versus those of your entire geographic constituency, it’s your voters that matter most to you. And a party primary constituency may be even narrower and even less in favor of gun control. A member may have to run in a party primary first before they even get to the general election. Now what would be the most generous support for gun control right now in the U.S.? A bit above 60% of Americans . But not every member of Congress has that high a proportion of support for gun control in their district. Local lawmakers are not necessarily focused on national polling numbers.

You could probably get a majority now in the Senate of 50 Democrats plus, say, Susan Collins and some other Republican or two to support some form of gun control. But it wouldn’t pass the Senate. Why isn’t a majority enough to pass? The Senate filibuster – a tradition allowing a small group of Senators to hold up a final vote on a bill unless a three-fifths majority of Senators vote to stop them.

Monika McDermott: This is a very hot political topic these days. But people have to remember, that’s the way our system was designed.

David Jones: Protecting rights against the overbearing will of the majority is built into our constitutional system.

Do legislators also worry that sticking their neck out to vote for gun legislation might be for nothing if the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the law?

David Jones: The last time gun control passed in Congress was the 1994 assault weapons ban . Many of the legislators who voted for that bill ended up losing their seats in the election that year. Some Republicans who voted for it are on record saying that they were receiving threats of violence . So it’s not trivial, when considering legislation, to be weighing, “Yeah, we can pass this, but was it worth it to me if it gets overturned by the Supreme Court?”

Going back to the 1994 assault weapons ban: How did that manage to pass and how did it avoid a filibuster?

David Jones: It got rolled into a larger omnibus bill that was an anti-crime bill. And that managed to garner the support of some Republicans. There are creative ways of rolling together things that one party likes with things that the other party likes. Is that still possible? I’m not sure.

It sounds like what you are saying is that lawmakers are not necessarily driven by higher principle or a sense of humanitarianism, but rather cold, hard numbers and the idea of maintaining or getting power.

Monika McDermott: There are obvious trade-offs there. You can have high principles, but if your high principles serve only to make you a one-term officeholder, what good are you doing for the people who believe in those principles? At some point, you have to have a reality check that says if I can’t get reelected, then I can’t do anything to promote the things I really care about. You have to find a balance.

Wouldn’t that matter more to someone in the House, with a two-year horizon, than to someone in the Senate, with a six-year term?

David Jones: Absolutely. If you’re five years out from an election and people are mad at you now, some other issue will come up and you might be able to calm the tempers. But if you’re two years out, that reelection is definitely more of a pressing concern.

Some people are blaming the National Rifle Association for these killings. What do you see as the organization’s role in blocking gun restrictions by Congress?

Monika McDermott: From the public’s side, one of the important things the NRA does is speak directly to voters. The NRA publishes for their members ratings of congressional officeholders based on how much they do or do not support policies the NRA favors. These kinds of things can be used by voters as easy information shortcuts that help them navigate where a candidate stands on the issue when it’s time to vote. This gives them some credibility when they talk to lawmakers.

David Jones: The NRA as a lobby is an explanation that’s out there. But I’d caution that it’s a little too simplistic to say interest groups control everything in our society. I think it’s an intermingling of the factors that we’ve been talking about, plus interest groups.

So why does the NRA have power? I would argue: Much of their power is going to the member of Congress and showing them a chart and saying, “Look at the voters in your district. Most of them own guns. Most of them don’t want you to do this.” It’s not that their donations or their threatening looks or phone calls are doing it, it’s the fact that they have the membership and they can do this research and show the legislator what electoral danger they’ll be in if they cast this vote, because of the opinions of that legislator’s core constituents.

Interest groups can help to pump up enthusiasm and make their issue the most important one among members of their group. They’re not necessarily changing overall public support for an issue, but they’re making their most persuasive case to a legislator, given the opinions of crucial voters that live in a district, and that can sometimes tip an already delicate balance.

• US politics
• Gun control
• US Congress
• Gun violence
• Public opinion
• US gun control
• electoral politics
• Voting blocs
• Uvalde shooting

Compliance Lead

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Gun Control Argumentative Essay: The Definitive Guide

What Is Gun Control?

Gun control refers to the regulation and management of firearms within a given jurisdiction. It involves the creation and enforcement of laws, policies, and measures aimed at restricting the possession, use, and distribution of firearms. The objectives of gun control vary, but they often include enhancing public safety, preventing gun-related crimes, reducing the likelihood of mass shootings, and addressing concerns about domestic violence.

Gun control measures can encompass a range of policies, such as background checks for gun buyers, restrictions on the types of firearms and accessories available for civilian use, waiting periods before obtaining a firearm, and limitations on the number of firearms an individual can own. Additionally, some jurisdictions may implement licensing requirements, mandatory firearm registration, and regulations regarding the storage and carrying of firearms.

Debates surrounding gun control often involve discussions about individual rights, constitutional interpretations (such as the Second Amendment in the United States), and the balance between personal freedoms and public safety. Advocates for gun control argue that it is necessary to curb gun violence and prevent tragedies, while opponents may emphasize the importance of individual liberties and the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Overall, gun control is a complex and contentious issue that involves finding a balance between protecting public safety and respecting the rights of individuals to own firearms.

How to Choose a Topic for Argumentative Essay on Gun Control?

Choosing an argumentative essay on gun regulation involves considering various factors to ensure that your topic is relevant and engaging, allowing for a thorough exploration of the issue. Here are some tips to help you choose a compelling argumentative essay topic on gun control:

1. Define Your Position

• Consider your stance on the issue. Are you in favor of stricter gun control measures, or do you argue for more permissive policies? Understanding your position will guide your topic selection.

2. Consider Current Events

• Look at recent news and developments related to gun control. Timely and relevant topics often generate more interest and provide an opportunity to engage with current debates.

3. Narrow Down the Focus

• Gun control is a broad topic. Narrow it down to a specific aspect or angle that interests you. For example, you could focus on the impact of gun control on reducing crime, the effectiveness of background checks, or the constitutional implications.

4. Research Available Data

• Ensure that there is enough research material available on your chosen topic. Access to credible sources and data will strengthen your argument and provide evidence to support your claims.

5. Consider the Audience

• Consider your target audience and choose a topic that resonates with their interests and concerns. Tailoring your argument to your audience can make your argumentative essay more persuasive.

6. Explore Both Sides

• Choose a topic that allows for a balanced discussion. Exploring both sides of the argument demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue and can make your argumentative essay more nuanced and convincing.

7. Avoid Extreme Positions

• While it's important to have a clear stance, avoid overly extreme positions that may alienate readers. Aim for a topic that allows for a reasonable and well-supported argument.

8. Address Local or Global Perspectives

• Consider whether you want to focus on gun control at a local, national, or global level. Different regions may have unique challenges and perspectives on the issue.

9. Check Assignment Guidelines

• Ensure that your chosen topic aligns with the guidelines and requirements of your assignment. Check for any specific instructions provided by your instructor.

10. Personal Connection

• If you have a personal connection or experience related to gun control, it can add depth and authenticity to your argumentative essay. However, be mindful of maintaining a balanced and evidence-based argument.

By carefully considering these factors, you can choose a great argumentative essay topic on gun control that allows for a thorough exploration of the issue and engages your readers.

How to Write a Gun Control Argumentative Essay?

Writing a gun control argumentative essay involves presenting a clear and persuasive argument on the topic. Here's a step-by-step guide to help you structure and write your argumentative essay:

1. Understand the Assignment

• Before you start writing, make sure you understand the requirements and guidelines of your assignment. Know the purpose of your argumentative essay and any specific instructions from your instructor.

2. Choose a Strong Thesis Statement

• Develop a concise and specific thesis statement that outlines your main argument or position on gun control. This statement should clearly convey your stance on the issue.

3. Research Thoroughly

• Gather information from credible sources to support your argument. Look for data, statistics, expert opinions, and case studies related to gun control. Ensure that your research is balanced and addresses both sides of the issue.

4. Outline Your Argumentative Essay

• Create a well-organized outline to structure your argumentative essay. Divide it into an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each section should have a clear purpose and contribute to the overall coherence of your argument.

5. Write a Compelling Introduction

• Start your argumentative essay with an engaging introduction that introduces the topic, provides background information, and ends with your thesis statement. Capture the reader's attention and set the tone for your argument.

6. Develop Strong Body Paragraphs

• Each body paragraph should focus on a specific point or aspect of your argument. Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence and provide evidence to support your claims. Use examples, statistics, and quotations to reinforce your points.

7. Address Counterarguments

• Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints. Anticipate counterarguments and refute them with strong evidence and reasoning. Demonstrating awareness of alternative perspectives adds credibility to your argumentative essay.

8. Use Clear and Convincing Language

• Write in a clear, concise, and persuasive manner. Avoid vague language and ensure that your arguments are logically presented. Use transition words to create a smooth flow between paragraphs.

9. Provide Real-Life Examples

• Support your arguments with real-life examples or case studies. Personal stories, historical events, or current news stories can add depth to your argumentative essay and make your points more relatable.

10. Conclude Effectively

• Summarize your main points in the conclusion and restate your thesis. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion. End with a strong closing statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

11. Revise and Edit

• Review your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammar. Check for any inconsistencies or gaps in your argument. Consider seeking feedback from peers or instructors to improve the overall quality of your argumentative essay.

12. Format According to Guidelines

• Ensure your argumentative essay follows the required formatting guidelines, including citation style (APA, MLA, etc.). Properly cite all sources used in your research.

By following these steps, you can craft a well-structured and persuasive gun control argumentative essay that effectively communicates your position on the topic.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Here’s a list of excellent argumentative essay topics on gun control to use in writing your argumentative paper. If you like any of the topics but have no time to develop them properly in a written form, please consult our argumentative essay writing service .

• Stricter laws could help reduce gun violence.
• Background checks may prevent crimes involving guns.
• The Second Amendment's role in individual rights and public safety is unclear.
• Checking mental health might improve gun control efforts.
• Countries with fewer guns tend to have lower homicide rates.
• Gun lobbyists have a significant impact on making laws.
• Arming teachers may not be the best idea for school safety.
• Gun shows contribute to unregulated gun sales.
• Gun buyback programs aim to make communities safer.
• Community policing could be better for public safety than strict gun control.
• Access to firearms affects domestic violence rates.
• Preventing mass shootings may require more than just gun control.
• Gun control may affect racial groups differently.
• Concealed carry laws may impact personal protection and public safety.
• Smart guns and new technology aim to make firearms safer.
• America's love for guns impacts gun control discussions.
• Deciding on gun laws raises questions about federal vs. state control.
• Gun violence has significant economic costs to society.
• Learning from other countries may inform better gun control approaches.
• Media plays a role in shaping public perception of gun control issues.

Pro-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Stricter gun control regulations get all the hype nowadays, given the recent events in the United States. It may be a smart choice to examine pro-gun control topics if you want to draw readers’ attention.

