research paper topics gun control laws

May 26, 2022

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

By enacting simple laws that make guns safer and harder to get, we can prevent killings like the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo

By The Editors

Adam Gault/Getty Images

Editor’s Note (5/24/23): One year ago, on May 24, 2022, 19 students and two teachers were fatally shot at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex . This piece by Scientific American's editors presents the case that simple gun laws can prevent future tragedies.

Some editorials simply hurt to write. This is one.

At least 19 elementary school children and two teachers are dead, many more are injured, and a grandmother is fighting for her life in Uvalde, Tex., all because a young man, armed with an AR-15-style rifle, decided to fire in a school.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

By now, you know these facts: This killing spree was the largest school shooting since Sandy Hook. Law enforcement couldn’t immediately subdue the killer. In Texas, it’s alarmingly easy to buy and openly carry a gun . In the immediate hours after the shooting, President Biden demanded reform , again. Legislators demanded reform , again. And progun politicians turned to weathered talking points: arm teachers and build safer schools.

But rather than arm our teachers (who have enough to do without keeping that gun away from students and having to train like law enforcement to confront an armed attacker), rather than spend much-needed school dollars on more metal detectors instead of education, we need to make it harder to buy a gun. Especially the kind of weapons used by this killer and the white supremacist who killed 10 people grocery shopping in Buffalo . And we need to put a lasting stop to the political obstruction of taxpayer-funded research into gun-related injuries and deaths.

The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime . Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis , just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.

In the U.S., we have existing infrastructure that we could easily emulate to make gun use safer: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Created by Congress in 1970, this federal agency is tasked, among other things, with helping us drive a car safely. It gathers data on automobile deaths. It’s the agency that monitors and studies seat belt usage . While we track firearm-related deaths, no such safety-driven agency exists for gun use.

During the early 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began to explore gun violence as a public health issue. After studies tied having a firearm to increased homicide risk , the National Rifle Association took action , spearheading the infamous Dickey Amendment, diverting gun research dollars and preventing federal funding from being used to promote gun control. For more than 20 years, research on gun violence in this country has been hard to do.

What research we have is clear and grim. For example, in 2017, guns overtook 60 years of cars as the biggest injury-based killer of children and young adults (ages one to 24) in the U.S. By 2020, about eight in every 100,000 people died of car crashes. About 10 in every 100,000 people died of gun injuries.

While cars have become increasingly safer (it’s one of the auto industry’s main talking points in marketing these days), the gun lobby has thwarted nearly all attempts to make it harder to fire a weapon. With federal protection against some lawsuits , the financial incentive of a giant tort payout to make guns safer is virtually nonexistent.

After the Uvalde killings, the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton , said he’d “rather have law-abiding citizens armed and trained so that they can respond when something like this happens.” Sen. Ted Cruz emphasized “armed law enforcement on the campus.” They are two of many conservatives who see more guns as the key to fighting gun crime. They are wrong.

A study comparing gun deaths the U.S. to other high-income countries in Europe and Asia tells us that our homicide rate in teens and young adults is 49 times higher. Our firearm suicide rate is eight times higher. The U.S. has more guns than any of the countries in the comparison.

As we previously reported , in 2015, assaults with a firearm were 6.8 times more common in states that had the most guns, compared to the least. More than a dozen studies have revealed that if you had a gun at home, you were twice as likely to be killed as someone who didn’t. Research from the Harvard School of Public Health tells us that states with higher gun ownership levels have higher rates of homicide . Data even tells us that where gun shops or gun dealers open for business, killings go up . These are but a few of the studies that show the exact opposite of what progun politicians are saying. The science must not be ignored.

Science points to laws that would work to reduce shootings, to lower death. Among the simplest would be better permitting laws with fewer loopholes. When Missouri repealed its permit law, gun-related killings increased by 25 percent . Another would be to ban people who are convicted of violent crime from buying a gun. In California, before the state passed such a law, people convicted of crimes were almost 30 percent more likely to be arrested again for a gun or violent crime than those who, after the law, couldn’t buy a gun.

Such laws, plus red flag laws and those taking guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who abuse alcohol, would lower our gun violence rate as a nation. But it would require elected officials to detach themselves from the gun lobby. There are so many issues to consider when voting, but in this midterm election year, we believe that protection from gun violence is one that voters could really advance. Surveys routinely show that gun control measures are extremely popular with the U.S. population.

In the meantime, there is some hope. Congress restored funding for gun-related research in 2019, and there are researchers now looking at ways to reduce gun deaths. But it’s unclear if this change in funding is permanent. And what we’ve lost is 20 years of data on gun injuries, death, safety measures and a score of other things that could make gun ownership in this country safer.

Against all this are families whose lives will never be the same because of gun violence. Who must mourn children and adults lost in domestic violence, accidental killings and mass shootings that are so common, we are still grieving one when the next one occurs.

We need to become the kind of country that looks at guns for what they are: weapons that kill. And treat them with the kind of respect that insists they be harder to get and safer to use.

