For many years, America has been continuously faced with gun control issues because of the differing ideological believes among the citizens concerning access to guns by the public. The legislative houses in the US including Congress and the Senate have been making efforts to address the issue through the implementation of policies which are aiming to address all the concerns about the issue. This paper presents an analysis of four argumentative positions on the gun control issue in the US.

Jacobs, James B. Can gun control work? Oxford University Press, 2002.

In this book, the author advocates for the government to ban public access to guns in the United States. The author contemplates about the high incidences of death related to guns in the United States. Over the years, the number of reported gun deaths in the U.S has been rising, with many Americans using the weapons to commit suicide. For example, in the year 1979, about 27,200 cases of suicides which were carried out by guns were recorded, and in 20 years later about 57 percent of the suicide cases resulted from gun use. As a result of the strong association between firearms and Suicide, the United States has become the world’s leading country in homicide. The book also argues that the cases of rampage killers and multiple killings in America are also part of the gun problem in the country. Lack of efficient plans and policies to control the individual access to guns in the U.S. alludes as the significant contributor to the high number of gun deaths and violence as the government allows wrong people to access weapons.

Due to the lack of effective policies that control individual access to guns in the US, most people can easily access firearm by purchasing them from both the legal and illegal firearm dealers. The easy access to firearms in the homesteads has therefore allowed people who are suffering from depression or other mental disorders to access guns which they use in committing suicides. Furthermore, most of the firearm dealers do not conduct a thorough background check before issuing guns to individual buyers. As a consequence, many criminals and individuals with an unstable state of mind can gain access to firearms which they utilize in causing the mass killings.

The argument on this book advocates for the US government to put a restrictive measure against the public access to firearms in the country as an initiative to minimize gun-related deaths in the country, which have sored over the years. This argument conflicts with the other discussions concerning the gun issue in the US as it demands a total ban of guns in the public domain. What differentiates this argument from the other cases is that it solely considers the free access to firearms in the US as the leading cause of gun deaths in the country. According to this argument, the government is responsible for the high number of gun related deaths because it has failed to introduce effective policies that can control public access to guns in the US.

Kleck, Gary, and E. Britt Patterson. “The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9.3 (1993): 249-287.

Through this book, Clerk and his colleagues argue that the widespread presence of guns in society is attributed to the numerous cases of violence in society today. They claim the only way to reduce the instances of violence is through controlling the individual access to guns if the governments can control the public access to firearms through the use of restrictive policies, background checks for the licensed firearms and ban of the automatic rifles.

The rationale for this argument is based on the assumption that the availability of guns influences attacks for the weaker attackers who may not overpower stronger targets while using weapons like knives, guns also facilitate distance attacks for the individuals who are afraid of making attacks at closer range. Moreover, guns also aid the criminals in conducting robberies that they could not succeed when unarmed and it also enables the angered people to make attacks because of the learned association. Guns also offer a comfortable, successful and quicker alternative of self-destruction, hence, more efficient for suicide.

This argument is in support of other pro-gun control arguments because it advocates for the restrictive access to guns by the public. This argument is distinguished from the rest because it associates the arms with the high rate of violence in the society. The sources of controversy with this argument are that it ignores the other causes of violence and only focuses on gun-related violence. Regarding this argument, it is just the government that can address the issue by limiting the public from accessing guns through the implementation of policies that control access and use of firearms.

Monks, Jeffrey. “The End of Gun Control or Protection against Tyranny: The Impact of the New Wisconsin Constitutional Right to Bear Arms on State Gun Control Laws.” Wis. L. Rev. (2001): 249.

This article proposes an argument against outlawing the gun protection or gun control policies which restricted the Americans from owning guns. It postulates that guns guarantee the second constitutional amendment which protects the individual right to live. Through easy access to firearms, the citizens are therefore empowered to defend themselves against any form of danger or threat to their lives. Besides protection, allowing the citizens to own and bear guns facilitates their freedom to use weapons in conducting other lawful activities.

The rationale of this argument is that all the citizens have got the right to live and therefore by allowing them to own and bear arm, they are guaranteed to react against any threat or attack in the form of self-defence. It also posits that guns can be used for other purposes such as hunting, recreation and many lawful purposes.

The purpose of this argument is to advocate for the disbandment of the existing gun control policies. This argument opposes the pro-gun control arguments which consider the easy access to guns as the primary source of increasing violence and deaths. The primary source of controversy in this argument is the restrictive access to guns which leaves many people vulnerable and defenceless to any form of attack. The state government is responsible for solving or triggering this controversy through its policies. The patterns of this argument suggest that some of the stakeholders intend to benefit from the issue.

Cook, Philip J., and James A. Leitzel. “Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy: An Economic Analysis for the Attack on Gun Control.” Law & Contemp. Probs. 59 (1996): 91.

This article opposes the progressive reforms on the American gun policy, it surmounts a criticism on the ineffectiveness of the gun policies supposing that gun does not work, in some cases brings out results that are against the expected and also comes about with the degrading effects on the fundamental rights of the humans.

The rationale of this argument is that several gun policies have been implemented over and over in American society to reduce the cases of gun violence. However, such efforts have never been fruitful. Instead, they are just a waste of time and resources. This is because, while the policies force the legal owners of the guns to undergo rigorous scrutiny, controls and regulations, the illicit users quickly adapt to the difficulties in the society, thus making the efforts ineffective. Moreover, the efforts to counter the illegal supply of guns leads to collateral damage and infringement of privacy on the lives of the Americans and this is a violation of the constitution.

The purpose of this argument is to enlighten people concerning the ineffectiveness of the gun control policies and the possible consequences attributed to such decisions. The argument is conflicting with the other pro-gun control arguments which consider the policies as a means of reducing violence in the US. This argument is distinct from the others because it considers gun control policies to be ineffective means of reducing violence in American society. The source of controversy in this argument is the ineffectiveness of the gun policies and their ability to attract negative consequences such as wastage of time and resources, infringement of the individual privacy rights. The pattern of these arguments suggest that the stakeholders are against the implications of the gun policies.