Running Head: Gun Control
Gun Control and Its Controversy: A Review of the Literature
Mario Adrian Ponce
The University of Texas at El Paso
1

Gun Control
Abstract
The Gun Control Argument has been a controversy to many Americans due to the incidents that have been occurring. This literature review will inform the reader with the valid points people are trying to get across such as using statistics, personal experiences and a personal interview with a gun salesman. The history of Gun Control has been all over the charts but with its reliability, one can be informed in a formal manner.
2

Gun Control 3
Gun Control and Its Controversy
What’s the United States without its citizens owning weapons? As our ancestors back in time created the Second Amendment, giving us safety and the right to bear arms but now; the controversy on trying to take that away from us? This has been a topic that has taken over lately discussing if it would be correct to ban weapons. The creation of the whole Gun Control argument sparked up with an incident in Sandy Hook when a random gunman entered an elementary and killed many young and innocent children and teachers. As correspond to these tragic events, riots began to form demanding for weapons to be banned and such complementary actions.
With the anti groups being formed and many debates being created, just because of the tragic events that occurred is it necessary for weapons to be banned? Of course many weapons that are available to citizens are dangerous but with this is mind, other actions perhaps should be taken. Many American are not fully informed with the Gun
Control debate but in order to learn more about it and fully comprehend, four important questions should be considered:
1.
Is it necessary enforcing stronger laws towards weapons?
2.
Does gun control reduce violent crime?
3.
Is it correct to negotiate around the second amendment in favor of citizen’s safety?
4.
Do individuals have a right to protect their own life, lives of their family members and property?

Gun Control
The following review of literature will: provide information regarding the solutions that have been opinionated for Gun Control, the statistic rates that actually have to deal with weapons and what ground the Second Amendment stands between Gun Control and truthful meaning.
Is it necessary enforcing stronger laws towards weapons?
4
The biggest question around is the necessity for stronger laws towards weapons necessary? If so, how would it affect the people that already have weapons and would it be possible due to having our Second Amendment? “Research has shown that States with nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws have 25 percent fewer rapes than States that restrict or forbid women from carrying concealed handguns” (Trotter, 2013, p. 25). If there were to be creations of new laws not only will it just affect the gun owners, but it will affect many in many ways. Depending in the levels on how strong the laws were to be created, it may affect gun owners severely. For example, in 1976, Washington passed a strict gun law and immediate result were shown as Figure 1 below explains:

Gun Control
With this explanation, one can see how powerful a law can affect Gun Control in such a negative way. As murder rates went up drastically in DC, it even dropped down across the nation. During my research I interviewed Hector Balderrama, a gun salesman at
Academy Sports and Outdoors, who encounters guns everyday. During our interview I asked him, “Are stronger laws necessary towards weapons?” and he responded “Some laws would be beneficial but at the end, these laws will abuse their power and will eventually want to get rid of weapons instead of just enforcing stronger restrictions”.
Making such a clear point, enforcing stronger laws are in a position where there should be or just nothing at all. As well it will be interfering with the Second Amendment but that point will be explained later on.
5
Does gun control reduce violent crime?
A very controversial question is if gun control reduces violent crime, due to the fact that guns relate to these kinds of crimes. This has been a very debatable question and a very clear point was made by Professor Zimiring in his article. If one has a motive to kill and by chance he/she has a gun, that crime will be committed in a faster manner.
What Zimmering explains is that if an individual wants to kill someone and they don’t have a gun, that crime will still be committed with a different object. As he said, “It has been argued, however, that eliminating guns would have no such effect because if someone wants to kill, he will find a weapon to achieve his destructive goal; there is, it is said, more than one way to skin a cat” (Zimring, 1968, p.721). Guns can be a faster object to kill someone but truly, one will think of another way to kill due to its motive. Not only

Gun Control will it not reduce crime, but it will give an opportunity for crime rates to even increase due to the fact of not having a concealed weapon as protection.
6
It is said that a good amount of the total violent crimes relate to guns, but what no one truly understands is that giving these weapons also stop violent crimes. Why take away the protection of many citizens and give criminals a better chance on committing violent on innocent people? Violent actions will occur in no matter what situation, if the person has a bat, rock or scissors, that action will be done if they really want to. People only see the bad in guns but as well, they stop much of the violent crime and indeed save many lives.
The following image is an example or presentable misunderstanding that people have with crime rates:

Gun Control 7
Illustration 2 above is a great explanation on how weapons can protect ones life. This statistic explains to one how having a gun can actually reduce the rates of crimes. As gun ownership increased, violent crimes began to decreased due to the guns serving as protection to many. In conclusion, the diminish of weapons not only have an effect, but it will have a negative effect causing an exposure to innocent people to criminals.
Is it correct to negotiate around the Second Amendment in favor of citizens safety?
1791 was when the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, was ratified. It not only served as just a regular amendment but it gave the safety and power to many citizens. The type of power that would not be able to be abused but serve as protection.
This power to the citizens will also be helpful just incase if the government were to become a tyrant and the weapons will be used as protection towards the government. In the article Gun Control Overview it states, “Opponents of gun control vary in their positions with respect to specific forms of control but generally hold that gun control laws do not accomplish what is intended. They argue that it is difficult to keep weapons from being acquired by “high-risk” individuals, even under Federal laws and enforcement, as it was to stop the sale and use of liquor during Prohibition” (2013,
Congressional Digest). The biggest misunderstanding that opponents of gun control have is that the Second Amendment was created for a reason. There is not chance in the world that it would be correct to override the amendment that was created by the creators of our country. Just because a couple of incidents have occurred, it does not give the full right to eliminate guns from the citizens of America. Guns serve as a purpose and that is to gain protection from them. Yes they have been abused at times, but it does not give the full

Gun Control right to eliminate them just because of the incidents and expose everyone to more even tragic situations. In conclusion, the Second Amendment was created for our protection, not for it to be abused. If there were to be a chance to override it for example, then all other amendments would have power, to make it in a short note, then the whole
Constitution does not have a true purpose if one wants to change a amendment. As the
Second Amendment serves us as protection, this will lead us to the last lit question.
8
Do individuals have a right to protect their own life, lives of their family members and property? first:
Illustration 3 will be provided first in this question to create a though in ones head
The illustration above can have many meaning to one. But the main reason it was creating was to inform one how guns can serve to people when violent situations were to come about. It is not the act of killing an individual but it is the act of protecting ones self and maybe even multiple people such as your family. In a source provided, speaks a

Gun Control 9 woman about a story she would never forget. She informs the audience how two intruders broke into her home while she was alone with her child. As they broke into her home, she knew the protection of her child was on her hand and of course she wasn’t going to let anything happen to him. She then fired her weapon and injured one of the intruders while the other one ran away. In fact she even said, “Guns make women safer. Most violent offenders actually do not use firearms, which makes guns the great equalizer” ( Trotter,
2013, p. 25). She states that over 90 percent of violent crimes towards women are actually without a weapon due to the male having such a greater physical strength and size. As well she explains that carrying a weapon herself puts her in such a much safer situation and comfort. With that being said, “Research has shown that States with nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws have 25 percent fewer rapes than States that restrict or forbid women from carrying concealed handguns” (Trotter, 2013, p. 25)
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Gun Control debate is going to be an argument where both sides are not going to end their fight. People have a misunderstanding about weapons making them seen as bad objects but in reality, they serve as protection to many from the evil in this world. For now, Gun Control is a steady argument with both sides aiming at each other.

Gun Control 10
References
Dreier, P. (2013). Massacres and Movements: Challenging the Gun Industrial Complex.
New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.) , 22 (2), 92-95. Retrieved from http://0web.b.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=24f72
44-aa8b-4714-a63d-470162d74c87%40sessionmgr113&vid=6&hid=119
Gun Control Overview. (2013). Congressional Digest , 92 (3), 3-7. Retrieved from http://0-web.b.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/ehost/results?sid=24f72544-aa8b-4714 a63d470162d74c87%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=119&bquery=gun+control bdata=JmRWE5aCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU=
Trotter, G. S. (2013). Should Congress Pass Stronger Gun Laws?. Congressional Digest ,
92 (3), 25-31. Retrieved from http://0 web.b.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=24f72544 aa8b-4714-a63d-470162d74c87%40sessionmgr113&vid=3&hid=119
Zimring, Frank. (1968). Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings. JStore , 8 (4),
721-737. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1598883?uid=3739920&uid=2134&uid=
&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103960408753
ZORNICK, G. (2013). Walmart: America's No. 1 Gun Source. Nation , 296 (1/2), 15-20.
Retrieved from http://0 web.b.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/ehost/results?sid=24f72544-aa8b-4714-a63d
470162d74c87%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=119&bquery=gun+control&bda
=JmRiPWE5aCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU=

Gun Control 11