• Making background checks universal can help control guns.
• Waiting periods before buying guns may prevent impulsive violence.
• Strict licensing for guns is necessary for public safety.
• Banning high-capacity magazines can reduce the severity of mass shootings.
• Smart gun technology enhances safety and limits unauthorized use.
• Mental health screening should be a part of gun purchases.
• Red flag laws can prevent individuals at risk from accessing guns.
• Understanding public opinion is crucial for effective gun control.
• Gun control is vital in addressing domestic violence and protecting victims.
• Examining the impact of gun-free zones on public safety is important.
• Community policing can help collaboratively address gun violence.
• Reducing accidental shootings involves looking at gun ownership.
• Addressing gun trafficking requires better cooperation between federal and state authorities.
• Gun control is crucial for reducing injuries and promoting public health.
• Connecting gun control with suicide prevention is essential.
• Examining the influence of corporate interests in the firearms industry is important.
• Gun control can be a deterrent, learning from international success stories.
• Banning assault weapons mitigates the impact of military-style firearms.
• Stricter regulations are needed to reduce the economic cost of gun violence.
• Promoting responsible gun ownership laws through education enhances safety and awareness.

Anti-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Always weigh in on the pros and cons of a certain topic. Although it may seem contradictory, anti-gun control topics can allow the classroom to explore an opposing point of view to understand the counterparts better and maybe come up with interesting conclusions on the matter.

• Individual rights should prevail over stricter gun control measures.
• The Second Amendment protects an inviolable right to resist further regulations.
• Background checks are doubted for their efficacy in preventing crimes.
• Waiting periods for gun purchases are seen as an infringement on personal freedom.
• High-capacity magazines' direct link to mass shootings is challenged.
• Pushback against smart gun technology raises concerns and critiques.
• Mental health screening is criticized for potential stigmatization and privacy issues.
• Red flag laws need to balance safety and individual liberties.
• Skepticism surrounds public opinion on the need for more gun control.
• Gun-free zones are questioned for their role in attracting criminal activity.
• Community policing is favored over strict gun control for addressing root causes.
• Accidental shootings raise questions about individual responsibility versus legislation.
• Gun trafficking solutions should focus on local rather than federal measures.
• Unintended consequences of gun control on law-abiding citizens are highlighted.
• Doubts persist about the effectiveness of gun control in improving public health.
• Corporate influence on gun control legislation deserves a closer examination.
• Skepticism exists about the applicability of international approaches to local contexts.
• The impact of an assault weapons ban on personal defense is scrutinized.
• The economic consequences of stricter gun control are considered unintended.
• Educational initiatives are suggested as an alternative approach to gun safety.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Example

As we studied what gun control is, why it stirs so much controversy, and what are some great topics to write about, it’s time we analyzed one of the argumentative essay examples regarding gun control. Keep in mind – it’s for your inspirational needs only!

The Gun Control Debate: Constitutional Rights vs. Public and Personal Safety

The issue of gun control has been a contentious topic that has sparked intense debates across the United States. On the one hand, proponents argue for stricter regulations to curb the rising gun violence. On the other hand, opponents emphasize the importance of protecting individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Striking a balance between these two perspectives is essential to ensure public safety without infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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." This amendment has been at the center of the gun control debate, with advocates arguing that it guarantees an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense and protection against tyranny. Any attempt to restrict this right must be carefully examined to avoid violating the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The alarming increase in gun violence in recent years has raised concerns about public safety. Mass shootings, homicides, and suicides involving firearms have become all too common, necessitating a reevaluation of existing gun control measures. Stricter regulations on the purchase, possession, and use of firearms are essential to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and to mitigate the devastating consequences of gun-related incidents.

Implementing effective gun control measures requires finding a middle ground that respects individual rights while promoting public safety. Background checks, waiting periods, and mandatory firearm training are potential measures that can help ensure responsible gun ownership. By focusing on these aspects, the government can maintain a balance that protects both individual liberties and the collective safety of the community.

Addressing mental health issues is a crucial aspect of the gun control debate. Many incidents involving firearms are linked to individuals with untreated mental health conditions. By investing in mental health resources and integrating mental health evaluations into the gun purchase process, society can strive to prevent individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms.

Comparing the gun control policies of other developed nations can provide valuable insights. Countries with stricter gun control measures often experience lower rates of gun violence. Analyzing these models can help the United States identify effective strategies that balance individual rights and public safety.

In conclusion, the gun control debate is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of individual rights and public safety. Striking a balance between the two is crucial to addressing the escalating gun violence while respecting the constitutional rights of citizens. By implementing sensible regulations, focusing on responsible ownership, and addressing mental health concerns, society can work towards a safer future without compromising fundamental freedoms.

Final Remark

Gun control regulation sparks considerable controversy in the United States due to deeply entrenched cultural and political factors. The country has a long-standing tradition of gun ownership dating back to its founding, with the Second Amendment enshrining the right to bear arms in the Constitution. Additionally, the historical significance of firearms in shaping American identity and the perceived importance of self-defense contribute to staunch opposition to any perceived infringement on gun rights. 

Moreover, the issue is heavily politicized, with political parties and interest groups taking firm stances on either side of the debate. Given its complexity and relevance to contemporary society, students should explore this topic through argumentative essays to gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted factors at play, ranging from constitutional interpretation and public policy to social and cultural dynamics.

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

You Might Also Like

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

May 26, 2022

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

By enacting simple laws that make guns safer and harder to get, we can prevent killings like the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo

By The Editors

Adam Gault/Getty Images

Editor’s Note (5/24/23): One year ago, on May 24, 2022, 19 students and two teachers were fatally shot at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex . This piece by Scientific American's editors presents the case that simple gun laws can prevent future tragedies.

Some editorials simply hurt to write. This is one.

At least 19 elementary school children and two teachers are dead, many more are injured, and a grandmother is fighting for her life in Uvalde, Tex., all because a young man, armed with an AR-15-style rifle, decided to fire in a school.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

By now, you know these facts: This killing spree was the largest school shooting since Sandy Hook. Law enforcement couldn’t immediately subdue the killer. In Texas, it’s alarmingly easy to buy and openly carry a gun . In the immediate hours after the shooting, President Biden demanded reform , again. Legislators demanded reform , again. And progun politicians turned to weathered talking points: arm teachers and build safer schools.

But rather than arm our teachers (who have enough to do without keeping that gun away from students and having to train like law enforcement to confront an armed attacker), rather than spend much-needed school dollars on more metal detectors instead of education, we need to make it harder to buy a gun. Especially the kind of weapons used by this killer and the white supremacist who killed 10 people grocery shopping in Buffalo . And we need to put a lasting stop to the political obstruction of taxpayer-funded research into gun-related injuries and deaths.

The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime . Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis , just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.

In the U.S., we have existing infrastructure that we could easily emulate to make gun use safer: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Created by Congress in 1970, this federal agency is tasked, among other things, with helping us drive a car safely. It gathers data on automobile deaths. It’s the agency that monitors and studies seat belt usage . While we track firearm-related deaths, no such safety-driven agency exists for gun use.

During the early 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began to explore gun violence as a public health issue. After studies tied having a firearm to increased homicide risk , the National Rifle Association took action , spearheading the infamous Dickey Amendment, diverting gun research dollars and preventing federal funding from being used to promote gun control. For more than 20 years, research on gun violence in this country has been hard to do.

What research we have is clear and grim. For example, in 2017, guns overtook 60 years of cars as the biggest injury-based killer of children and young adults (ages one to 24) in the U.S. By 2020, about eight in every 100,000 people died of car crashes. About 10 in every 100,000 people died of gun injuries.

While cars have become increasingly safer (it’s one of the auto industry’s main talking points in marketing these days), the gun lobby has thwarted nearly all attempts to make it harder to fire a weapon. With federal protection against some lawsuits , the financial incentive of a giant tort payout to make guns safer is virtually nonexistent.

After the Uvalde killings, the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton , said he’d “rather have law-abiding citizens armed and trained so that they can respond when something like this happens.” Sen. Ted Cruz emphasized “armed law enforcement on the campus.” They are two of many conservatives who see more guns as the key to fighting gun crime. They are wrong.

A study comparing gun deaths the U.S. to other high-income countries in Europe and Asia tells us that our homicide rate in teens and young adults is 49 times higher. Our firearm suicide rate is eight times higher. The U.S. has more guns than any of the countries in the comparison.

As we previously reported , in 2015, assaults with a firearm were 6.8 times more common in states that had the most guns, compared to the least. More than a dozen studies have revealed that if you had a gun at home, you were twice as likely to be killed as someone who didn’t. Research from the Harvard School of Public Health tells us that states with higher gun ownership levels have higher rates of homicide . Data even tells us that where gun shops or gun dealers open for business, killings go up . These are but a few of the studies that show the exact opposite of what progun politicians are saying. The science must not be ignored.

Science points to laws that would work to reduce shootings, to lower death. Among the simplest would be better permitting laws with fewer loopholes. When Missouri repealed its permit law, gun-related killings increased by 25 percent . Another would be to ban people who are convicted of violent crime from buying a gun. In California, before the state passed such a law, people convicted of crimes were almost 30 percent more likely to be arrested again for a gun or violent crime than those who, after the law, couldn’t buy a gun.

Such laws, plus red flag laws and those taking guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who abuse alcohol, would lower our gun violence rate as a nation. But it would require elected officials to detach themselves from the gun lobby. There are so many issues to consider when voting, but in this midterm election year, we believe that protection from gun violence is one that voters could really advance. Surveys routinely show that gun control measures are extremely popular with the U.S. population.

In the meantime, there is some hope. Congress restored funding for gun-related research in 2019, and there are researchers now looking at ways to reduce gun deaths. But it’s unclear if this change in funding is permanent. And what we’ve lost is 20 years of data on gun injuries, death, safety measures and a score of other things that could make gun ownership in this country safer.

Against all this are families whose lives will never be the same because of gun violence. Who must mourn children and adults lost in domestic violence, accidental killings and mass shootings that are so common, we are still grieving one when the next one occurs.

We need to become the kind of country that looks at guns for what they are: weapons that kill. And treat them with the kind of respect that insists they be harder to get and safer to use.

And then we need to become the kind of country that says the lives of children are more valuable than the right to weapons that have killed them, time and again. Since Columbine. Since Sandy Hook. Since always.

The New York Times

Opinionator | why gun ‘control’ is not enough.

Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

In the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., and the resulting renewed debate on gun control in the United States, The Stone will publish a series of essays this week that examine the ethical, social and humanitarian implications of the use, possession and regulation of weapons. Other articles in the series can be found here .

Americans are finally beginning to have a serious discussion about guns. One argument we’re hearing is the central pillar of the case for private gun ownership: that we are all safer when more individuals have guns because armed citizens deter crime and can defend themselves and others against it when deterrence fails. Those who don’t have guns, it’s said, are free riders on those who do, as the criminally disposed are less likely to engage in crime the more likely it is that their victim will be armed.

When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease. The criminals get better.

There’s some sense to this argument, for even criminals don’t like being shot. But the logic is faulty, and a close look at it leads to the conclusion that the United States should ban private gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely.

One would think that if widespread gun ownership had the robust deterrent effects that gun advocates claim it has, our country would be freer of crime than other developed societies.  But it’s not.  When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease.  Instead, criminals work to be better armed, more efficient in their use of guns (“quicker on the draw”), and readier to use them.  When this happens, those who get guns may be safer than they would be without them, but those without them become progressively more vulnerable.

Gun advocates have a solution to this: the unarmed must arm themselves.  But when more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would once have got in a fistfight instead shoot the person who provoked them; people are shot by mistake or by accident.

And with guns so plentiful, any lunatic or criminally disposed person who has a sudden and perhaps only temporary urge to kill people can simply help himself to the contents of Mom’s gun cabinet.  Perhaps most important, the more people there are who have guns, the less effective the police become.  The power of the citizens and that of the police approach parity.  The police cease to have even a near-monopoly on the use of force.