And then we need to become the kind of country that says the lives of children are more valuable than the right to weapons that have killed them, time and again. Since Columbine. Since Sandy Hook. Since always.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 01 July 2022

US gun policies: what researchers know about their effectiveness

• Lynne Peeples

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

About 40% of the world’s civilian-owned firearms are in the United States, a country that has had some 1.4 million gun deaths in the past four decades. And yet, until recently, there has been almost no federal funding for research that could inform gun policy.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 607 , 434-435 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01791-z

Santaella-Tenorio, J., Cerdá, M., Villaveces, A. & Galea, S. Epidemiol. Rev. 38 , 140–157 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lubin, G. et al. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 40 , 421–424 (2010).

Sacks, C. A. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 386 , 2445–2449 (2022).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Cuts to postgraduate funding threaten Brazilian science — again

Correspondence 26 MAR 24

Don’t underestimate the rising threat of groundwater to coastal cities

‘Exhausted and insulted’: how harsh visa-application policies are hobbling global research

World View 26 MAR 24

Sam Bankman-Fried sentencing: crypto-funded researchers grapple with FTX collapse

News 28 MAR 24

Larger or longer grants unlikely to push senior scientists towards high-risk, high-reward work

Nature Index 25 MAR 24

A fresh start for the African Academy of Sciences

Editorial 19 MAR 24

What Putin’s next term means for science

News 20 MAR 24

China–US climate collaboration concerns as Xie and Kerry step down

News 12 MAR 24

China promises more money for science in 2024

News 08 MAR 24

ECUST Seeking Global Talents

Join Us and Create a Bright Future Together!

Shanghai, China

East China University of Science and Technology (ECUST)

World-Class Leaders for Research in Materials Science

National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS, Japan) calls for outstanding researchers who can drive world-class research in materials science.

Tsukuba, Japan (JP)

National Institute for Materials Science

Professor of Experimental Parasitology (Leishmania)

To develop an innovative and internationally competitive research program, to contribute to educational activities and to provide expert advice.

Belgium (BE)

Institute of Tropical Medicine

PhD Candidate (m/f/d)

We search the candidate for the subproject "P2: targeting cardiac macrophages" as part of the DFG-funded Research Training Group "GRK 2989: Targeti...

Dortmund, Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE)

Leibniz-Institut für Analytische Wissenschaften – ISAS – e.V.

At our location in Dortmund we invite applications for a DFG-funded project. This project will aim to structurally and spatially resolve the altere...

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Search form

• Find Stories
• For Journalists

Image credit: Getty Images

Reducing gun violence: Stanford scholars tackle the issue

After 19 children and two teachers were slaughtered by a gunman at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, many Americans are asking, yet again, how to prevent future acts of senseless violence from occurring. What gun laws need to be changed? Why is it so difficult to pass regulations? How can Second Amendment rights be balanced with firearm safety? 

Stanford scholars have been studying these issues from a range of perspectives, including law, politics, economics, and medicine. Here are some of their findings.

Update: May 25, 2022: This story was originally published on Feb. 26, 2018, and has been updated to include new content.

Causes, impacts of gun violence

Uncovering the causes of gun violence has been a challenge, in part because research is limited by federal legislation that constrains research funding on the issue. Scholar Nigam Shah at the Stanford School of Medicine has written about how this has affected empirical study. But that has not deterred scholars from examining its impacts. David Studdert, also at the School of Medicine, has studied the devastating consequences of gun violence, particularly the risks it poses to public health.  

Maya Rossin-Slater, an associate professor of medicine and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), has also looked at the long-term impact of gun violence, specifically among American children who experienced a shooting at their school. Rossin-Slater found that they have higher rates of absenteeism, lower high school and college graduation rates, and by their mid-twenties, earn lower incomes.

Below is some of that research. 

Californians living with handgun owners more than twice as likely to die by homicide, study finds

Residents who don’t own a handgun but live with someone who does are significantly more likely to die by homicide compared with those in gun-free homes, research shows.

New study of gun violence in schools identifies long-term harms

Research from SIEPR’s Maya Rossin-Slater finds that students exposed to school shootings face “lasting, persistent” adversity in their educational and long-term economic outcomes.

Shirin Sinnar on the Buffalo shooting, hate crimes, and domestic terrorism

In the wake of the Buffalo shooting, Stanford Law School’s Shirin Sinnar discusses the scale of white supremacist violence in the U.S. and the rise of hate crimes.

Disconnect: The gap between gun violence and research in numbers

Gun violence is much discussed but little studied, largely due to federal decisions governing research funding. A new analysis highlights just how big the gap between the violence and our knowledge of it is. The answer? It’s huge.

Supporting students exposed to school shootings

Maya Rossin-Slater talks about her research into the mental health impact of severe school violence.

Panel discusses how shootings affect those unscathed by bullets

A panel of faculty members at the School of Medicine said shootings can affect the mental health of people close to the violence.

