Gun Control Essay: Example and Tips

gun control essay example

Theoretical information. Characteristic features of the essay

What is an essay? Many people assume that an essay is an ordinary work. However, it is not. The essay is a prosaic literary genre of creative character. The essay reflects the individual experiences of the author, his views on a particular question. It does not provide an exhaustive answer to a specific question, but reflects one’s own opinion or impression. When writing an essay, the logic develops perfectly, the ability to argue one’s opinion, and correctly presents the information. Style of presentation is more focused on conversational. The topic of this genre are usually controversial, like “gun control”, when the author needs to express and prove his position.

There are some characteristic features of the essay. To properly write an essay, one should take into account the specific features that distinguish it from other genres.

The main features of the essay:

  • The presence of a certain narrow topic that contains a problem and prompts the reader to reflect.
  • Subjective author’s position. The essay is distinguished precisely by the presence of an author’s view of the existing problem, its relation to the world, speech and thinking.
  • Spoken writing style. It is necessary to avoid complicated formulations, too long sentences. It is important to follow a laid-back style to establish contact with the reader. It is important not to overdo it, turning the essay into a substandard text full of slang. The correct emotional color of the text will be given by short, simple and understandable sentences, the use of different intonations in sentences.
  • A detailed analysis of the problem. Our own point of view needs to be argued on the basis of factual material.
  • Relative brevity of presentation. There are no restrictions on the number of pages, but the essay is small in volume.
  • Free construction. The essay has a character of presentation that does not fit into any definite framework. The construction obeys its own logic, which the author adheres to, trying to consider the problem from different angles.
  • Logic of exposition. Despite the free composition, the essay must have an internal unity, consistency of the author’s statements expressing his opinion. Thus, the essay is distinguished by a special style of narrative and aims to induce the reader to reflect. The author does not insist on his point of view, but as if invites the reader to think and discuss it.

Sample of introduction of the gun control essay

“Even if a sword is needed once in a lifetime,

you should always have it with you”

/ Japanese Wisdom /

Today in the US, murders using firearms are the second cause of death among young people under the age of 19 and the first cause of death among black youth. Every day 13 children die from guns. Therefore, reducing the number of crimes committed with the use of this type of weapon is one of the topical problems in the United States of America.

Part 1 of gun control essay body example. Pros and cons of gun control

The liberals believe that in order to solve this problem, it is necessary to toughen the measures of control over the acquisition and possession of weapons until it is completely banned. Justifying their position, the liberals put forward the following arguments.

  1. The more people have weapons, the higher the crime rate is.
  2. Possession of weapons increases the risk of being killed.
  3. The removal of firearms from the hands of criminals prevents serious crimes.

Conservatives believe that weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens restrain criminals from attacks. Conservatives are in favor of retaining the right to purchase, own and bear firearms. They refer to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees this right. Conservatives say that the weapons themselves do not kill anyone. It becomes an instrument of murder in the hands of people. Therefore, it is necessary to toughen penalties for the use of weapons for criminal purposes and to tighten control over those who committed the crime.

Many years of experience in combating crime in the US and other countries shows that tightening punishments for crimes rarely keeps people from committing crimes.

Removing weapons from the hands of criminals is a tempting goal and an attractive propaganda slogan. But no one knows how even to approach this goal. For example, the last initiative of law enforcement agencies of some states that decided to pay money for each unit of illegal weapons handed over to the police failed miserably. In the first place, ridiculously few weapons were delivered and, secondly, the weapons were not suitable for use.

Severe restrictions or even a ban on possession of weapons do not affect the possibility of illegal access to it. By the way, in this case, the checks of those who acquire it, is not required.

Past American experience shows that the ban on the sale of goods that are in demand by the population leads to the emergence of a black market for banned goods. It was like that at the time of the Prohibition, and today with the ban on the sale of drugs. Currently in the US, the black arms market is booming. The tightening of the rules for the acquisition of weapons will not affect those who buy weapons on the black market. Therefore, it is almost impossible to take away weapons from criminals.

