The Science Behind Gun Control Essay Example

gun could potentially harm my sister, it is equally possible that a responsible gun owner could save her life.

I acknowledge that there are many individuals who oppose both police officers and guns due to safety concerns. However, they do not typically experience the daily worry for their family members' well-being like I do. When these individuals find themselves in danger, who will they call? They will rely on armed individuals who are paid to protect citizens.

I believe it would have been better if he had used more emotional appeals to effectively communicate a sense of security, as this could have helped me understand his perspective. As stated by Hemenway, "the presence of a firearm in a household increases the likelihood of someone in that home dying by suicide by approximately three times, and the evidence supporting this is overwhelming." However, it is also acknowledged that "households with firearms show no variation compared to those without firearms regarding mental health risk for suicide," creating a contradiction within the available data. While this contradiction is possible, there is a chance that the initial information may be inaccurate. Personally, I grew up in a family where guns were common, and on Sundays, I would go to the shooting range with my family to learn safe handling practices.

Although I do not fear guns, I acknowledge their potential danger and the importance of treating them with caution. My upbringing instilled in me the values of always handling guns as if they were loaded, never pointing the barrel at anything that should not be harmed, and being mindful of my surroundings. While guns can bring enjoyment through activities like hunting

and target practice, it is crucial to remember that they are not toys. In situations where self-defense is necessary, I would only use a firearm to protect myself without causing harm to others.

Regrettably, many individuals lack proper knowledge about these principles when encountering firearms, resulting in weapons ending up in the wrong hands. Those who are unfamiliar with guns and feel fear have valid concerns. However, by educating them about how firearms are used and their mechanics, we can alter the perception of guns from instruments that harm people to mere objects that possess the potential for harm only when misused.

The issue of gun ownership and its connection to suicide rates should not be oversimplified as merely owning a firearm. It is more about the education and perception surrounding guns. Merely getting rid of firearms will not solve the problem because there are illegal guns in circulation. To effectively address this issue, it would be beneficial to administer psychological tests for all family members and provide proper education on gun usage before allowing individuals to buy a gun. This approach has the potential to reduce the risk of suicides involving firearms within households. Skabbo's argument highlights the importance of science in policy discussions, which I agree with; however, it is important to acknowledge that scientific findings may not automatically result in changes in gun control laws. The key lies in finding a balanced solution that satisfies both pro- and anti-gun individuals, potentially including restrictions on types and quantities of firearms, among other factors.

Although laws cannot fully stop criminals from getting firearms, it is vital for legislation to focus on educating and training the public. This

is crucial for finding effective solutions. Until these measures are implemented, law-abiding citizens must protect civilians from armed criminals. Skabbo suggests that providing lawmakers with comprehensive information will lead to swift changes in legislation. However, it is important to consider various perspectives instead of relying solely on one viewpoint.

In his article, Skabbo argues against relying solely on anecdotal opinions as suggested by David Hemenway, emphasizing the need to go beyond that. However, it may not be advantageous to completely eliminate opinions, especially when there are differing viewpoints on gun control laws. Caution should be exercised in suppressing opposing opinions in a country that values freedom of speech.

Skabbo also appeals to logos by presenting statistics on gun-related deaths in the US. He highlights that annually over 36,000 people are killed due to gunshot wounds. It is important to acknowledge that this number is significant; however, there are other causes of death with higher numbers. For example, heart disease claims the lives of 600,000 individuals each year and car accidents result in thousands more deaths compared to incidents involving guns.

Heart disease cannot be reduced other than by changing diet and physical activity. However, what if we presented to lawmakers the statistics of car accident fatalities? Would they revise car laws or even eliminate them? The answer is no because cars are a necessity, or is it more of a desire? We don't actually need vehicles as there is public transportation, bikes, and walking as alternatives, but everyone desires to own one. Similarly, although guns are not necessary, they are desired just like cars. In light of this, Skabbo's statement can be interpreted from a different perspective. According

to Charles Branas, an epidemiologist at Columbia University, poverty can contribute to gun violence within communities. This makes me question how individuals in poverty can afford guns, and the truth is that they most likely obtain them illegally.

Despite the presence of illegal means, gun control laws can still have an impact. Some argue that people can always find ways to obtain firearms, regardless of their financial situation. However, this viewpoint can easily be refuted from the opposing side. Skabbo states, "Ultimately, it is up to lawmakers and the public they represent to determine how to balance Second Amendment rights with scientific evidence." This statement holds true as legislators and their constituents share the responsibility of finding a compromise. It emphasizes that there are still enough individuals who oppose gun bans and resist significant changes in gun control legislation. Furthermore, there is scientific data supporting the pro-gun position. Therefore, relying solely on this information may not effectively promote stricter gun control laws.

The report emphasizes the difference in federal funding for research on gun-related mortality in the United States compared to other causes of death, indicating a necessity for additional research on different aspects of gun control policy. Nevertheless, the report's argument is perplexing as it proposes researching gun deaths but excludes specific areas such as officer-involved shootings, despite there being over 500 officers killed by guns in the past decade. Additionally, fatalities can occur due to defensive gun use and stolen or lost firearms. Although the author's statement may be accurate as an observation, it does not effectively support their argument.

Skabbo's argument could have been stronger if he balanced his use of logos and ethos with

more pathos. His main contention centers around David Hemenway's scientific data. Skabbo believes that the abundance of statistics regarding firearm shootings should prompt lawmakers to revise gun control laws. While I personally oppose banning guns, I recognize the validity of diverse opinions. Perhaps I could have better understood Skabbo's perspective if he had made more of an effort to comprehend mine. Although he presents a few viewpoints from pro-gun individuals, he fails to genuinely engage with them and instead contradicts them outright.

I wish he had included more emotional appeal instead of relying solely on facts and citations, which can be open to interpretation. As long as our nation remains divided and fails to recognize what is right and wrong, violence will persist regardless of the method used, including guns or any other object. Our main focus should be on enforcing current laws, while parents should prioritize teaching their children respect and the value of human life. I don't believe that relying exclusively on science and statistics will resolve this problem.