California handgun sales spiked after two mass shootings

In the six weeks after the Newtown and San Bernardino mass shootings, handguns sales jumped in California, yet there is little research on why – or on the implications for public health, according to a Stanford researcher.

Mass shootings: Public face of a much larger epidemic

While mass shootings have become the public face of gun violence, they account for less than 1% of the 40,000 firearm deaths each year.  

Short-term hospital readmissions for gun injuries cost $86 million a year

A study from Stanford researchers has found that readmissions account for 9.5% of the $911 million spent annually on gun-injury hospitalizations.

Supporting children through loss

Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann talks about how to help young people experiencing grief.

Firearm injuries in children, teens costly for U.S. health care system, Stanford study finds

The average cost of initial hospitalization to treat pediatric gun injuries is about $13,000 per patient and has risen in recent decades, a Stanford Medicine study found.

Investigating psychiatric illnesses of mass shooters

Ira Glick and his collaborators studied the psychiatric state of 35 mass shooters in the United States who survived the incidents, which took place between 1982 and 2019.

The silent cost of school shootings

SIEPR’s Maya Rossin-Slater finds the average rate of antidepressant use among youths under age 20 rose by 21 percent in the local communities where fatal school shootings occurred.

New study analyzes recent gun violence research

Consensus is growing in recent research evaluating the impact of right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, showing that they increase violent crime, despite what older research says.

Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk

Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.

Advice on how to cope with the threat of school shootings

Victor Carrion offers advice on how families can cope with the stress of school safety.

Reducing gun violence

Many Americans are demanding practical steps to reduce gun crime. One way is to have more stringent gun safety policies, such as legislation requiring guns to be stored safely, more stringent background checks, or as President Biden announced Tuesday, a federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 

Research has shown that states with tighter policies save lives: One study by Stephanie Chao found that states with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths among children and teenagers, and states with child prevention access laws are linked with fewer gun suicides in this age group.

“If you put more regulations on firearms, it does make a difference,” said Chao, assistant professor of surgery and senior author of the study. “It does end up saving children’s lives.” Her analysis found that states with the strictest laws had a mortality rate of 2.6 per 100,000 and for states with the least strict laws, mortality rate was almost double at 5.0 per 100,000.  

John Donohue: One tragic week with two mass shootings and the uniquely American gun problem

In a Q&A, Stanford Law School gun law expert John J. Donohue III discusses mass shootings in the U.S., the challenges facing police when confronting powerful automatic weapons and the prospect of gun safety laws.

Lax state gun laws linked to more child gun deaths

States with strict gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths among children and teenagers, and laws to keep guns away from minors are linked with fewer gun suicides in this age group, a Stanford study found.

Improved gun buyer background checks would impede some mass shootings, Stanford expert says

Stanford Law Professor John Donohue says a background check system that was universal and effectively operated could impede gun acquisition by people who commit mass shootings.

How to solve more gun crimes without spending more money

Simple tweaks to how police process bullet casings could dramatically improve their forensic data.

Reducing civilian firepower would boost police and community safety, Stanford expert says

In addition to restricting the firepower a person can amass, Stanford law Professor John J. Donohue advocates efforts to build trust between communities and law enforcement agencies as a way to enhance both police and citizen safety.

Stricter gun laws reduce child and adolescent gun deaths, Stanford study finds

Laws that keep guns away from young people are especially strongly linked to lower rates of gun suicides in youth.

Gun legislation and policy

For nearly three decades, law Professor John Donohue III has studied what can be done to prevent gun violence in the United States. A lawyer and economist, Donohue explores how law and public policy are connected to gun violence, including how gun laws in the U.S. compare to other countries, as well as how legislation varies across the states, to better understand the effect that has on rates of violence. 

“The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands,” Donohue explained . “The stricter gun laws of other ‘advanced countries’ have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents – even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.” 

Here are some of his findings, and other research related to legislating gun safety in the U.S.

Stanford’s John Donohue on guns, mass shootings and the law in the U.S.

On Nov. 30, American students were once again the victims of a school shooting. Stanford law Professor John Donohue discusses the case and gun violence in the U.S.

How U.S. gun control compares to the rest of the world

While deaths from mass shootings are a relatively small part of the overall homicidal violence in America, they are particularly wrenching. The problem is worse in the U.S. than in most other industrialized nations. And it’s getting worse.

4 gun control steps U.S. needs now

John Donohue pens an opinion piece for CNN laying out four steps the United States should take to strengthen gun legislation.

Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states

Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue found that states that adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun laws have experienced a 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws.

Another mass shooting: An update on U.S. gun laws

In a Q&A, John Donohue discusses gun safety law and legislative developments.

Stanford GSE holds teach-in on research into gun violence in schools

Education scholars look at the evidence behind policy ideas to address school shootings.

Will Americans ever think differently about guns?

Stanford medicine and law professor David Studdert thinks more public health evidence is needed before cultural attitudes around gun safety and violence will change.

clock This article was published more than  1 year ago

What research shows on the effectiveness of gun-control laws

“When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

— President Biden, addressing the mass shooting in Uvalde, Tex. , May 24

“There are, quote, ‘real’ gun laws in New York. There are ‘real’ gun laws in California. I hate to say this, but there are more people who were shot every weekend in Chicago than there are in schools in Texas.”

