The Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws in America In this assignment, you will compose an argument about a current controversy of your choice while advocating for support of this topic. Your argument must be supported by research. In this paper, you will make a claim and build an argument to support it, using a minimum of FIVE credible sources to demonstrate that you understand other perspectives concerning your topic and to support your own claim. Requirements: Create a clear thesis that summarizes the controversy and states your argument. Frame and define your controversy. Make sure the paragraphs have clear main ideas that are supporting your thesis. Support your claims with evidence from credible research. *NOTE* Only about 10 – 15% should be information you’ve gained from research — the other 85 – 90% needs to be your interpretation of and analysis of that research. Demonstrate that you understand, through responsible research, points of view that are different than—even in oppo

The Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws in America

The topic of gun control laws has been a matter of debate for a long time in America. On one spectrum, those in support of the restriction of gun control laws are individuals who have noted the cultural, symbolic, and economic importance of guns within the United States context. The above is borrowed from valuing traditions of collecting guns and an appreciation of protection and security, sport shooting, and hunting. Nevertheless, the very fact that gun violence has recently gone out of control, particularly with the school shootings that have been witnessed, questions the narrative of lessening or restricting gun control laws. Given the recent gun violence events, there is a need for the imposition of stricter gun control laws in the view of reducing gun violence, closing the existent ‘terror gap’, fixing the United States wrecked background check system, and ending the legal immunity enjoyed by gun manufacturers.

Initial gun control laws have not been equal, as connoted by the increment in gun violence. This can be deduced from the military-grade firearms that have been utilized in mass shootings. Thus, there is a need to restrict the number of purchases of guns, as well as carry out background checks on all private sales in the heed of lowering gun homicide rates (Gregory and Wilson). Additionally, researchers have equally found certain links between the right to openly carry firearm laws which require the various bodies to issue permits for concealed carrying (Rosenberg). However, since the adoption of the laws ten years later, as researched in 2017 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, violent crime has risen by between 13% and 15% (Gregory and Wilson). Henceforth, this calls for the need for the abolishment of policies allowing the right to carry firearms. Further stringent measures should involve barring individuals deemed at risk from owning firearms. Not only has it shown that it has averted and reduced suicide, but it has also been shown to reduce vengeful tendencies and, thereof, homicides perpetrated using guns.

Current gun control laws do not contain any deterrence of preventing suspected or known terrorists from purchasing guns and conducting thorough background checks. The above is according to an observation done by Tanden et al. in their reports on gun violence published by the Center for American Progress. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office, as of the period between 2004 and 2010, noted that about 1,119 instances were recorded of suspected or known terrorists under the United States government terrorist watch list having purchased explosives or guns from dealers licensed under the federal government (Tanden et al.) Also, within the past two decades, numerous instances of terror attacks have been noted to occur which have involved firearms. Nevertheless, some plots have been successfully foiled (Cook). Nevertheless, there is a need to reconsider the move to block the sale of explosives and guns to individuals suspected to be terrorists (Sati). This should be administered through legislation of laws that will foresee the controlled sale of firearms as had initially been advocated under the bipartisan legislation sponsored by Peter King, the chair of house homeland security, and Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Many Americans contend with the fact that certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, such as drug abusers, violent criminals, violent domestic individuals, and the mentally ill, should not be allowed to own or purchase firearms (Sati). Under the law, such categories of individuals have, in fact, been barred from holding a firearm. However, the only way that it can be determined whether somebody has been prohibited from owning a firearm under federal or state law is through carrying out instant background checks (Tanden, et al.). While “… firearm dealers licensed under federal governments carry out routine checks, gun transfers by “private sellers” are not necessarily expected to carry out background checks…” (Tanen et al.). This is despite about an expected 40 percent of all gun transfers occurring per year within the United States originating from private sellers (Tanen, et al.). This lends an opportunity for dangerous persons ineligible under federal laws to own guns, thereby bypassing background checks.

In the year 2005, congress passed a law protecting or barring gun sellers and manufacturers legal immunity from any civil claims that would be laid against them (Gregory and Wilson). Despite the fact “…that frivolous lawsuits do not benefit anyone, holding sellers and manufacturers liable for the misuse of firearms would incentivize them to ensure that firearms are safer…” (Gregory and Wilson). Gregory and Wilson deduce that should certain innocent death