To many devotees of the Second Amendment, this is precisely the point.  As former Congressman Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, said in January 2011, “We have a right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms we have.”  The more people there are with guns, the less able the government is to control them.  But if arming the citizenry limits the power of the government, it does so by limiting the power of its agents, such as the police. Domestic defense becomes more a matter of private self-help and vigilantism and less a matter of democratically-controlled, public law enforcement. Domestic security becomes increasingly “privatized.”

There is, of course, a large element of fantasy in Dickey’s claim. Individuals with handguns are no match for a modern army.  It’s also a delusion to suppose that the government in a liberal democracy such as the United States could become so tyrannical that armed insurrection, rather than democratic procedures, would be the best means of constraining it.  This is not Syria; nor will it ever be.  Shortly after Dickey made his comment, people in Egypt rose against a government that had suppressed their freedom in ways far more serious than requiring them to pay for health care. Although a tiny minority of Egyptians do own guns, the protesters would not have succeeded if those guns had been brought to Tahrir Square. If the assembled citizens had been brandishing Glocks in accordance with the script favored by Second Amendment fantasists, the old regime would almost certainly still be in power and many Egyptians who’re now alive would be dead.

As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, and personal security becomes a matter of self-help.

For the police to remain effective in a society in which most of those they must confront or arrest are armed, they must, like criminals, become better armed, more numerous, and readier to fire.  But if they do that, guns won’t have produced a net reduction in the power of the government but will only have generated enormous private and public expenditures, leaving the balance of power between armed citizens and the state as it was before, the unarmed conspicuously worse off, and everyone poorer except the gun industry.  The alternative to maintaining the balance of power is to allow it to shift in favor of the armed citizenry and away from the police, again making unarmed citizens — including those who refuse on principle to contribute to the erosion of collective security by getting a gun — the greatest losers overall.

The logic is inexorable: as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. When most citizens then have the ability to kill anyone in their vicinity in an instant, everyone is less secure than they would be if no one had guns other than the members of a democratically accountable police force.

The logic of private gun possession is thus similar to that of the nuclear arms race.  When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable.  The other states then have an incentive to get nuclear weapons to try to restore their security.  As more states get them, the incentives for others increase.  If eventually all get them, the potential for catastrophe — whether through irrationality, misperception, or accident — is great.  Each state’s security is then much lower than it would be if none had nuclear weapons.

Gun advocates and criminals are allies in demanding that guns remain in private hands.  They differ in how they want them distributed.  Criminals want guns for themselves but not for their potential victims.  Others want them for themselves but not for criminals.  But while gun control can do a little to restrict access to guns by potential criminals, it can’t do much when guns are to be found in every other household.  Either criminals and non-criminals will have them or neither will.  Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them.

But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns — or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers. Domestic defense would then be conducted the way we conduct national defense.  We no longer accept, as the authors of the now obsolete Second Amendment did, that “a well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state.”  Rather than leaving national defense to citizens’ militias, we now, for a variety of compelling reasons, cede the right of national defense to certain state-authorized professional institutions: the Army, Navy, and so on.  We rightly trust these forces to protect us from external threats and not to become instruments of domestic repression.  We could have the same trust in a police force designed to protect us from domestic threats.

A prohibition of private ownership would not mean that no one could shoot guns. Guns for target shooting could be rented under security arrangements at the range. And there’s perhaps scope for debate about private possession of single chamber shotguns for hunting.

Gun advocates will object that a prohibition of private gun ownership is an impossibility in the United States.  But this is not an objection they can press in good faith, for the only reason that a legal prohibition could be impossible in a democratic state is that a majority oppose it.  If gun advocates ceased to oppose it, a prohibition would be possible.

They will next argue that even if there were a legal prohibition, it could not be enforced with anything approaching complete effectiveness.  This is true.  As long as some people somewhere have guns, some people here can get them.  Similarly, the legal prohibition of murder cannot eliminate murder.  But the prohibition of murder is more effective than a policy of “murder control” would be.

More From The Stone

Read previous contributions to this series.

Guns are not like alcohol and drugs, both of which we have tried unsuccessfully to prohibit. Many people have an intense desire for alcohol or drugs that is independent of what other people may do. But the need for a gun for self-defense depends on whether other people have them and how effective the protection and deterrence provided by the state are. Thus, in other Western countries in which there are fewer guns, there are correspondingly fewer instances in which people need guns for effective self-defense.

Gun advocates sometimes argue that a prohibition would violate individuals’ rights of self-defense. Imposing a ban on guns, they argue, would be tantamount to taking a person’s gun from her just as someone is about to kill her. But this is a defective analogy. Although a prohibition would deprive people of one effective means of self-defense, it would also ensure that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even useful for self-defense. For guns would be forbidden not just to those who would use them for defense but also to those who would use them for aggression. Guns are only one means of self-defense and self-defense is only one means of achieving security against attack. It is the right to security against attack that is fundamental. A policy that unavoidably deprives a person of one means of self-defense but on balance substantially reduces her vulnerability to attack is therefore respectful of the more fundamental right from which the right of self-defense is derived.

In other Western countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States. The possible explanations of this are limited. Gun advocates claim it has nothing to do with our permissive gun laws or our customs and practices involving guns. If they are right, should we conclude that Americans are simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other Western countries? If you resist that conclusion, you have little choice but to accept that our easy access to all manner of firearms is a large part of the explanation of why we kill each at a much higher rate than our counterparts elsewhere. Gun advocates must search their consciences to determine whether they really want to share responsibility for the perpetuation of policies that make our country the homicide capitol of the developed world.

Jeff McMahan is a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University. He is the author of “ The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life ” and “Killing in War.” He has several books forthcoming, including “The Values of Lives,” a collection of essays.

What's Next

clock This article was published more than  1 year ago

What research shows on the effectiveness of gun-control laws

“When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

— President Biden, addressing the mass shooting in Uvalde, Tex. , May 24

“There are, quote, ‘real’ gun laws in New York. There are ‘real’ gun laws in California. I hate to say this, but there are more people who were shot every weekend in Chicago than there are in schools in Texas.”

— Tex. Gov. Greg Abbott (R), on the mass shooting , May 25

Democrats and Republicans will forever argue about the effectiveness of gun laws to prevent mass shootings. But what does the latest academic research show?

The short answer is that many proposed laws probably would not have much impact on curbing the mass shootings that dominate the news. But they could lessen their severity, and might also bring down overall gun violence.

Despite their notoriety, mass shootings — as defined by criminologists — generally do not happen often enough for detailed data analysis. Moreover, there are at least eight databases of mass shootings , including one maintained by The Washington Post , with different definitions and parameters. An upcoming paper for the Justice Department, written by a team led by James Alan Fox of Northeastern University , Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Michael Rocque of Bates College , attempts to craft a common definition: A mass public shooting is any event in which four or more individuals, not including the assailant(s), were killed by gunfire in a public setting within a 24-hour period. Mass shootings associated with criminal activity are excluded.

Under this definition, there were three or four mass shootings a year through most of the 2010s, but then the number spiked to seven in 2017, 10 in 2018 and eight in 2019, according to the database, provided to the Fact Checker by Duwe.

The team, drawing on the existing databases and supplemental research, found that “the number of mass public shootings has indeed increased over the past four and one-half years, particularly over the past decade. However, even at its peak in 2018, the number of such incidents has not surpassed ten in any year, and often has been much lower.” Moreover, some of the increase can be linked to growth in population. The incident count tripled since the mid-1970s but the rate per 100 million of population increased by a factor of two.

Fox told the Fact Checker that most mass shooters are very determined individuals and that even with an average of seven or eight mass shootings a year, new laws might only reduce the number by one a year. But he said stricter gun control laws would be “the right thing to do for a different reason” — they might help reduce overall gun violence.

While it is generally correct that states with tougher gun laws tend to have lower gun fatality rates, those rankings change when suicides — which make up about 60 percent of gun deaths — are excluded. Rural areas, which may have less restrictive gun laws, have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. Access to guns is believed to triple the risk of suicide, according to a 2014 study. But Fox said he would exclude suicides from such calculations. “There is a big difference between homicide and suicide,” he said. “The victim of a homicide does not choose to be killed.”

Here’s a summary of key research on the effectiveness of various laws, either at the federal or state level.

Assault weapons ban

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (LCMs), defined as those that could hold more than 10 rounds. The law — which grandfathered in an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons and 25 million LCMs already owned by Americans — was in place for 10 years until Congress let it lapse.

Even supporters of the law have acknowledged that it was riddled with loopholes, such as allowing copycat weapons to be sold, that limited its effectiveness. Some research, however, suggests the ban became more effective toward the end of the 10-year period because it helped cap and then reduce the supply of assault weapons and LCMs.

Biden claimed that mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. He appears to be relying on a study of mass shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio , a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. That group found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 out of 448, or 70 percent, of the mass shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts.

Meanwhile, Louis Klarevas , a research professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, studied high-fatality mass shootings (involving six or more people) for his 2016 book “ Rampage Nation .” He said that compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent and that the number of people dying because of mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers in the next 10-year period rose sharply — a 183 percent increase in mass shootings and a 239 percent increase in deaths. His analysis, however, has been criticized by some experts for being heavily impacted by the final year of his data series.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, moreover. Fox, in a 2016 study co-written with Emma Fridel of Northeastern University, noted that “rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters.” (About 70 percent of mass public shootings after 1992 relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns.) They wrote that “the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect” and that “not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at their disposal.”

The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth.

Large-capacity magazines

While the assault weapons ban may not have reduced the number of mass shootings, there is some evidence that the 1994 law’s restrictions on LCMs may have been effective in reducing the death toll.

Christopher S. Koper , an associate professor of criminology at George Mason University, said in a 2020 study that LCMs enable rapid spray fire that gives shooters the ability to wound higher numbers of victims in public settings. So restrictions on LCMs can have an effect.

“Data on mass shooting incidents suggest these magazine restrictions can potentially reduce mass shooting deaths by 11 percent to 15 percent and total victims shot in these incidents by one quarter, likely as upper bounds,” Koper wrote, adding, “It is reasonable to argue that the federal ban could have prevented some of the recent increase in persons killed and injured in mass shootings had it remained in place.”

Moreover, a number of studies of state-level bans on LCMs, such as by Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University and by Klarevas , indicate that such laws are associated with a significantly lower number of fatalities in mass shootings. Fox co-wrote a 2020 study of state gun laws that concluded that bans on LCMs are associated with 38 percent fewer fatalities and 77 percent fewer nonfatal injuries when a mass shooting occurred.

But even states such as California, which outlaws LCMs that hold more than 10 bullets, have suffered from mass shootings that involved LCMs. When Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015 with legally purchased guns and rifles, four high-capacity magazines were found, perhaps holding as many as 30 rounds. Many mass shooters also acquire a large inventory of weapons, making reloading less necessary.

Universal background checks

There is evidence that universal background checks — including between private parties — could have an impact on mass shootings. State laws requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, which includes a background check on all purchases, are associated with 60 percent lower odds of a mass public shooting occurring, Fox’s 2020 study found.