— Tex. Gov. Greg Abbott (R), on the mass shooting , May 25

Democrats and Republicans will forever argue about the effectiveness of gun laws to prevent mass shootings. But what does the latest academic research show?

The short answer is that many proposed laws probably would not have much impact on curbing the mass shootings that dominate the news. But they could lessen their severity, and might also bring down overall gun violence.

Despite their notoriety, mass shootings — as defined by criminologists — generally do not happen often enough for detailed data analysis. Moreover, there are at least eight databases of mass shootings , including one maintained by The Washington Post , with different definitions and parameters. An upcoming paper for the Justice Department, written by a team led by James Alan Fox of Northeastern University , Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Michael Rocque of Bates College , attempts to craft a common definition: A mass public shooting is any event in which four or more individuals, not including the assailant(s), were killed by gunfire in a public setting within a 24-hour period. Mass shootings associated with criminal activity are excluded.

Under this definition, there were three or four mass shootings a year through most of the 2010s, but then the number spiked to seven in 2017, 10 in 2018 and eight in 2019, according to the database, provided to the Fact Checker by Duwe.

The team, drawing on the existing databases and supplemental research, found that “the number of mass public shootings has indeed increased over the past four and one-half years, particularly over the past decade. However, even at its peak in 2018, the number of such incidents has not surpassed ten in any year, and often has been much lower.” Moreover, some of the increase can be linked to growth in population. The incident count tripled since the mid-1970s but the rate per 100 million of population increased by a factor of two.

Fox told the Fact Checker that most mass shooters are very determined individuals and that even with an average of seven or eight mass shootings a year, new laws might only reduce the number by one a year. But he said stricter gun control laws would be “the right thing to do for a different reason” — they might help reduce overall gun violence.

While it is generally correct that states with tougher gun laws tend to have lower gun fatality rates, those rankings change when suicides — which make up about 60 percent of gun deaths — are excluded. Rural areas, which may have less restrictive gun laws, have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. Access to guns is believed to triple the risk of suicide, according to a 2014 study. But Fox said he would exclude suicides from such calculations. “There is a big difference between homicide and suicide,” he said. “The victim of a homicide does not choose to be killed.”

Here’s a summary of key research on the effectiveness of various laws, either at the federal or state level.

Assault weapons ban

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (LCMs), defined as those that could hold more than 10 rounds. The law — which grandfathered in an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons and 25 million LCMs already owned by Americans — was in place for 10 years until Congress let it lapse.

Even supporters of the law have acknowledged that it was riddled with loopholes, such as allowing copycat weapons to be sold, that limited its effectiveness. Some research, however, suggests the ban became more effective toward the end of the 10-year period because it helped cap and then reduce the supply of assault weapons and LCMs.

Biden claimed that mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. He appears to be relying on a study of mass shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio , a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. That group found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 out of 448, or 70 percent, of the mass shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts.

Meanwhile, Louis Klarevas , a research professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, studied high-fatality mass shootings (involving six or more people) for his 2016 book “ Rampage Nation .” He said that compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent and that the number of people dying because of mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers in the next 10-year period rose sharply — a 183 percent increase in mass shootings and a 239 percent increase in deaths. His analysis, however, has been criticized by some experts for being heavily impacted by the final year of his data series.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, moreover. Fox, in a 2016 study co-written with Emma Fridel of Northeastern University, noted that “rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters.” (About 70 percent of mass public shootings after 1992 relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns.) They wrote that “the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect” and that “not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at their disposal.”

The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth.

Large-capacity magazines

While the assault weapons ban may not have reduced the number of mass shootings, there is some evidence that the 1994 law’s restrictions on LCMs may have been effective in reducing the death toll.

Christopher S. Koper , an associate professor of criminology at George Mason University, said in a 2020 study that LCMs enable rapid spray fire that gives shooters the ability to wound higher numbers of victims in public settings. So restrictions on LCMs can have an effect.

“Data on mass shooting incidents suggest these magazine restrictions can potentially reduce mass shooting deaths by 11 percent to 15 percent and total victims shot in these incidents by one quarter, likely as upper bounds,” Koper wrote, adding, “It is reasonable to argue that the federal ban could have prevented some of the recent increase in persons killed and injured in mass shootings had it remained in place.”

Moreover, a number of studies of state-level bans on LCMs, such as by Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University and by Klarevas , indicate that such laws are associated with a significantly lower number of fatalities in mass shootings. Fox co-wrote a 2020 study of state gun laws that concluded that bans on LCMs are associated with 38 percent fewer fatalities and 77 percent fewer nonfatal injuries when a mass shooting occurred.

