This essay examines two contrasting perspectives on gun control drawn from Sarah Thompson and Nan Desuka, as presented in Bedau and Barnet's Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Thompson argues that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime and that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, citing statistical evidence on crime reduction. Desuka contends that the widespread availability of handguns causes thousands of preventable deaths annually, particularly among innocent people, and advocates for outlawing handguns. The paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of each argument and concludes that a middle-ground approach—one that reduces handgun availability while respecting constitutional rights—may offer the most balanced solution.
The debate over whether people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons has been ongoing for a long time. In her article, Sarah Thompson argues that anyone who wants to carry a gun should be allowed to do so. She believes that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should be upheld and not limited by subsequent legislation. She draws on several ideas about guns to advance her argument in favor of concealed carry.
The opposing perspective comes from Nan Desuka, who argues that handguns should be outlawed. Together, these two viewpoints frame one of the most enduring policy debates in American public life. Both authors are presented in Bedau and Barnet's Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings (8th edition).
The first point Thompson raises is that before Prohibition there were no federal gun control laws, and people did not view guns negatively. Guns were primarily used as tools — to protect one's source of income and property, to obtain food, for recreation, and when necessary for self-defense. The idea of owning a gun was an accepted and respected part of the culture. Once Prohibition was enacted, however, that acceptance began to erode.
Out of Prohibition arose criminal subcultures that depended on violence and guns to survive. Unfortunately, after Prohibition was repealed, these subcultures did not disappear. They persisted and caused problems for years to come. In response, the government began enacting gun control laws. Thompson believes this was the wrong approach. Rather than targeting the inanimate object — the gun itself — she argues the government should have focused on addressing crime and the behavior of criminals.
Those who favor gun control have proposed many theories to justify limiting firearm ownership. One research study claimed that owning a gun increases a person's risk of suicide 43 times over. However, this study was shown to have failed to demonstrate that even a single person killed was shot by a gun kept in their own home. In fact, 49 percent of the victims in the study were killed by someone who did not live in the house and had no access to the guns kept there.
Other studies have shown that in communities where laws permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons have been passed, violent crimes decrease dramatically after those laws take effect. The crimes that see reductions include murder, rape, and aggravated assault. The same studies did show a slight increase in property crimes during the same period. This is attributed to criminals shifting their behavior to avoid confronting victims who may be armed. Proponents argue that this modest increase in property crimes is a small price to pay for the human lives saved. Specifically, it has been shown that in areas where concealed carry laws went into effect, murders fell by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.
Those who oppose guns often argue that allowing people to carry concealed weapons would cause an increase in accidental deaths. Evidence suggests, however, that the number of accidental gun deaths per year is fewer than 200. If concealed carry laws were enacted everywhere, estimates indicate there would be only nine additional accidental deaths compared to 1,500 lives saved. Another common objection is that if everyone were allowed to carry a gun, every minor dispute would turn into a violent confrontation. Statistics from Florida show that over 300,000 gun permits were issued between 1986 and 1995, yet only five violent crimes involving a permitted gun were recorded during that period. The general view among supporters is that people who carry concealed weapons protect not only themselves and their families but the public as a whole, because criminals have no way of knowing who is armed and who is not, making them less likely to commit crimes against individuals.
On the other side of the gun debate is the perspective of Nan Desuka, who argues that guns should be outlawed. Desuka contends that people kill people — meaning it is not only criminals who use guns to kill, but that innocent people are killed every day in accidents involving firearms. This includes children who find a parent's gun and accidentally shoot themselves or a friend.
Desuka argues that only 30 percent of murders are committed by robbers and rapists. For the most part, she contends, victims of handgun violence know their assailants. These cases include women killed by jealous partners, acquaintances who get into fatal arguments after drinking, and innocent people shot by disgruntled coworkers. These are not strangers killing strangers but, in many cases, people who knew each other well. Beyond the deaths caused by people who are not hardened criminals, there is also the reality that career criminals do possess and use guns.
"Arguments that handgun availability causes innocent deaths"
"Buyback costs and Second Amendment interpretation"
"Critical comparison and proposed middle-ground solution"
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.