But most mass murderers legally purchase the firearms they use in their killing sprees. Salvador Ramos, identified by police as the gunman who killed 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, purchased two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and ammunition as soon as he turned 18. He had never been convicted of a felony or had a history of criminal violence, so there was no prohibition against him buying the weapons.

The current system also fails. In 2015, Dylann Roof killed nine people with a .45-caliber Glock pistol that held 13 rounds at a historic African American church in Charleston, S.C. Roof legally purchased his gun from a store, but the FBI said he should have failed the background check because he had been charged with possessing Suboxone without a prescription. However, because of clerical mistakes, the FBI said the examiner did not get hold of the report before the three-day waiting period ended, and so the store went through with the purchase.

This three-day period has become known as the “Charleston loophole” that some lawmakers have sought to close. But it’s possible Roof might have passed the background check if it had been done correctly. The FBI statement incorrectly referred to a felony drug charge, but it was a misdemeanor for possession; he did not admit to being an addict. The FBI later said Roof would have been denied a gun based on an “inference of current use.”

Firearms prohibitions based on mental health

Anyone who slaughters innocent people with firearms in theory would be expected to have mental health issues. But most people who have mental health issues are not killers; in fact, they are more likely to be victims of gun violence. Nearly one in five adults in the United States live with a mental illness , according to the National Institute of Mental Health , while epidemiological research suggests that nearly half the U.S. population may experience some symptoms of mental illness in their lifetime.

That makes it difficult to know when to draw the line, especially because mental illness is not a predictor of violence. “Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness,” noted Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish of Vanderbilt University in a 2016 study . They said that other factors, such as alcohol and drug use, may increase the risk of turning toward violent crime even more. A history of childhood abuse is also considered a predictive risk factor.

Red-flag (“extreme risk”) laws — which generally allow police to take firearms away from people who exhibit concerning behavior — have been passed in 19 states and the District of Columbia, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for gun-control laws. Between 1999 and 2021, at least 16,857 extreme risk petitions were filed, the group says. Florida, which passed such a law after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018, has used it 6,000 times since then. A 2019 study found that as many as 21 mass shootings might have been prevented in California after the state in 2016 implemented such a law.

Yet New York’s red-flag law was not invoked against Payton Gendron, the suspect in the racist attack in Buffalo this month that left 10 people dead. He had said in school he planned to commit a murder-suicide and was taken to a hospital for a mental health evaluation. Police chose not to seek a red-flag order, apparently because he did not name a specific target. New York’s governor has since signed an executive order seeking to strengthen the law.

( About our rating scale )

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 10 December 2019

The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning

• Joseph M. Pierre 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  159 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

253k Accesses

26 Citations

423 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Social policy

The gun debate in America is often framed as a stand-off between two immutable positions with little potential to move ahead with meaningful legislative reform. Attempts to resolve this impasse have been thwarted by thinking about gun ownership attitudes as based on rational choice economics instead of considering the broader socio-cultural meanings of guns. In this essay, an additional psychological perspective is offered that highlights how concerns about victimization and mass shootings within a shared culture of fear can drive cognitive bias and motivated reasoning on both sides of the gun debate. Despite common fears, differences in attitudes and feelings about guns themselves manifest in variable degrees of support for or opposition to gun control legislation that are often exaggerated within caricatured depictions of polarization. A psychological perspective suggests that consensus on gun legislation reform can be achieved through understanding differences and diversity on both sides of the debate, working within a common middle ground, and more research to resolve ambiguities about how best to minimize fear while maximizing personal and public safety.

Discounting risk

Do guns kill people or do people kill people? Answers to that riddle draw a bright line between two sides of a caricatured debate about guns in polarized America. One side believes that guns are a menace to public safety, while the other believes that they are an essential tool of self-preservation. One side cannot fathom why more gun control legislation has not been passed in the wake of a disturbing rise in mass shootings in the US and eyes Australia’s 1996 sweeping gun reform and New Zealand’s more recent restrictions with envy. The other, backed by the Constitutional right to bear arms and the powerful lobby of the National Rifle Association (NRA), fears the slippery slope of legislative change and refuses to yield an inch while threatening, “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands”. With the nation at an impasse, meaningful federal gun legislation aimed at reducing firearm violence remains elusive.

Despite the 1996 Dickey Amendment’s restriction of federal funding for research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Rostron, 2018 ), more than 30 years of public health research supports thinking of guns as statistically more of a personal hazard than a benefit. Case-control studies have repeatedly found that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of gun-related homicide or suicide occurring in the home (Kellermann and Reay, 1986 ; Kellermann et al., 1993 ; Cummings and Koepsell, 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ; Dahlberg et al., 2004 ; Hemenway, 2011 ; Anglemeyer et al., 2014 ). For homicides, the association is largely driven by gun-related violence committed by family members and other acquaintances, not strangers (Kellermann et al., 1993 , 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ).

If having a gun increases the risk of gun-related violent death in the home, why do people choose to own guns? To date, the prevailing answer from the public health literature has been seemingly based on a knowledge deficit model that assumes that gun owners are unaware of risks and that repeated warnings about “overwhelming evidence” of “the health risk of a gun in the home [being] greater than the benefit” (Hemenway, 2011 ) should therefore decrease gun ownership and increase support for gun legislation reform. And yet, the rate of US households with guns has held steady for two decades (Smith and Son, 2015 ) with owners amassing an increasing number of guns such that the total civilian stock has risen to some 265 million firearms (Azrael et al., 2017 ). This disparity suggests that the knowledge deficit model is inadequate to explain or modify gun ownership.

In contrast to the premise that people weigh the risks and benefits of their behavior based on “rational choice economics” (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ), nearly 50 years of psychology and behavioral economics research has instead painted a picture of human decision-making as a less than rational process based on cognitive short-cuts (“availability heuristics”) and other error-prone cognitive biases (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974 ; Kunda, 1990 ; Haselton and Nettle, 2006 ; Hibert, 2012 ). As a result, “consequentialist” approaches to promoting healthier choices are often ineffective. Following this perspective, recent public health efforts have moved beyond educational campaigns to apply an understanding of the psychology of risky behavior to strike a balance between regulation and behavioral “nudges” aimed at reducing harmful practices like smoking, unhealthy eating, texting while driving, and vaccine refusal (Atchley et al., 2011 ; Hansen et al., 2016 ; Matjasko et al., 2016 ; Pluviano et al., 2017 ).

A similar public health approach aimed at reducing gun violence should take into account how gun owners discount the risks of ownership according to cognitive biases and motivated reasoning. For example, cognitive dissonance may lead those who already own guns to turn a blind eye to research findings about the dangers of ownership. Optimism bias, the general tendency of individuals to overestimate good outcomes and underestimate bad outcomes, can likewise make it easy to disregard dangers by externalizing them to others. The risk of suicide can therefore be dismissed out of hand based on the rationale that “it will never happen to me,” while the risk of homicide can be discounted based on demographic factors. Kleck and Gertz ( 1998 ) noted that membership in street gangs and drug dealing might be important confounds of risk in case control studies, just as unsafe storage practices such as keeping a firearm loaded and unlocked may be another (Kellerman et al., 1993 ). Other studies have found that the homicide risk associated with guns in the home is greater for women compared to men and for non-whites compared to whites (Wiebe, 2003 ). Consequently, white men—by far the largest demographic that owns guns—might be especially likely to think of themselves as immune to the risks of gun ownership and, through confirmation bias, cherry-pick the data to support pre-existing intuitions and fuel motivated disbelief about guns. These testable hypotheses warrant examination in future research aimed at understanding the psychology of gun ownership and crafting public health approaches to curbing gun violence.

Still, while the role of cognitive biases should be integrated into a psychological understanding of attitudes towards gun ownership, cognitive biases are universal liabilities that fall short of explaining why some people might “employ” them as a part of motivated reasoning to support ownership or to oppose gun reform. To understand the underlying motivation that drives cognitive bias, a deeper analysis of why people own guns is required. In the introductory essay to this journal’s series on “What Guns Mean,” Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that public health efforts to reduce firearm ownership have failed to “address beliefs about guns among people who own them”. In a follow-up piece, Galea and Abdalla ( 2019 ) likewise suggested that the gun debate is complicated by the fact that “knowledge and values do not align” and that “these values create an impasse, one where knowing is not enough” (Galea and Abdalla, 2019 ). Indeed, these and other authors (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Braman and Kahan, 2006 ; Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ) have enumerated myriad beliefs and values, related to the different “symbolic lives” and “social meanings” of firearms both within and outside of “gun culture” that drive polarized attitudes towards gun ownership in the US. This essay attempts to further explore the meaning of guns from a psychological perspective.

Fear and gun ownership

Modern psychological understanding of human decision-making has moved beyond availability heuristics and cognitive biases to integrate the role of emotion and affect. Several related models including the “risk-as-feelings hypothesis” (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ), the “affect heuristic” (Slovic et al., 2007 ); and the “appraisal-tendency framework” (Lerner et al., 2015 ) illustrate how emotions can hijack rational-decision-making processes to the point of being the dominant influence on risk assessments. Research has shown that “perceived risk judgments”—estimates of the likelihood that something bad will happen—are especially hampered by emotion (Pachur et al., 2012 ) and that different types of affect can bias such judgments in different ways (Lerner et al., 2015 ). For example, fear can in particular bias assessments away from rational analysis to overestimate risks, as well as to perceive negative events as unpredictable (Lerner et al., 2015 ).

Although gun ownership is associated with positive feelings about firearms within “gun culture” (Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ; Metzl, 2019 ), most research comparing gun owners to non-gun owners suggests that ownership is rooted in fear. While long guns have historically been owned primarily for hunting and other recreational purposes, US surveys dating back to the 1990s have revealed that the most frequent reason for gun ownership and more specifically handgun ownership is self-protection (Cook and Ludwig, 1997 ; Azrael et al., 2017 ; Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Research has likewise shown that the decision to obtain a firearm is largely motivated by past victimization and/or fears of future victimization (Kleck et al., 2011 ; Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ).

A few studies have reported that handgun ownership is associated with past victimization, perceived risk of crime, and perceived ineffectiveness of police protection within low-income communities where these concerns may be congruent with real risks (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 , 2004 ). However, gun ownership tends to be lower in urban settings and in low-income families where there might be higher rates of violence and crime (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 ). Instead, the largest demographic of gun owners in the US are white men living in rural communities who are earning more than $100K/year (Azrael et al., 2017 ). Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) likewise reported that gun owners tend to have higher incomes and greater ratings of life happiness than non-owners. These findings suggest a mismatch between subjective fear and objective reality.

Stroebe and colleagues ( 2017 ) reported that the specific perceived risk of victimization and more “diffuse” fears that the world is a dangerous place are both independent predictors of handgun ownership, with perceived risk of assault associated with having been or knowing a victim of violent crime and belief in a dangerous world associated with political conservatism. These findings hint at the likelihood that perceived risk of victimization can be based on vicarious sources with a potential for bias, whether through actual known acquaintances or watching the nightly news, conducting a Google search or scanning one’s social media feed, or reading “The Armed Citizen” column in the NRA newsletter The American Rifleman . It also suggests that a general fear of crime, independent of actual or even perceived individual risk, may be a powerful motivator for gun ownership for some that might track with race and political ideology.