But even states such as California, which outlaws LCMs that hold more than 10 bullets, have suffered from mass shootings that involved LCMs. When Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015 with legally purchased guns and rifles, four high-capacity magazines were found, perhaps holding as many as 30 rounds. Many mass shooters also acquire a large inventory of weapons, making reloading less necessary.

Universal background checks

There is evidence that universal background checks — including between private parties — could have an impact on mass shootings. State laws requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, which includes a background check on all purchases, are associated with 60 percent lower odds of a mass public shooting occurring, Fox’s 2020 study found.

But most mass murderers legally purchase the firearms they use in their killing sprees. Salvador Ramos, identified by police as the gunman who killed 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, purchased two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and ammunition as soon as he turned 18. He had never been convicted of a felony or had a history of criminal violence, so there was no prohibition against him buying the weapons.

The current system also fails. In 2015, Dylann Roof killed nine people with a .45-caliber Glock pistol that held 13 rounds at a historic African American church in Charleston, S.C. Roof legally purchased his gun from a store, but the FBI said he should have failed the background check because he had been charged with possessing Suboxone without a prescription. However, because of clerical mistakes, the FBI said the examiner did not get hold of the report before the three-day waiting period ended, and so the store went through with the purchase.

This three-day period has become known as the “Charleston loophole” that some lawmakers have sought to close. But it’s possible Roof might have passed the background check if it had been done correctly. The FBI statement incorrectly referred to a felony drug charge, but it was a misdemeanor for possession; he did not admit to being an addict. The FBI later said Roof would have been denied a gun based on an “inference of current use.”

Firearms prohibitions based on mental health

Anyone who slaughters innocent people with firearms in theory would be expected to have mental health issues. But most people who have mental health issues are not killers; in fact, they are more likely to be victims of gun violence. Nearly one in five adults in the United States live with a mental illness , according to the National Institute of Mental Health , while epidemiological research suggests that nearly half the U.S. population may experience some symptoms of mental illness in their lifetime.

That makes it difficult to know when to draw the line, especially because mental illness is not a predictor of violence. “Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness,” noted Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish of Vanderbilt University in a 2016 study . They said that other factors, such as alcohol and drug use, may increase the risk of turning toward violent crime even more. A history of childhood abuse is also considered a predictive risk factor.

Red-flag (“extreme risk”) laws — which generally allow police to take firearms away from people who exhibit concerning behavior — have been passed in 19 states and the District of Columbia, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for gun-control laws. Between 1999 and 2021, at least 16,857 extreme risk petitions were filed, the group says. Florida, which passed such a law after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018, has used it 6,000 times since then. A 2019 study found that as many as 21 mass shootings might have been prevented in California after the state in 2016 implemented such a law.

Yet New York’s red-flag law was not invoked against Payton Gendron, the suspect in the racist attack in Buffalo this month that left 10 people dead. He had said in school he planned to commit a murder-suicide and was taken to a hospital for a mental health evaluation. Police chose not to seek a red-flag order, apparently because he did not name a specific target. New York’s governor has since signed an executive order seeking to strengthen the law.

( About our rating scale )

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles

168 Gun Control Topics & Research Questions

In this gun control topics compilation, we offer a polarizing discourse surrounding firearms regulations. Gun control is a complex and contentious issue encompassing discussions about individual rights, public safety, and the role of government in citizen welfare. These gun control essay topics will show diverse perspectives on gun control policies.

🤔 TOP 7 Gun Control Topics

🏆 best gun control topics, ✅ pro gun control essay topics, ❌ against gun control essay topics, 👍 gun control essay examples, 🎓 interesting gun control research questions, 💡 simple gun control essay topics, ❓ more gun violence titles.