According to the liberals, the Second Amendment is a declaration that does not apply to an individual person. Indeed, the Second Amendment says that a well-organized police force is necessary for the security of a free state, and the people’s right to keep and bear arms must not be violated. The people, not the individual. The role of the police is performed today by the National Guard.

Part 2 of gun control essay body example. Adopting gun control laws combats crime

I will not analyze the role of the Second Amendment in the discussion about the right of an individual to own weapons. In my opinion, the Second Amendment is not the main argument in the discussion between liberals and conservatives about methods of combating crime. After all, if the possession and carrying of arms by citizens prevents crime and saves people’s lives, then it is possible to pass an appropriate law if it is not in the Constitution of the country.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives boils down to one question: how is the level of crime affected by the availability of weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The answer to this question can be obtained by analyzing the experience of the United States and other countries.

John Lott’s article “Homicide Before and After Gun Bans”, published in December 2013 in the Crime Prevention Research Center, provides data on the change in the number of murders before and after the adoption of strict rules that limit the conditions of possession of firearms. These data unequivocally show that everywhere, from Chicago and the District of Columbia in the United States to the island states of Jamaica, Ireland and the United Kingdom, increasing restrictions led to an increase in crime.

Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, conducted extensive research on the impact of anti-weapon laws on the changing level of crime. Data from 1980 to 2009 was analyzed. The report on this research was published in the January issue of Applied Economic Letters in 2014. The results of the research show that in states that have stricter restrictions on the acquisition of weapons and on their concealed carrying, the crime rate is higher. It is also established that bans on possession of assault rifles practically do not affect the level of crime. The results of Mark Gius’s research are consistent with a similar study by John Lott and David Mustard from the University of Chicago (1977).

Washington, DC, is famous for very strict rules for the acquisition of weapons. The city is leading in terms of the number of refusals for applications for the purchase of pistols and guns. Proponents of strict measures to acquire weapons lead Washington as an example of the correctness of their policies. But they ignore the way in which these cruel rules affected the change in the level of crime.

After tightening the rules for the purchase of weapons, crime in the city began to grow. Today the crime rate in Washington is 8 times higher than the national level. Former Columbia police chief Maurice Turner asks: “What did the law on arms control do to prevent criminals from getting guns? Absolutely nothing … Therefore, city residents should be able to buy pistols.”

Washington’s criminals do not face any difficulties in the illegal acquisition of firearms and illegal drugs. The speed of growth in the number of crimes involving the use of weapons in Washington is the highest in the country. Since 1991, the number of such crimes has doubled, while in the United States – increased by 11%.

A place where very severe restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms are in force are also the state of New Jersey. These restrictions did not reduce the level of crime in the state. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence annual report for 2014 provides examples of how anyone in New Jersey can acquire weapons in the black market in minutes. This person does not need to fill the mountain of documents and wait several months for their verification. Many of those who buy weapons on the black market do not even know about the existence of restrictions existing in the state.

Such criminal centers as New York and Chicago can clearly show how such fun restrictions work, or rather do not work. In New York, there are about 70 thousand registered units of firearms. According to the police on the hands of people there are at least 750 thousand pistols and guns. Thus, more than 90% of the weapons were acquired illegally. So why do we need strict rules? In Chicago, the law on compulsory registration of firearms was passed. Only those who had it legally, registered their guns. The same picture is observed in New Jersey.

Obligatory registration of weapons is an absolutely pointless law. After all, when buying weapons, there is a registration of the buyer and the weapons he purchases. What do the authors of these laws expect? The fact that after its adoption, people who illegally own weapons, will run to the nearest police station to register it. In my opinion, the authors of such laws are held captive by blatant naivety or boundless stupidity.