Several authors have drawn a connection between gun ownership and racial tensions by examining the cultural symbolism and socio-political meaning of guns. Bhatia ( 2019 ) detailed how the NRA’s “disinformation campaign reliant on fearmongering” is constructed around a narrative of “fear and identity politics” that exploits current xenophobic sentiments related to immigrants. Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that during the 1960s, conservatives were uncharacteristically in favor of gun control when armed resistance was promoted by Malcolm X, the Black Panther Party, and others involved in the Black Power Movement. Today, Metzl argues, “mainstream society reflexively codes white men carrying weapons in public as patriots, while marking armed black men as threats or criminals.” In support of this view, a 2013 study found that having a gun in the home was significantly associated with racism against black people as measured by the Symbolic Racism Scale, noting that “for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism, there was a 50% greater odds of having a gun in the home and a 28% increase in the odds of supporting permits to carry concealed handguns” (O’Brien et al., 2013 ). Hypothesizing that guns are a symbol of hegemonic masculinity that serves to “shore up white male privilege in society,” Stroud ( 2012 ) interviewed a non-random sample of 20 predominantly white men in Texas who had licenses for concealed handgun carry. The men described how guns help to fulfill their identities as protectors of their families, while characterizing imagined dangers with rhetoric suggesting specific fears about black criminals. These findings suggest that gun ownership among white men may be related to a collective identity as “good guys” protecting themselves against “bad guys” who are people of color, a premise echoed in the lay press with headlines like, “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?” (Smith, 2018 ), “Report: White Men Stockpile Guns Because They’re Afraid of Black People” (Harriott, 2018 ), and “Gun Rights Are About Keeping White Men on Top” (Wuertenberg, 2018 ).

Connecting the dots, the available evidence therefore suggests that for many gun owners, fears about victimization can result in confirmation, myside, and optimism biases that not only discount the risks of ownership, but also elevate the salience of perceived benefit, however remote, as it does when one buys a lottery ticket (Rogers and Webley, 2001 ). Indeed, among gun owners there is widespread belief that having a gun makes one safer, supported by published claims that where there are “more guns”, there is “less crime” (Lott, 1998 , 1999 ) as well as statistics and anecdotes about successful defensive gun use (DGU) (Kleck and Gertz, 1995 , 1998 ; Tark and Kleck, 2004 ; Cramer and Burnett, 2012 ). Suffice it to say that there have been numerous debates about how to best interpret this body of evidence, with critics claiming that “more guns, less crime” is a myth (Ayres and Donohue, 2003 ; Moyer, 2017 ) that has been “discredited” (Wintemute, 2008 ) and that the incidence of DGU has been grossly overestimated and pales in comparison to the risk of being threatened or harmed by a gun in the home (Hemenway, 1997 , 2011 ; Cook and Ludwig, 1998 ; Azrael and Hemenway, 2000 ; Hemenway et al., 2000 ). Attempts at objective analysis have concluded that surveys to date have defined and measured DGU inconsistently with unclear numbers of false positives and false negatives (Smith, 1997 ; McDowall et al., 2000 ; National Research Council, 2005 ; RAND, 2018 ), that the causal effects of DGU on reducing injury are “inconclusive” (RAND, 2018 ), and that “neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponent’s point of view” (Smith, 1997 ). With the scientific debate about DGU mirrored in the lay press (Defilippis and Hughes, 2015 ; Kleck, 2015 ; Doherty, 2015 ), a rational assessment of whether guns make owners safer is hampered by a lack of “settled science”. With no apparent consensus, motivated reasoning can pave the way to the nullification of opposing arguments in favor of personal opinions and ideological stances.

For gun owners, even if it is acknowledged that on average successful DGU is much less likely than a homicide or suicide in the home, not having a gun at all translates to zero chance of self-preservation, which are intolerable odds. The bottom line is that when gun owners believe that owning a gun will make them feel safer, little else may matter. Curiously however, there is conflicting evidence that gun ownership actually decreases fears of victimization (Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ; Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ). That gun ownership may not mitigate such fears could help to account for why some individuals go on to acquire multiple guns beyond their initial purchase with US gun owners possessing an average of 5 firearms and 8% of owners having 10 or more (Azrael et al., 2017 ).

Gun owner diversity

A psychological model of the polarized gun debate in America would ideally compare those for or against gun control legislation. However, research to date has instead focused mainly on differences between gun owners and non-gun owners, which has several limitations. For example, of the nearly 70% of Americans who do not own a gun, 36% report that they can see themselves owning one in the future (Pew Research Center, 2017 ) with 11.5% of all gun owners in 2015 having newly acquired one in the previous 5 years (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Gun ownership and non-ownership are therefore dynamic states that may not reflect static ideology. Personal accounts such as Willis’ ( 2010 ) article, “I Was Anti-gun, Until I Got Stalked,” illustrate this point well.

With existing research heavily reliant on comparing gun owners to non-gun owners, a psychological model of gun attitudes in the US will have limited utility if it relies solely on gun owner stereotypes based on their most frequent demographic characteristics. On the contrary, Hauser and Kleck ( 2013 ) have argued that “a more complete understanding of the relationship between fear of crime and gun ownership at the individual level is crucial”. Just so, looking more closely at the diversity of gun owners can reveal important details beyond the kinds of stereotypes that are often used to frame political debates.

Foremost, it must be recognized that not all gun owners are conservative white men with racist attitudes. Over the past several decades, women have comprised 9–14% of US gun owners with the “gender gap” narrowing due to decreasing male ownership (Smith and Son, 2015 ). A 2017 Pew Survey reported that 22% of women in the US own a gun and that female gun owners are just as likely as men to belong to the NRA (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Although the 36% rate of gun ownership among US whites is the highest for any racial demographic, 25% of blacks and 15% of Hispanics report owning guns with these racial groups being significantly more concerned than whites about gun violence in their communities and the US as a whole (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Providing a striking counterpoint to Stroud’s ( 2012 ) interviews of white gun owners in Texas, Craven ( 2017 ) interviewed 11 black gun owners across the country who offered diverse views on guns and the question of whether owning them makes them feel safer, including if confronted by police during a traffic stop. Kelly ( 2019 ) has similarly offered a self-portrait as a female “left-wing anarchist” against the stereotype of guns owners as “Republicans, racist libertarians, and other generally Constitution-obsessed weirdos”. She reminds us that, “there is also a long history of armed community self-defense among the radical left that is often glossed over or forgotten entirely in favor of the Fox News-friendly narrative that all liberals hate guns… when the cops and other fascists see that they’re not the only ones packing, the balance of power shifts, and they tend to reconsider their tactics”.

Although Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) concluded that “white men in economic distress find comfort in guns as a means to reestablish a sense of individual power and moral certitude,” their study results actually demonstrated that gun owners fall into distinguishable groups based on different levels of “moral and emotional empowerment” imparted by guns. For example, those with low levels of gun empowerment were more likely to be female and to own long guns for recreational purposes such as hunting and collecting. Other research has shown that the motivations to own a gun, and the degree to which gun ownership is related to fear and the desire for self-protection, also varies according to the type of gun (Stroebe et al., 2017 ). Owning guns, owning specific types of guns (e.g. handguns, long guns, and so-called “military style” semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s), carrying a gun in public, and keeping a loaded gun on one’s nightstand all have different psychological implications. A 2015 study reported that new gun owners were younger and more likely to identify as liberal than long-standing gun owners (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Although Kalesan et al. ( 2016 ) found that gun ownership is more likely among those living within a “gun culture” where ownership is prevalent, encouraged, and part of social life, it would therefore be a mistake to characterize gun culture as a monolith.

It would also be a mistake to equate gun ownership with opposition to gun legislation reform or vice-versa. Although some evidence supports a strong association (Wolpert and Gimpel, 1998 ), more recent studies suggest important exceptions to the rule. While only about 30% of the US population owns a gun, over 70% believes that most citizens should be able to legally own them (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Women tend to be more likely than men to support gun control, even when they are gun owners themselves (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Mencken and Froese, 2019 ). Older (age 70–79) Americans likewise have some of the highest rates of gun ownership, but also the highest rates of support for gun control (Pederson et al., 2015 ). In Mencken and Froese’s study ( 2019 ), most gun owners reporting lower levels of gun empowerment favored bans on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines and opposed arming teachers in schools. Kahan and Braman ( 2003 ) theorized that attitudes towards gun control are best understood according to a “cultural theory of risk”. In their study sample, those with “hierarchical” and “individualist” cultural orientations were more likely than those with “egalitarian” views to oppose gun control and these perspectives were more predictive than other variables including political affiliation and fear of crime.

In fact, both gun owners and non-owners report high degrees of support for universal background checks; laws mandating safe gun storage in households with children; and “red flag” laws restricting access to firearms for those hospitalized for mental illness or those otherwise at risk of harming themselves or others, those convicted of certain crimes including public display of a gun in a threatening manner, those subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and those on “no-fly” or other watch lists (Pew Research Center, 2017 ; Barry et al., 2018 ). According to a 2015 survey, the majority of the US public also opposes carrying firearms in public spaces with most gun owners opposing public carry in schools, college campuses, places of worship, bars, and sports stadiums (Wolfson et al., 2017 ). Despite broad public support for gun legislation reform however, it is important to recognize that the threat of gun restrictions is an important driver of gun acquisition (Wallace, 2015 ; Aisch and Keller, 2016 ). As a result, proposals to restrict gun ownership boosted gun sales considerably under the Obama administration (Depetris-Chauvin, 2015 ), whereas gun companies like Remington and United Sporting Companies have since filed for bankruptcy under the Trump administration.

A shared culture of fear

Developing a psychological understanding of attitudes towards guns and gun control legislation in the US that accounts for underlying emotions, motivated reasoning, and individual variation must avoid the easy trap of pathologizing gun owners and dismissing their fears as irrational. Instead, it should consider the likelihood that motivated reasoning underlies opinion on both sides of the gun debate, with good reason to conclude that fear is a prominent source of both “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” attitudes. Although the research on fear and gun ownership summarized above implies that non-gun owners are unconcerned about victimization, a closer look at individual study data reveals both small between-group differences and significant within-group heterogeneity. For example, Stroebe et al.’s ( 2017 ) findings that gun owners had greater mean ratings of belief in a dangerous world, perceived risk of victimization, and the perceived effectiveness of owning a gun for self-defense were based on inter-group differences of <1 point on a 7-point Likert scale. Fear of victimization is therefore a universal fear for gun owners and non-gun owners alike, with important differences in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of those fears. Kahan and Braham ( 2003 ) noted that the gun debate is not so much a debate about the personal risks of gun ownership, as it is a one about which of two potential fears is most salient—that of “firearm casualties in a world with insufficient gun control or that of personal defenselessness in a world with excessive control”.

Although this “shared fear” hypothesis has not been thoroughly tested in existing research, there is general support for it based on evidence that fear is an especially potent influence on risk assessment and decision-making when considering low-frequency catastrophic events (Chanel et al., 2009 ). In addition, biased risk assessments have been linked to individual feelings about a specific activity. Whereas many activities in the real world have both high risk and high benefit, positive attitudes about an activity are associated with biased judgments of low risk and high benefit while negative attitudes are associated with biased judgments of high risk and low benefit (Slovic et al., 2007 ). These findings match those of the gun debate, whereby catastrophic events like mass shootings can result in “probability neglect,” over-estimating the likelihood of risk (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ) with polarized differences regarding guns as a root cause and gun control as a viable solution. For those that have positive feelings about guns and their perceived benefit, the risk of gun ownership is minimized as discussed above. However, based on findings from psychological research on fear (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ; Slovic et al., 2007 ), the reverse is also likely to be true—those with negative feelings about guns who perceive little benefit to ownership may tend to over-estimate risks. Consistent with this dichotomy, both calls for legislative gun reform, as well as gun purchases increase in the wake of mass shootings (Wallace, 2015 ; Wozniak, 2017 ), with differences primarily predicted by the relative self-serving attributional biases of gun ownership and non-ownership alike (Joslyn and Haider-Markel, 2017 ).