• Gun Control Rebuttal in the United States
• Effects of Gun Control Measures in the United States
• A Court Case That Influenced Federal Decision on Gun Control
• The Effects of Gun Control on Crimes
• Gun Control Laws in the United States
• The Issue of Gun Control in the US
• Analysis and Criticism of the US Gun Control Laws
• The Problem of Gun Control in Watertown Watertown has experienced many cases of shootings and robbery with violence. The gun control is a significant problem in Watertown and should be addressed by all means possible.
• Gun Control, Self-Defense, and Beneficence to All The annotated bibliography meets all the criteria and helps to reveal the topic of gun control in the USA from different angles.
• Gun Control in the United States The guns are indispensable from the perspective of self-defense that is the stumbling block of firearm ownership in the United States.
• US Gun Policy: Article Credibility and Usefulness The article draws a parallel between the United States and other leading developed economies to paint a clear image of the high number of gun owners in the United States.
• The United States Needs Stricter Gun Control Laws To ensure the safety of citizens, it is necessary to impose stricter laws related to gun control in the United States.
• Gun Control Legislation Should Be Revised The paper states that it is necessary to revise the legislation on arms control. Changes must be made to ensure the good of all US citizens.
• Gun Control Laws Introduced by Executive Branch The executive branch has introduced various laws that guide the citizens. One of the policies involves gun control and has led to endless debates in the country.
• Discussion Board Post: Gun Control Gun control represents a critical set of laws and regulations regarding the control over the civilian population’s proper use, prevention, or restriction of firearms.
• What Can be Done About Gun Control in the US? There are many measures that the US government can imply to overcome the gun problem in the country but there is a high chance they will face public outrage by doing so.
• The Gun Control in the United States The essay discusses the current situation with gun control in the United States and possible measures to improve it.
• The Debate on Gun Control. Law Control While some individuals believe that there is a need for stricter laws, others argue that bearing a legal firearm is a fundamental human right that must be protected.
• The Situation of Gun Control The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issue associated with firearms regulation and examine the situation of gun control in different countries.
• Gun Control Laws Analysis The availability of guns is not the reason for the rise of violence and aggression. People use it for protecting themselves, relaxation.
• Gun Control and Legalization in the USA While some individuals consider the issue of gun control to be a crime, others consider it a rights issue, in addition to being political issue, safety, and racial issue.
• Strengthening Background Checks: The Need to Enhance Firearm Purchase Screening.
• Assault Weapons Ban: Curbing High-Capacity Firearms Proliferation.
• Red Flag Laws: How to Prevent Access to Firearms for Individuals at Risk.
• Closing Gun Show and Online Loopholes: Tightening Sales Regulations.
• Can Mandatory Waiting Periods Reduce Impulsive Firearm Purchases?
• Licensing and Registration as ways to Promote Accountability in Gun Ownership.
• Gun Buyback Programs: How to Encourage Voluntary Firearm Surrender?
• Do Safe Storage Laws Prevent Unauthorized Access to Firearms?
• Gun Control and Domestic Violence Prevention.
• How Strict Should Be Mental Health Evaluations to Ensure Responsible Firearm Ownership?
• Firearm Trafficking and Straw Purchases: Combating Illicit Trade.
• Youth Access to Firearms: Implementing Age Restrictions.
• Gun Control and Suicide Prevention.
• The Role of Gun Control in School Safety Measures.
• Gun Control and Reducing Police Shootings.
• Law Enforcement and Gun Control: Perspectives from the Field.
• International Models of Effective Gun Control Policies.
• Gun Control and Reducing Accidental Firearm Deaths.
• Economic Implications of Gun Violence: Healthcare Costs and Productivity Loss.
• Building Consensus: Finding Common Ground in the Gun Control Debate.
• Individual Liberties and Gun Ownership as a Part of Second Amendment.
• The Efficacy of Gun Control Measures in Reducing Crime Rates.
• Assessing Gun-Free Zones Impact on Public Safety.
• The Role of Firearms Ownership in Self-Defense and Personal Security.
• Firearms as a Deterrent: Examining the Potential of Armed Citizens.
• The Slippery Slope Argument: How Gun Control Can Lead to Further Restrictions.
• Law-Abiding Citizens and the Burden of Stricter Gun Control Laws.
• The Policy Should Target Criminals, Not Law-Abiding Gun Owners.
• Gun Control and the Challenge of Enforcing Regulations.
• Defending Against Tyranny: The Historical Context of the Second Amendment.
• The Cultural Significance of Guns in American Society.
• Concealed Carry Laws: Empowering Citizens for Personal Protection.
• What Are the Root Causes of Gun Violence?
• The Realities of Criminal Access to Firearms.
• Gun Control and its Potential Impact on Minority Communities.
• Law Enforcement Response Time: The Need for Immediate Self-Defense.
• The Role of Gun Ownership in Deterring Home Invasions.
• Major Lessons of International Gun Control Policies.
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Gun-Free Zone Policies.
• Balancing Public Safety with Individual Autonomy: The Ethical Debate.
• Argument of Origin: Gun Control An individual carries many different emotional and physical responses to sociological and economical stress and these stresses can be affected by violence and probable chance of violence.
• The Position of Major Political Parties on Gun Control Gun politics and gun control has been one of the most controversial issues in the United States of America politics.
• The Gun Control Controversy in the Constitutional Context Gun control is a controversial subject. Some argue that U.S. citizens do not need firearms today in the way they did at the time of the country’s founding.
• Gun Control and Safe Firearm Ownership The problem of gun ownership and control in the United States of America has been a controversial issue for many decades.
• Emma Gonzalez Calling for Gun Control Legislation Emma Gonzalez advocates for the enactment of particular laws that will regulate gun sales properly, especially the policies related to effective wellness and background checkups.
• No Gun Control: Dropping Ineffective Measures Gun control has become one of the most debated issues in American society, creating two irreconcilable groups for and against heightened firearm regulation.
• Gun Control Issues and Solution in the US The US is the only developed country with the highest cases of gun violence. Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution. Many states have enacted gun control rules.
• Gun Control Laws in the USA It is important to analyze the essays’ epistemology and to examine the used sources to focus on the discussion of such essay topics as the necessity of gun control laws.