Part 3 of gun control essay body example. The liability of liberals

Among the liberals, one of the most popular ways to combat crime is to declare the territories of schools and public institutions (restaurants, cinemas, etc.) zones free of weapons. In such zones, no one has the right to have weapons, let alone use it. And since there is no weapon, then there will be no crime. This naive idea of ​​liberals only makes it easier to commit crimes. Declaring these or those other areas as weapons-free zones, liberals inform criminals about where they can feel safe. In free zones, unarmed people will not be able to provide serious resistance to armed criminals.

The idea of ​​free zones does not receive support among the school authorities of the country. School Districts in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and South Dakota made a decision allowing teachers to carry weapons on the school grounds. These teachers are thoroughly tested, and then a serious training in the possession of weapons. They have the right to open fire on the defeat of an armed criminal who has infiltrated the school territory and threatens children and school personnel. To repulse the slightest desire of the offender to attack the school, ads appear before the entrance to its territory, such as before the school Argyle ISD in Texas: “Please keep in mind that the school personnel is armed and can use all the necessary means to protect our students.”

An effective measure that reduces the level of crimes is the authorization for concealed carrying of arms outside the home to those who have the right to own it. Today in 35 states open or concealed carrying weapons are allowed. According to a study conducted by Center for Control and Prevention by personal order of President Obama, the highest crime rate is observed in the states with the most stringent restrictions on carrying weapons. In states where guns are allowed to be carried out of the house, the number of murders and robbery attacks is 31% and 36% less than in states that prohibit this. In none of the states that permitted the concealed carrying of weapons, the crime rate increased, although the liberals frightened America that this would happen. In the states of Vermont and Alaska, the permit to carry weapons is valid for several decades. The crime rate in these states is the lowest in the US. In Florida, which permitted in 1987 the concealed carrying of weapons, the number of murders by 2012 decreased by 22%. For the same time in the country it increased by 15%.

In the State of Illinois in July 2013, a law was passed permitting the concealed carrying of weapons. The results were overwhelming. For the first six months the number of robberies decreased by 20%, hacking and hijacking of cars – by 20% and 26%, respectively. The number of murders fell to the level of the 60s of last century. According to the number of murders, Chicago still occupies one of the first places in the country. But the city had a real chance to improve the criminal situation. Reduction of crimes in Chicago was achieved while maintaining the same level of police officers and rules of their behavior on the streets of the city.

After a year of Detroit announced bankruptcy, city authorities were forced to fire many policemen. The remaining police officers, because of their small numbers, did not stay on the scene of the crime on calls, but only fix them if the victim reports this to the police. Many areas of the city were at the mercy of criminal gangs. In this situation, the Detroit Police Chief urged residents to carry weapons and use them for self-defense. The number of crimes immediately began to fall.

Obviously, permission for concealed carrying of weapons has a strong psychological effect. It keeps criminals from committing attacks. Studies commissioned by the US Department of Justice showed that 40% of criminals at least once abandoned their intention to attack, fearing that the potential victim was armed. They, like all normal people, are not going to voluntarily substitute themselves for bullets.

Anti-weapon laws create criminals a safe and quiet “working” atmosphere and allow attacking law-abiding citizens, being sure that they are defenseless. Thus, the right of people to self-defense with the use of firearms has a stronger deterrent effect on the perpetrator than the threat of severe penalties. This pattern can be traced in other countries.

Part 4 of gun control essay body example. Public opinion and guns

Public opinion poll conducted by the Gallup Institute shows that over the past half century the attitude of Americans towards firearms has changed significantly. If in 1959, 60% of respondents approved a ban on carrying weapons for all but the police and other persons who are allowed by law, then in October 2009, 71% of Americans questioned this ban.

With respect to Americans, the territorial principle is clearly visible to arms. Most of the opponents of weapons live on the Atlantic coast of the US: in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia and Maryland. The ban on the free sale of weapons is supported by the most residents of California and Illinois. According to statistics, about 40% of men and 55% of women in the US speak out for tougher legislation. However, it does not save in any way from murders under the scenario of Los-Angeles.