Psychological research has shown that fear is associated with loss of control, with risks that are unfamiliar and uncontrollable perceived as disproportionately dangerous (Lerner et al., 2015 ; Sunstein, 2003 ). Although mass shootings have increased in recent years, they remain extremely rare events and represent a miniscule proportion of overall gun violence. And yet, as acts of terrorism, they occur in places like schools that are otherwise thought of as a suburban “safe spaces,” unlike inner cities where violence is more mundane, and are often given sensationalist coverage in the media. A 2019 Harris Poll found that 79% of Americans endorse stress as a result of the possibility of a mass shooting, with about a third reporting that they “cannot go anywhere without worrying about being a victim” (American Psychological Association, 2019 ). While some evidence suggests that gun owners may be more concerned about mass shootings than non-gun owners (Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ), this is again a quantitative difference as with fear of victimization more generally. There is little doubt that parental fears about children being victims of gun violence were particularly heightened in the wake of Columbine (Altheide, 2019 ) and it is likely that subsequent school shootings at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Stoneman Douglas High have been especially impactful in the minds of those calling for increasing restrictions on gun ownership. For those privileged to be accustomed to community safety who are less worried about home invasion and have faith in the police to provide protection, fantasizing about “gun free zones” may reflect a desire to recreate safe spaces in the wake of mass shootings that invoke feelings of loss of control.

Altheide ( 2019 ) has argued that mass shootings in the US post-Columbine have been embedding within a larger cultural narrative of terrorism, with “expanded social control and policies that helped legitimate the war on terror”. Sunstein and Zeckhauser ( 2011 ) have similarly noted that following terrorist attacks, the public tends to demand responses from government, favoring precautionary measures that are “not justified by any plausible analysis of expected utility” and over-estimating potential benefits. However, such responses may not only be ineffective, but potentially damaging. For example, although collective anxieties in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in the rapid implementation of new screening procedures for boarding airplanes, it has been argued that the “theater” of response may have done well to decrease fear without any evidence of actual effectiveness in reducing danger (Graham, 2019 ) while perhaps even increasing overall mortality by avoiding air travel in favor of driving (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ).

As with the literature on DGU, the available evidence supporting the effectiveness of specific gun laws in reducing gun violence is less than definitive (Koper et al., 2004 ; Hahn et al., 2005 ; Lee et al., 2017 ; Webster and Wintemute, 2015 ), leaving the utility of gun reform legislation open to debate and motivated reasoning. Several authors have argued that even if proposed gun control measures are unlikely to deter mass shooters, “doing something is better than nothing” (Fox and DeLateur, 2014 ) and that ineffective counter-terrorism responses are worthwhile if they reduce public fear (Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ). Crucially however, this perspective fails to consider the impact of gun control legislation on the fears of those who value guns for self-protection. For them, removing guns from law-abiding “good guys” while doing nothing to deter access to the “bad guys” who commit crimes is illogical anathema. Gun owners and gun advocates likewise reject the concept of “safe spaces” and regard the notion of “gun free zones” as a liability that invites rather than prevents acts of terrorism. In other words, gun control proposals designed to decrease fear have the opposite of their intended effect on those who view guns as symbols of personal safety, increasing rather than decreasing their fears independently of any actual effects on gun violence. Such policies are therefore non-starters, and will remain non-starters, for the sizeable proportion of Americans who regard guns as essential for self-preservation.

In 2006, Braman and Kahan noted that “the Great American Gun Debate… has convulsed the national polity for the better part of four decades without producing results satisfactory to either side” and argued that consequentialist arguments about public health risks based on cost–benefit analysis are trumped by the cultural meanings of guns to the point of being “politically inert” (Braman and Kahan, 2006 ). More than a decade later, that argument is iterated in this series on “What Guns Mean”. In this essay, it is further argued that persisting debates about the effectiveness of DGU and gun control legislation are at their heart trumped by shared concerns about personal safety, victimization, and mass shootings within a larger culture of fear, with polarized opinions about how to best mitigate those fears that are determined by the symbolic, cultural, and personal meanings of guns and gun ownership.

Coming full circle to the riddle, “Do guns kill people or do people kill people?”, a psychologically informed perspective rejects the question as a false dichotomy that can be resolved by the statement, “people kill people… with guns”. It likewise suggests a way forward by acknowledging both common fears and individual differences beyond the limited, binary caricature of the gun debate that is mired in endless arguments over disputed facts. For meaningful legislative change to occur, the debate must be steered away from its portrayal as two immutable sides caught between not doing anything on the one hand and enacting sweeping bans or repealing the 2nd Amendment on the other. In reality, public attitudes towards gun control are more nuanced than that, with support or opposition to specific gun control proposals predicted by distinct psychological and cultural factors (Wozniak, 2017 ) such that achieving consensus may prove less elusive than is generally assumed. Accordingly, gun reform proposals should focus on “low hanging fruit” where there is broad support such as requiring and enforcing universal background checks, enacting “red flag” laws balanced by guaranteeing gun ownership rights to law-abiding citizens, and implementing public safety campaigns that promote safe firearm handling and storage. Finally, the Dickey Amendment should be repealed so that research can inform public health interventions aimed at reducing gun violence and so that individuals can replace motivated reasoning with evidence-based decision-making about personal gun ownership and guns in society.

Aisch G, Keller J (2016). What happens after calls for new gun restrictions? Sales go up. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

Altheide DL (2019) The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. Am Behav Sci 52:1354–1370

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association (2019). One-third of US adults say fear of mass shootings prevents them from going to certain places or events. Press release, 15 August 2019. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/fear-mass-shooting . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Anglemeyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G (2014) The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Int Med 160:101–110

Google Scholar  

Atchley P, Atwood S, Boulton A (2011) The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude. Accid Anal Prev 43:134–142

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ayres I, Donohue III JJ (2003) Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Stanf Law Rev 55:1193–1312

Azrael D, Hemenway D (2000) ‘In the safety of your own home’: results from a national survey on gun use at home. Soc Sci Med 50:285–291

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, Miller M (2017) The stock and flow of U.S. firearms: results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. Russell Sage Found J Soc Sci 3:38–57

Barry CL, Webster DW, Stone E, Crifasi CK, Vernick JS, McGinty EE (2018) Public support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. Am J Public Health 108:878–881

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bhatia R (2019). Guns, lies, and fear: exposing the NRA’s messaging playbook. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/04/24/468951/guns-lies-fear/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Braman D, Kahan DM (2006) Overcoming the fear of guns, the fear of gun control, and the fear of cultural politics: constructing a better gun debate. Emory Law J 55:569–607

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1997). Guns in America: National survey on private ownership and use of firearms. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Chanel O, Chichilnisky G(2009) The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence. J Risk Uncertain 39(3):271–298

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1998) Defensive gun use: new evidence from a national survey. J Quant Criminol 14:111–131

Cramer CE, Burnett D (2012). Tough targets: when criminals face armed resistance from citizens. Cato Institute https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Craven J (2017). Why black people own guns. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-gun-ownership_n_5a33fc38e4b040881bea2f37 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Cummings P, Koepsell TD (1998) Does owning a firearm increase or decrease the risk of death? JAMA 280:471–473

Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow M (2004) Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol 160:929–936

Defilippis E, Hughes D (2015). The myth behind defensive gun ownership: guns are more likely to do harm than good. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Depetris-Chauvin E (2015) Fear of Obama: an empirical study of the demand for guns and the U.S. 2008 presidential election. J Pub Econ 130:66–79

Doherty B (2015). How to count the defensive use of guns: neither survey calls nor media and police reports capture the importance of private gun ownership. Reason. https://reason.com/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Dowd-Arrow B, Hill TD, Burdette AM (2019) Gun ownership and fear. SSM Pop Health 8:100463

Fox JA, DeLateur MJ (2014) Mass shootings in America: moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Stud 18:125–145

Galea S, Abdalla SM (2019) The public’s health and the social meaning of guns. Palgrave Comm 5:111

Graham DA. The TSA doesn’t work—and never has. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa-doesnt-work-and-maybe-it-doesnt-matter/394673/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Hahn RA, Bilukha O, Crosby A, Fullilove MT, Liberman A, Moscicki E, Synder S, Tuma F, Briss PA, Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2005) Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 28:40–71

Hansen PG, Skov LR, Skov KL (2016) Making healthy choices easier: regulation versus nudging. Annu Rev Public Health 37:237–51

Harriott M (2018). Report: white men stockpile guns because they’re afraid of black people. The Root. https://www.theroot.com/report-white-men-stockpile-guns-because-they-re-afraid-1823779218 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Haselton MG, Nettle D (2006) The paranoid optimist: an integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10:47–66

Hauser W, Kleck G (2013) Guns and fear: a one-way street? Crime Delinquency 59:271–291

Hemenway (1997) Survey research and self-defense gun use: an explanation of extreme overestimates. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1430–1445

Hemenway D, Azrael D, Miller M (2000) Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys. Inj Prev 6:263–267

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hemenway D (2011) Risks and benefits of a gun in the home. Am J Lifestyle Med 5:502–511

Hibert M (2012) Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychol Bull 138:211–237

Joslyn MR, Haider-Markel DP (2017) Gun ownership and self-serving attributions for mass shooting tragedies. Soc Sci Quart 98:429–442

Kahan DM, Braman D (2003) More statistics, less persuasion: a cultural theory of gun-risk perceptions. Univ Penn Law Rev 151:1291–1327

Kalesan B, Villarreal MD, Keyes KM, Galea S (2016) Gun ownership and social gun culture. Inj Prev 22:216–220

Kellermann AL, Reay DT (1986) Protection or peril? An analysis of fire-arm related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 314:1557–1560

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, Banton JG, Reay DT, Francisco JT, Locci A, Prodzinski J, Hackman BB, Somes G (1993) Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 329:1084–1091

Kellerman AL, Somes G, Rivara F, Lee R, Banton J (1998) Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 45:263–267

Kelly K (2019) I’m a left-wing anarchist. Guns aren’t just for right-wingero. Vox. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/7/1/18744204/guns-gun-control-anarchism . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G (2015) Defensive gun use is not a myth: why my critics still have it wrong. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G, Kovandzic T, Saber M, Hauser W (2011) The effect of perceived risk and victimization on plans to purchase a gun for self-protection. J Crim Justice 39:312–319

Kleck G, Gertz M (1995) Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. J Crim Law Criminol 86:150–187

Kleck G, Gertz M (1998) Carrying guns for protection: results from the national self-defense survey. J Res Crime Delinquency 35:193–224

Koper CS, Woods DJ, Roth JA (2004) An updated assessment of the federal assault weapons ban: impacts on gun markets and gun violence, 1994–2003. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108:480–498

Lee LK, Fleegler EW, Farrell C, Avakame E, Srinivasan S, Hemenway D, Monuteaux MC (2017) Firearm laws and firearm homicides: a systematic review. JAMA Int Med 177:106–119

Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol 66:799–823

Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286

Lott JR (1998) More guns, less crime. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lott JR (1999) More guns, less crime: a response to Ayres and Donohue. Yale Law & Economics Research paper no. 247 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Matjasko JL, Cawley JH, Baker-Goering M, Yokum DV (2016) Applying behavioral economics to public health policy: illustrative examples and promising directions. Am J Prev Med 50:S13–S19

McDowall D, Loftin C, Presser S (2000) Measuring civilian defensive firearm use: a methodological experiment. J Quant Criminol 16:1–19

Mencken FC, Froese P (2019) Gun culture in action. Soc Prob 66:3–27

Metzl J (2019) What guns mean: the symbolic lives of firearms. Palgrave Comm 5:35

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Moyer MW (2017). More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows. Sci Am https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

National Research Council (2005) Firearms and violence: a critical review. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

O’Brien K, Forrest W, Lynott D, Daly M (2013) Racism, gun ownership and gun control: Biased attitudes in US whites may influence policy decisions. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77552

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pachur T, Hertwig R, Steinmann F (2012) How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? J Exp Psychol Appl 18:314–330

Pederson J, Hall TL, Foster B, Coates JE (2015) Gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control in older adults: reexamining self interest theory. Am J Soc Sci Res 1:273–281

Pew Research Center (2017) America’s complex relationship with guns. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/Guns-Report-FOR-WEBSITE-PDF-6-21.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pierre JM (2015) The psychology of guns. Psych Unseen. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-guns . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Salla S (2017) Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 23(7):e0811640

RAND (2018) The challenges of defining and measuring defensive gun use. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Rogers P, Webley P (2001) “It could be us!”: cognitive and social psychological factors in UK National Lottery play. Appl Psychol Int Rev 50:181–199

Rostron A (2018) The Dickey Amendment on federal funding for research on gun violence: a legal discussion. Am J Public Health 108:865–867

Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352

Smith TW (1997) A call for a truce in the DGU war. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1462–1469

Smith JA (2018) Why are white men stockpiling guns? Sci Am Blogs. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Smith TW, Son J (2015). General social survey final report: Trends in gun ownership in the United States, 1972–2014. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Stroebe W, Leander NP, Kruglanski AW (2017) Is it a dangerous world out there? The motivational biases of American gun ownership. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 43:1071–1085

Stroud A (2012) Good guys with guns: hegemonic masculinity and concealed handguns. Gend Soc 26:216–238

Sunstein CR (2003) Terrorism and probability neglect. J Risk Uncertain 26:121–136

Sunstein CR, Zeckhauser R (2011) Overreaction to fearsome risks. Environ Resour Econ 48:435–449

Tark J, Kleck G (2004) Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes. Criminol 42:861–909

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2000) The impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping firearms for protection and unsafe gun-storage practices” A review and analysis with policy recommendations. Urban Educ 35:496–510

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2004) Risky firearms behavior in low-income families of elementary school children: the impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping and storing firearms. J Fam Violence 19:175–184

Wallace LN (2015) Responding to violence with guns: mass shootings and gun acquisition. Soc Sci J 52:156–167

Webster DW, Wintemute GJ (2015) Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Ann Rev Public Health 36:21–37

Wertz J, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Sorenson S, Miller M (2018) Differences between new and long-standing US gun owners: results from a National Survey. Am J Public Health 108:871–877

Wiebe DJ (2003) Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med 47:771–782

Willis J (2010). I was anti-gun, until I got stalked. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2010/10/21/buying_gun_protect_from_stalker/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Wintemute GJ (2008) Guns, fear, the constitution, and the public’s health. N. Engl J Med 358:1421–1424

Wolfson JA, Teret SP, Azrael D, Miller M (2017) US public opinion on carrying firearms in public places. Am J Public Health 107:929–937

Wolpert RM, Gimpel JG (1998) Self-interest, symbolic politics, and public attitudes toward gun control. Polit Behav 20:241–262

Wozniak KH (2017) Public opinion about gun control post-Sandy Hook. Crim Just Pol Rev 28:255–278

Wuertenberg N (2018). Gun rights are about keeping white men on top. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/09/gun-rights-are-about-keeping-white-men-on-top . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, USA

Joseph M. Pierre

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph M. Pierre .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pierre, J.M. The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning. Palgrave Commun 5 , 159 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Download citation

Received : 30 July 2019

Accepted : 27 November 2019

Published : 10 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Packing heat: on the affective incorporation of firearms.

• Jussi A. Saarinen

Topoi (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Uvalde elementary school shooting

12 stats to help inform the gun control debate.

Britt Cheng

Gun control advocates hold signs during a protest at Discovery Green across from the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Friday in Houston, Texas. Eric Thayer/Getty Images hide caption

Gun control advocates hold signs during a protest at Discovery Green across from the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Friday in Houston, Texas.

The nationwide gun control debate resurfaced on Tuesday, after an 18-year-old shooter entered Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and killed 19 students and two adults in the second deadliest school shooting in U.S. history . The mass shooting came just 10 days after another 18-year-old gunman opened fire at a Buffalo, N.Y. grocery store , killing 10 people and injuring three others.

In the aftermath, prominent voices have urged Congress to pass gun control laws and universal background checks, from Sen. Chris Murphy , who represents Connecticut where the Sandy Hook school shooting happened, to NBA coach Steve Kerr to the Pope . Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers said they won't back laws that limit gun rights.

The evolving narrative of what happened in the Uvalde shooting

While the push for accountability intensifies as details emerge from what happened in the hour after police officers arrived at the shooting up until they killed the gunman, let's look at these statistics that help inform the gun control debate in the United States.

Number of people killed by guns in the U.S., every day

Number of children who die every day from gun violence in the U.S.

School shootings since Sandy Hook , including 27 school shootings so far this year.

Peak ages for violent offending with firearms

Number of AR-15s and its variations in circulation

Number of people who will die after attempting suicide with a gun

Percentage of mass shooters who are men

Percentage of gun owners who favor preventing the "mentally ill" from purchasing guns

Percentage of gun owners who favor background checks at private sales and gun shows

Percentage of gun deaths that are suicides; 43% are murders

Percentage of murders that involved a firearm

Percentage of people who defended themselves with their guns in violent crimes

Did you know we tell audio stories, too? Listen to our podcasts like No Compromise, our Pulitzer-prize winning investigation into the gun rights debate, on Apple Podcasts and Spotify .

• Share full article

Stop It With ‘Gun Control.’ Enough Already.

Language matters. This language doesn’t help.

  Credit... Ben Wiseman

Supported by

By Frank Bruni

Opinion Columnist

• March 27, 2021

The words tumbled readily from Josh Hawley’s lips as he argued for doing little in the wake of the Atlanta and Boulder, Colo. , massacres.

That’s reason enough not to let them tumble from the rest of ours.

They were Tom Cotton’s chosen term for the laws that reasonable Americans are calling for and that he, in all his trademark compassion, opposes. That makes me triply determined to latch on to different language — and to urge other journalists to do the same.

I’m talking about “gun control,” a phrase whose day should be done. Its day is done, to judge by many prominent Democratic politicians, who have rightly recognized the prejudicial aspect of “control,” with its ring of repression, and moved away from it. You don’t hear Joe Biden talking about “gun control,” not anymore. The same holds true for other Democrats urging “gun safety,” a preferable coinage, if not a perfect one.

But “gun control” still appears frequently in this newspaper, in The Washington Post, on the CNN website and throughout the news media. It remains as pervasive as guns themselves. It was there — “gun control,” just like that — in the first question put to Biden on Thursday during his first full-fledged news conference as president. And in the second question. And in yet another question later on. It’s like some reflex we can’t shake, a tic we can’t trick.

Or maybe we just don’t care to. There’s an argument for “gun control,” absolutely. It’s accurate: The legislation in question entails more government control over who can purchase guns and when and how. “Gun control” is probably the most instantly and widely recognized shorthand for the debate over such laws, and journalism depends on verbal economy, my own columns notwithstanding.

But it’s off key. It’s unhelpful. And it’s an example of the loaded language that often shapes our discourse on important matters.

Is vocabulary destiny? It certainly plays its part. I don’t think “gun control” is the main thing standing in the way of additional measures to protect Americans from gun violence and to diminish the number and near-instant availability of guns in a country crazily saturated with them . But how we write and talk about this issue is inevitably consequential.

How we write and talk about any issue that engenders passionate disagreement is.

Remember “death panels”? That was the chillingly worded — and wildly inaccurate — specter with which Sarah Palin and many other Republicans whipped up alarm over the Affordable Care Act. The mainstream media avoided the expression, except to note its audacity and challenge it , but it circulated widely and with blunt effect.

Talking about some immigrants as “illegal aliens” or “illegals” casts them in a dehumanizing, sinister light. Calling them “undocumented” doesn’t. That’s why Americans of divergent bents diverge in their language .

“Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are ideologically stacked labels, with currency for that reason. “Gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage” morphed into “marriage equality” among many of its supporters, who wanted to make clear that they weren’t proposing some special or separate right but addressing an injustice. At various points along the way, their opponents waved the banner of “family values,” with its ludicrous assertion that one group of committed relationships was somehow anti-family.

The verbiage attending the battle over gun laws has a similarly fraught history. Robert Spitzer, a professor at SUNY Cortland who has written five books on gun policy, told me that the phrase “gun control” goes back more than a half-century. It’s present, he pointed out, in the very name of a law passed after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Gun Control Act of 1968 .

And it seemed relatively anodyne in the absence of a lobby against gun regulations as well organized and funded as the one that exists today. “There were thousands of gun laws of every imaginable variety” for hundreds of years, Spitzer said. “Only recently has it been thrown into reverse.”

In the 1970s, he said, people opposed to new and even existing restrictions on firearms began to talk about them “in apocalyptic terms,” with “the imagery of jackbooted thugs coming to your door.” They cast their fight against that in terms of liberty. “It was freedom-loving Americans versus the gun grabbers,” he said.

The war of words went both ways. Spitzer noted that in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration was promoting legislation to prevent gun violence, Clinton spoke of “child-safety locks” on guns, though those locks weren’t exclusively for the protection of kids.

Subsequently, more and more proponents of better gun laws came to the conclusion that “gun control” might be hurting their cause.

About two decades ago, the advocacy group Handgun Control Inc., which had begun in the 1970s as the National Council to Control Handguns, formally changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It’s now just Brady. (Brady refers to Jim Brady, who was shot during an assassination attempt against President Ronald Reagan, and Brady’s wife, Sarah.)

And that was part of a march toward “safety.”

“If you’re a person who doesn’t want to see our gun laws change, it makes sense that you would evoke the rhetoric of ‘gun control,’ especially in a place like America, where individual freedom is so celebrated,” said Jonathon Schuldt, an associate professor at Cornell University whose expertise includes the role of language in opinion making. “It’s much harder to justify being against ‘safety’ than it is to justify being against ‘control.’”

Schuldt told me that over the past few years, he has noticed yet another shift in the language used by advocates with groups like Brady and like Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization born in 2013 from the joined forces of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. (Notice the intentionality behind all of these organizations’ names, not one of which includes the word “control.”)

“If you look around the time of Parkland in 2018,” he said, referring to the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., “you see an increase in people talking about ‘common-sense gun reform.’ Who’s against common sense?”

I asked him how much time he had. The list is long.