• Gun Control History and Relevant Cases in the US The mass killing of 20 children in Newton, Connecticut and the killing of 9 worshipers at a church in Charleston, California prompted gun-control advocates to reawaken the debate.
• US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding? Gun control has long been among the chief sources of debate in the US. This polarizing topic presents a powerful political tool and extensively used by Democrats and Republicans.
• Problem of the Gun Control Laws Many people die yearly due to handgun linked incidents. The number of casualties who die from gun related accidents, in the country, is much higher compared to other bordering countries.
• Gun Control and Anti-Violence Programs in the USA The USA is known for its high levels of violent crime. The issue of gun control is brought up every time a school shooting or a violent robbery happens.
• US Gun Control Measures and Crime Rates Reduction Gun control is an essential step that will ensure people account for several security aspects as is evident in this discussion.
• American Gun Control Laws: Reasons to Implement Gun control laws can be a necessary precaution that can reduce the risk of homicide. Yet, policy-makers should develop the most optimal strategies for implementing this policy.
• Gun Control in the United States Gun control has become a popular, controversial term, especially in America that covers a broad range of obligations regarding firearms.
• Gun Control: New Restriction Laws New restricting laws to regulate the situation with gun violence can be discussed as effective legitimate steps because they respond to the public’s vision of the problem.
• Gun Control: US Domestic Policy The paper reveals that the relationship between gun ownership and violence in the US is misleading, the government does not have a right to control gun ownership.
• Gun Control and School Shootings The adoption of stricter gun control laws can be useful for reducing the risk of shootings in various educational organizations.
• The Debate Over Gun Control The debate surrounding gun control has two differing sides: the pro-gun control and anti-gun control. This paper focuses on evaluating the two opinions in the gun control debate.
• Why Gun Control Laws Should be Scrapped With all the facts available, we can confidently debunk statements that gun control can indeed reduce crime rates because there is no evidence to prove that claim.
• Political Sciences: Gun Control in the United States This paper underlines the reasons why gun control should be tightened across the United States, because allowing increased access to guns means increased damage to society.
• The Constitution and Gun Control
• Gun Control and Its Effects on Children
• Violence Policy Center Gun Control
• The Dichotomy Over Civilian Gun Control
• Gun Control Laws Should Not Be Regulated for Unnecessary Reasons
• The Current Loose Regulation of Gun Control Laws
• Gun Control and the State of Utah
• Federalists and Early American Gun Control
• Regulating the American Gun Control
• The National Rifle Association on Gun Control
• Liberals Love Gun Control
• Gun Control and the Issue of Violence Among Kids
• America Needs Criminal Control, Not Gun Control
• The Reasoning Behind Gun Control Laws
• Gun Control Firearms Firearm Crime
• Gun Control Pros and Cons in the United States
• The History, Politics, Stakeholders, and Legislation of Gun Control Laws
• Gun Control Laws Hurt the People
• The Need for Strict Gun Control in the United States
• The Gun Control and Ownership Battle in the United States
• The Stricter Gun Control Laws in the United States and Its Efficiency
• The Truth Behind the Demand for More Gun Control
• America Should Have Stricter Gun Control
• Gun Control Crime Rate Police
• The First Federal Gun Control Law
• Arguing Against New Jersey Gun Control Laws
• The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control
• Gun Control Laws Take Guns Away From Law-Abiding Citizens
• American Federalism and Gun Control
• Louisiana Needs Gun Control Laws
• The Three Arguments and Myths of Gun Control
• Gun Control Laws Are Not Strict Enough for Society
• Public Gun Control and the United States
• The Desperate Need for Gun Control
• Gun Control and the Crime Rate
• The Great Gun Control Debate
• Youth and Gun Control
• Opposing Gun Control With the Right to Bear Arms
• Gun Control and the Rights of the Second Amendment
• Gun Control, Good Idea or Bad Idea
• Gun Control and the Federal Government
• Laws, Loopholes, and Gun Control
• Gun Control Has Many Effects in the USA
• Gun Control Should Not Be the Issue in Canada
• The Government and Gun Control
• Gun Control Laws Will Not Reduce Crime
• The Risks and Threats of Carrying Handguns in Society and the Importance of Gun Control
• Gun Control Will Not Reduce Crime
• The Issue and Debate of Gun Control
• Gun Control and the Issue of Owning Firearms
• Too Many Homicides, Too Little Gun Control
• Gun Control and Linkage Mechanisms
• Updating Gun Control Laws
• The Ineffective Gun Control Laws
• The Second Amendment Versus the Idea of Gun Control
• Gun Control Firearms and Freedom
• The Reasons Why Being Pro-gun Control Is Effective in Achieving Peace
• The Argument for Stricter Gun Control Laws
• Gun Control Restricting Rights or Protecting People
• The Pros and Cons of Gun Control in the United States
• Is Gun Control Likely To Reduce Violent Killings?
• What Are the Gun Control Rates in Australia?
• Why Do Experience and Culture Matter in the Gun Control Debate?
• What Are the Early American Origins of Gun Control?
• What Are the Effects and Consequences of Gun Control?
• Are Americans Shifting in the View on Gun Control?
• What Are the Alternative Approaches to the Gun Control Debate?
• Why the Movement for Gun Control in America Is Missing?
• What Is the State Gun Control Advocacy Tactics and Resources?
• Is Gun Control Really About People Control?
• What Is the Attitude Measurement and the Gun Control Paradox?
• How To Use the Issue Crawler to Map Gun Control Issue-networks?
• How To Explain Variation in Gun Control Policy Advocacy Tactics Among Local Organizations?
• What Is Media Influence on Attitudes Toward Guns and Gun Control?
• What Is the Factual Foundation for Certain Key Assumptions of Gun Control?
• Why Media Polls on Gun Control Are Often Unreliable?
• What Are Police Beliefs and Attitudes About Gun Control?
• How Does the News Media Cover Gun Control?
• What Are the Effects of State and Federal Gun Control Laws on School Shootings?
• What Is the Impact of Gun Control Legislation on Suicide?
• Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?
• What Are the Effects of Political Culture on Gun Control and Legislation?
• What Are the Effects of Cueing and Framing on Youth Attitudes Towards Gun Control?
• Why Do People Support Gun Control?
• What Is the Blockchain Solution to Gun Control?
• What Is the Ideology of Gun Ownership and Gun Control in the United States?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 1). 168 Gun Control Topics & Research Questions. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gun-control-essay-topics/