They are countered by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which includes many politicians, businessmen, actors and other influential people. It was established in the United States in 1871 and now it is composed of 2.8 million members who uphold the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

An important role in the proliferation of weapons is played by the police, which believes that armed citizens are the most effective tool in preventing massacres. According to the bulletins, armed citizens only recently prevented or stopped massacres:

  • in the school town of Pearl, Mississippi,
  • at the school in Edinborough, Pennsylvania,
  • in a restaurant in the city of Winnemucca, Nevada,
  • in a church in the city of Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Why is the weapon so important to America? The answer to this question lies in the history of the country. Love for independence and freedom is the key element in building defense line of the right to own and bear arms.

Lott, analyzing the national statistics, found that the greater the proportion of the population receiving the right to wear weapons, the greater the vulnerability with the use of violence. “Every year, the law on the strict wearing of pistols and revolvers reduces the level of murders by 3%, rapes by 2%, robberies more than 2%.” At the same time, there is no increase in the level of accidental losses from ill-treatment with weapons, nor the number of suicides with it.

According to NRA statistics, no more than 7% of armed criminals acquired weapons legally, while others use smuggled and other illegal supplies. The effectiveness of self-defense is confirmed by NRA even more clearly by figures. In Washington, for example, the ban on concealed carrying weapons from 1976 to 1991 acted as a catalyst: the murder rate tripled, although for the same period in the country as a whole it increased only by 12%.

In strict California, the level of murders and violent crimes is 28% and 32%, respectively, more than in the country as a whole. And in Virginia, where permission is obtained directly in the store without a “trial period”, violent crimes are 34.6% less, murders – 3.7% less, robberies – 76.9% less. Surprisingly, the free carrying of weapons reduces even the number of mass shootings, similar to what happened in Los Angeles. After the adoption of the laws on the concealed carrying of weapons, the number of victims of mass murderers fell sharply. In the period from 1977 to 1995, this figure fell by 91%.

Part 5 of gun control essay body example. Experience of other countries

In the August issue of the Journal of Public Law and Policy for 2013, Harvard University published an article by Don Kates and Gary Mauser: “Does the ban on firearms reduce the number of murders and suicides?” The article analyzes the influence of the number of gun owners on the level of murders in European countries. The numerous data refuted the assertion of supporters of anti-weapon laws “the more weapons, the more murders.” The article shows that the criminal is restrained not by strict laws and severe penalties for the committed crime, but by the possibility of obtaining an armed rebuff from the victim of violence. The authors emphasize that the capabilities of an armed man, even more physically weak compared to a criminal, are significantly increasing.

The murder rate per 100 thousand inhabitants in 107 countries of the world in which the possession of weapons is prohibited is 2 to 46 times higher than in the United States. For example, the level of murders in Mexico and Russia is four times higher, and in such large Muslim countries as Pakistan and Indonesia are twice as high.

By the number of firearms in the hands of people per 100 thousand population, the first place is taken by the United States. Behind them, with a margin of 1.5-2 times go Yemen, Switzerland and Finland. By the level of murders our country is on the 27th place, while Switzerland and Finland – at 46 and 63 places, respectively. (UN data, only the number of firearms registered is counted). In Switzerland and Finland, most of the adult population owns weapons legally, and the crime rate in these countries is low. Although in the US the number of firearms in the hands of people is the highest in the world, but the country is not in the top ten in terms of crimes. Thus, the assertion of liberals that the more law-abiding citizens owns weapons, the higher the level of crime, is not true.

In Israel, there is no law guaranteeing the citizens of the country the right to own and bear arms. People who have obtained a license to own weapons can wear it openly or secretly. The vast majority of Israeli citizens are trained in the use of firearms. In Israel, more attention is paid not to the number of units of these weapons in the hands of people, but to protecting schools and public places from possible terrorist attacks. All Israeli schools have armed guards, whose task is to prevent any person from harming schoolchildren. Over the past 40 years, Israeli schools have been attacked only twice, in 1974 and 2008. In both cases, Islamic terrorists attacked schools.