I asked Spitzer if “gun control” was so ingrained, so automatic, so generic at this point that it was ipso facto neutral and not a problem.

“I used to say that I study gun control,” he told me. “Now I say I study gun policy. I’m confessing to you — for attribution, I suppose — that I’ve changed the way I describe myself.” And while part of that, he said, is about accuracy — he’s interested in all gun policy, permissive as well as restrictive — part of it is the search for “a less loaded term.”

If Spitzer is doing it, why can’t we?

By “we” I mean the mainstream media, and by “we” I mean me.

I’ve inadvertently used “gun control” in several columns over the past two years. In my weekly newsletter several days ago , I wrote “more stringent firearm restrictions” in its stead. I was steering clear of “gun control” only to land in another ditch by the side of the road.

Stringent ? Restrictions ? Unduly negative, especially for an opinion columnist with more license to use the language of his choice.

“Safety” is accurate but bland, so I’m in the market for a snazzier vocabulary. All suggestions welcome.

I invite you to sign up for my free weekly email newsletter . You can follow me on Twitter ( @FrankBruni ).

Frank Bruni has been with The Times since 1995 and held a variety of jobs — including White House reporter, Rome bureau chief and chief restaurant critic — before becoming a columnist in 2011. He is the author of three best-selling books.  @ FrankBruni • Facebook

Advertisement

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Gun control does not prevent violence (from violence: opposing viewpoints, p 267-273, 1996, david bender, et al, eds. - - see ncj-159343), additional details.

P.O. Box 9187 , Farmington Hills , MI 48333-9187 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

30+ Free Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you looking for inspiration for your persuasive essay about gun control? You are at the right place!

Gun control is a controversial but common topic for students. But with so many arguments on both sides, students often find it challenging.

However, reading some sample essays can be a good start! 

This blog provides several example essays on the topic of gun control that you can read for inspiration. Moreover, you'll get tips to help you craft your own persuasive essay about the topic.

So let’s get started!

• 1. Persuasive Essay Examples on Gun Control 
• 2. Persuasive Essay Against Gun Control
• 3. Persuasive Essay on Pro-Gun Control
• 4. Argumentative Essay About Gun Control
• 5. Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay
• 6. Persuasive Essay Topics about Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples on Gun Control 

Start with these general persuasive essay samples on gun control. They will help you understand what makes a good gun control essay.

Check out these examples:

Persuasive Essay about Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples Gun Control

Want persuasive examples on other topics? Check out our persuasive essay examples blog to find samples on a variety of topics.

Persuasive Essay Against Gun Control

Check out these few examples of anti-gun control essays. These will help you understand the arguments of those who are against gun control.

Why Gun Control is Bad

Argumentative Essay Against Gun Control

Check out this short video below on the pros and cons of gun control to find good arguments for both sides.

Persuasive Essay on Pro-Gun Control

Some people believe that stricter gun control laws should be a priority to prevent gun violence. Here are some examples that will introduce you to their arguments in detail.

Why We Need Gun Control Essay

The Pros of Gun Control Essay

Free Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

An argumentative essay about gun control is a paper that looks at both sides of the debate on this important issue. The goal is to make sure that you can support your position with facts, figures, and logical arguments.

Read these argumentative essay examples about gun control to see how it's done!

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay

Now that you have read some good examples of persuasive essays about gun control, it's time for you to start writing your own paper.

But how exactly do you write a good essay by yourself? Here are some steps you should follow:

Step 1- Research the Topic

Before you start writing your essay, it’s important to do some research on gun control.

Read up on the different arguments and viewpoints on the issue to get a better understanding of what you are discussing. Gather as many facts and evidence as you need.

Make sure to take notes, so you can cite anything you use later.

Step 2- Make an Outline

Having a persuasive essay outline will help you stay organized and on track.

Start by making an outline of the main points you want to discuss in your essay. Then, break it down into subsections with specific facts and arguments.

In short, make sure to create a clear structure for your essay.

Step 3- Take a Stance

After doing your research, decide which side of the debate you agree with. Choose one side of the debate. Decide if you're going to argue for or against gun control. Make sure to choose an opinion that you can defend with logical arguments. Moreover, stay consistent throughout your paper about your stance.

Step 4- Support Your Arguments

When making your arguments, make sure to back them up with evidence. Use data, statistics, and quotes from experts to strengthen your points. In addition, you should use rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your essay more effective.

Step 5- Address the Opposition  

Make sure to address any counterarguments that you come across while researching or writing your essay. This will show your readers that you have done your research and considered both sides of the argument.

Step  6- Proofread and Revise

Before submitting your paper, make sure to proofread for any mistakes or typos. Having a second pair of eyes look over your work can help catch any errors that you may have missed.

Take your time to revise and edit your essay. Make sure that each point is clearly laid out and supported with facts, figures, and logic. This is important to make sure that the essay is compelling and error-free!

Persuasive Essay Topics about Gun Control

Wondering which gun topic you should write about? Here are a few persuasive essay topics related to gun control that you can choose.

• The Impact of Stricter Gun Control Laws on Reducing Gun Violence
• The Role of Background Checks in Preventing Firearms Access for Criminals
• Mental Health and Gun Control: Addressing the Connection
• Gun Control vs. Second Amendment Rights: Finding a Balance
• The Necessity of Banning Assault Weapons for Public Safety
• Why Gun Control Won’t End School Shootings
• The Influence of Lobbying Groups like the NRA on Gun Control Policies
• The International Perspective: Comparing Gun Control Measures in Different Countries
• How Can Gun Control Help Suicide Prevention
• The Economics of Gun Control: Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Stricter Regulations

Want persuasive topics on other subjects? Check out our list of 200+ engaging and interesting persuasive essay topics to get topic ideas.

To sum it up for you,

Gun control is an important issue that needs to be discussed in our society. The example essays in this blog have helped to show different arguments for and against gun control. In addition, you got some useful steps on how to write a persuasive essay about this topic.

Whether you are for or against gun control, make sure to conduct thorough research and use evidence when writing your paper.

So keep these steps in mind and start writing your own gun control essay today!

If you need further help with your essay on gun control, don't worry! 

Our essay help online can provide you with high-quality custom papers. We have experienced and professional writers who know what it takes to write a powerful persuasive piece!

So, hire our persuasive essay writing service now!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Gun Control.

In this section.

• Faculty Publications
• Publications by Centers & Initiatives
• Student Publications

HKS Authors

See citation below for complete author information.

Curious Historian

Undeniable Proof That Gun Control Doesn't Work

Posted: May 12, 2024 | Last updated: May 12, 2024

Gun ownership

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, has been a subject of debate due to its somewhat ambiguous language, particularly the reference to a "well-regulated Militia" and the right of the people to "keep and bear Arms."   

Over time, the emphasis on individual gun ownership has overshadowed the initial focus on the role of a well-regulated militia and the safeguarding of a free state. This shift has prompted extensive discussions on the original intent of the amendment and the evolving societal context in which it is applied.  

Improve safety

While promoted as a method to improve safety, gun control measures can transform into instruments of tyranny. During the events of 1911, the Ottoman Empire utilized gun registration as a tactic to disarm Armenians prior to executing the Armenian Genocide. The disarmed Armenians were left defenseless and faced brutal death marches and widespread killings, leading to the tragic loss of 1.5 million lives.  

Under the rule of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union enforced laws to eliminate private gun possession, contributing to the deaths of around 20 million individuals. The confiscation of guns, facilitated by compulsory registration, was a significant factor in this horrific tragedy.  

Jewish individuals

During the era of Nazi Germany, gun control legislation specifically aimed at Jewish individuals resulted in the confiscation of their firearms. Subsequently, they were subjected to forced labor camps and systematic extermination, leading to the tragic deaths of approximately 6 million Jews.  

Political authority

Under Mao Zedong's leadership in China, the population was disarmed, centralizing all political authority within the Communist Party. As a consequence, millions of Chinese citizens fell victim to government atrocities, highlighting the perils associated with a disarmed society.  

Rise in violence

Hugo Chávez in Venezuela enforced gun control policies that resulted in the seizure of firearms and a rise in violence. The disarmed population was powerless against government suppression, ultimately contributing to the nation's economic downfall and erosion of civil rights.  

Contentious debate

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has been at the center of a long-standing and contentious debate regarding its proper definition, implementation, and the resulting impact on gun policy in the country. The amendment, which addresses the right to bear arms, has undergone significant interpretation and judicial scrutiny, leading to a series of landmark decisions that have shaped the landscape of gun ownership, legislation, and public discourse.   

Pivotal moment

The landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2007 marked a pivotal moment in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed an individual's right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, setting a precedent that was later expanded to the states in the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision in 2010.   

Rights and restrictions

These rulings, combined with subsequent legal challenges, have significantly influenced the scope of gun rights and restrictions in the United States, contributing to a surge in gun purchases and a rise in gun-related deaths.  

Posed challenges

The upholding of gun rights by the courts, coupled with the influential role of organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), has posed challenges to the implementation of gun control measures.   

Efforts to enact

Efforts to enact universal background checks, restrict military-style weapons, and impose age requirements for gun ownership have encountered obstacles, despite widespread public support for such reforms.   

Mass shootings

The prevalence of gun-related deaths, mass shootings, and the unique gun culture in the United States has fueled calls for comprehensive gun policy reform, emphasizing the need for responsible ownership, safety measures, and stringent regulations.  

Subject of contention

As the debate over the Second Amendment continues, the prospects for enacting "common sense gun reform" that promotes safety without compromising individual rights remain a subject of contention. Advocates of reform emphasize the importance of measures such as universal background checks, mental health evaluations for prospective gun purchasers, and safety locks on firearms.   

Substantive changes

However, the political landscape and entrenched gun culture present formidable obstacles to achieving substantive changes in gun policy, raising concerns about the ongoing impact of gun-related tragedies on American society.

More for You

Tony McFarr, Chris Pratt's Stunt Double in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy 2' and ‘Jurassic World' Movies, Dies at 47

Joe Biden's Executive Privilege Move Sparks Backlash

After Adobe collapse, Figma deal allows employees to sell shares at $12.5 billion valuation

Noem banned by seventh Native American tribe

Beyoncé Is a Total Bombshell in a Ruched Dress With a Gaping Bust Cutout

Under Armour is laying off workers as retailer says North America sales will plunge this year

Netflix Has Finally Made An Announcement About The Future Of 3 Body Problem

Archaeologists Found a Family’s 3 Ancient Tombs Filled to the Brim With Treasure

Radio-Wave Weapon Could Be 'Game Changer' Against Drones

The nervous system disorder that is being linked to long COVID now

Billionaires Jamie Dimon and Ray Dalio sound the alarm on soaring US government debt

Style from the Cannes red carpet

Prime Video Thrills: 25 Series That Will Keep You Hooked

The US Navy's only forward-deployed aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan, is leaving Japan after nearly a decade in the Pacific

Hakeem Jeffries Calls Out Speaker Mike Johnson Over Missing Jan. 6 Plaque

Paramount+ is releasing a documentary about the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack

Three Tax Refunds That Are Raising Alarms With IRS

‘Young Sheldon' Series Finale Breakdown: Why Jim Parsons and Mayim Bialik Became a Bigger Part of the Ending, Reba's Return and When the Spinoff Will Pick Up

How to know when it’s time to walk away from a sibling

Nuggets plan to continue excluding Aaron Gordon from team dinners amid playoff winning streak