understanding the arguments for and against gun control

Gun Control Gun control is a hot topic in America right now, and has been for quite some time. One of the major problems with the issue is that the two sides have entirely different perspectives, and there does not appear to be much middle ground between the two. This paper will analyze the different positions, the major ones anyway, with respect to gun control.

The two major positions on gun control are really the one side that wishes to see no further control of gun ownership, and the side that wishes to have greater restrictions on the purchase and ownership of guns. The side that is against gun control will typically cite Second Amendment rights (Elving, 2018), the right to bear arms. This right is interpreted by this side liberally and broadly, as to mean that the right is immutable, and should exist without restriction.

Any restriction on the right to bear arms, therefore, is unacceptable. There are certainly nuances within individuals, but the immutability of this right is the core element of the argument against any particular gun control. In standing against gun control, the logical flow of the argument rests on the Second Amendment rights, and particular interpretations of the Second Amendment that forbid control or diminishment of one's right to bear arms.

The definition of arms is applied liberally, and sanctions against purchase or ownership of arms are viewed as infringements on this Constitutionally-guaranteed right. The other side of the argument is in favor of gun control. The precise definition of gun control varies, but the underlying argument is that the Second Amendment does not convey limitless powers for gun ownership and purchase.

In essence, while the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, that right is not infringed upon by statues or regulations that would set limits on the types of arms, the state of mind of the weapon owner, or background checks to ensure compliance with rules against certain people owning certain weapons.

The role of the government is part of the argument, in that the side in favor of gun control sees government's role as striking a balance between a public interest (gun ownership) and public threat or harm (gun violence). The two sides essentially differ on what role the government should play, and the Second Amendment, and how it is interpreted, lies at the fault line of this disagreement.

While these arguments are certainly complicated by other factors – political allegiances, messaging tactics by major proponents of each view, and of course the diversity of nuance within each side's perspective – the disagreement where gun control is concerned appears to most likely lie with one's personal preference for the role of government. That personal preference will then be reflected in one's interpretation of the Second Amendment, notably the degree to which gun control measures would abridge one's Second Amendment rights.

All told, the issue of gun control is contentious probably more because of extreme voices that skew the argument. Most Americans probably lie between the commonly-expressed views, in a more reasonable place. But they certainly all do not,.