In the US, armed guards are sent to patrol historical monuments, offices of politicians and even presidential libraries. At the same time, 70% of public schools do not have armed guard, and 57% do not even have security officers. (Data from the National Center for Education Statistics). The federal and local government actually left schoolchildren and school personnel face to face with armed criminals and mentally unbalanced people.

According to the federal law, the police is responsible for protecting society as a whole, not for an individual. Therefore, it is impossible to prosecute policemen for not helping the victim of crime in time. Thus, every person must protect himself and his family.

In the fight against crime, prevention measures that limit the capacity of criminals are important. For example, the preventive check of suspicious people during police patrols in the criminal districts of New York and Kansas City markedly reduced the level of crime in these cities. But the left actively oppose such inspections. In their opinion, such checks offend people and violate their personal freedom. The left prevents the identification of people who illegally own firearms and go out with it to the street. Let people perish, but the personal freedom of the offender is inviolable.

Example of conclusion of the gun control essay

Possession of firearms imposes a high responsibility on their owners. Therefore, it is necessary to severely punish those who, due to frivolity or negligence, the weapons fall into the hands of others.

Hollywood movies and children’s computer games glorify the cult of violence in our country. The slightest attempts to limit the production of such films and children’s games the left are met with hostility. And at the same time, the elementary school pupil is suspended as punishment from class, if he used words such as “pistol” or “gun purchase” in his work. In truth, the hypocrisy of the liberals is boundless.

All efforts of the liberals are aimed at taking away weapons from law-abiding citizens and leaving them in the hands of criminals. Such a policy helps criminals kill people. Therefore, their blood is in the hands of the liberals, too. The Left knows that anti-weapon laws are directed only against law-abiding citizens. They do not concern criminals. The authors of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution justified it by saying that weapons are needed for citizens of the country in the event of confrontation with the dictatorial government. In the past, including not far away, all dictatorial regimes first forbade their citizens to own weapons, so that they could not resist tyranny. Think for yourself, what conclusions can be made out of this statement.

Theoretical information. Typical errors of the essay. How to avoid them?

As we have already mentioned, essay is a free genre in its nature. However, any literary work has its features and rules to be obeyed. Essay is no exception. Specialists in the sphere of education name the following most common errors made by students when writing essays:

  • Lack of links between the content parts of the composition: entry and conclusion, the main part of the composition and conclusion. Remember that all structural units of the essay must follow and complete each other.
  • Proportionality of parts of the composition. Entry and conclusion in the aggregate should be no more than one-third of the entire work. The main part is 2/3. The author is supposed to give all the arguments in the main part (body) of the essay.
  • Inability to strictly follow the theme of writing in the course of reasoning. Do not change the topic while writing an essay. The topic must be narrow.
  • Inability to compositionally structure your composition in accordance with the theme and the main idea.
  • A huge amount of unnecessary information in the introduction and conclusion. However, too short and unreasonable conclusion is also bad. It must really summarize and sum up all the work. Absence of conclusion is a serious logical mistake. The conclusion must be meaningful in accordance with the entry / topic / main body of the essay.
  • Absence of a problem in the introduction (this is the topic itself) and the formulation of a key thesis, which will be proved there.
  • Fuzzy formulation of theses, making it difficult to integrate it into the logical structure of the essay; If there are several theses, then there should not be a contradiction between the theses formulated in different parts of the work.
  • Weak arguments. They are such, if they do not prove, unconvincingly or superficially confirm the thesis. I  this case, the whole essay has no point.
  • Unreasonable repetitions of the same thoughts. Do not waste the space of essay on saying same things. Give different arguments and lighten the problem from different points.
  • Errors in the division of the text into paragraphs and even the complete absence of paragraphs.
  • Inability to operate with abstract concepts.
  • The non-distinction between the concepts “example” and “argument”, inability to formulate, on the basis of an example, a micro-output correlated with the thesis put forward.

Now when knowing these mistakes, avoid making them. Read the provided theoretical information once again and start writing your won gun control essay. Good luck!