"168 Gun Control Topics & Research Questions." StudyCorgi , 1 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/gun-control-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '168 Gun Control Topics & Research Questions'. 1 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "168 Gun Control Topics & Research Questions." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gun-control-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "168 Gun Control Topics & Research Questions." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gun-control-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "168 Gun Control Topics & Research Questions." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/gun-control-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Gun Control were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 21, 2024 .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Surg Neurol Int

Is gun control really about people control?

James i. ausman.

1 Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles,

2 Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA,

Miguel A. Faria

3 Departments of Surgery (Neurosurgery) and Medical History, Mercer University School of Medicine (ret.), Macon, GA, USA.

The Second Amendment of the USA Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today around the USA and the world some people are advocating the removal of guns from the citizens, called “Gun Control,” as the solution to violent crime that they associate with guns in the hands of the public, contrary to what the Second Amendment states.

This review provides a factual background to the debate about the issues surrounding the arguments for and against “Gun Control.” The paper documents many factors that lead to violent crimes committed by people. The means used to cause violent crimes cover the history of human civilization. They include weapons of all types, bombs, toxic substances, vehicles of many kinds, and planes, all to cause the death of others. Some who commit or threaten violent crime against others are emotionally disturbed and in many cases are known to the police through screening systems. Family dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse, an incessant stream of media and entertainment featuring gun violence, and an educational system that does not equip the young with the proper civic and ethical principles to deal with life’s challenges all contribute to violent behavior using guns and other lethal means. With this background of multiple factors leading to the commission of violent crimes against others, the focus has been concentrated on banning firearms from public ownership rather than understanding the reasons for this criminal behavior. Why? There is the overwhelming evidence that disarming the public from using firearms will not reduce violent crimes and will render people defenseless. Other facts indicate that allowing citizens to carry arms will prevent or reduce violent crimes. The debate over Gun Control has become politicized and emotionally based, because the real goal is not stated. In respected scientific journals and in the Media, factual information about the causes and prevention of violent deaths has been misrepresented or is blatantly false. Using censorship, the medical press and the mass media have refused to publish articles or print opposing opinions such as those supporting the rights of citizens to bear arms. There is evidence that tax-exempt foundations and wealthy individuals are financially supporting Gun Control efforts with the goal of disarming the public to establish a centrally controlled government and to eliminate the US Constitution. It is obvious that in the rapidly changing world we need to find answers to the many factors behind Violent Crime in which guns are used. That will take time and patience. In the meantime, is there a gray area for compromise in the Guns and Violence issue? Yes, logically, from all the evidence presented in this review, citizens should be encouraged to carry arms for self, family, and fellow citizen protection, and as a check on government, a right guaranteed by the constitution and endowed by our God-given natural right. The challenges facing us are multifaceted. Is Gun Control really about People Control?

INTRODUCTION — MASS MURDER, CASE EXAMPLES — USA — WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

Parkland, florida: (february 14, 2018).

Wikipedia reported that at least for a 2-year period before the shooting, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the local sheriff’s office had information that the shooter wanted to commit a school shooting. Nothing was done. Furthermore, at the time of the shooting, several police officers remained outside the school and did not confront the murderer. Subsequently, the state legislature raised the minimum age for buying guns from 18 to 21. It banned certain kinds of firearms, established background checks, and waiting periods for gun buyers. It also allowed teachers to be trained and armed and prohibited mentally unstable people from possessing guns.[ 23 ]

• Most of these new regulations have been found not to reduce gun violence.
• “ In fact, America is not the worst country for mass shootings and does not even make it to the top ten, despite the record number of guns in the hands of Americans. For example France, Norway, Belgium, Finland, and the Czech Republic, all have more deaths from mass shootings than the U.S., and in fact, from 2009 to 2015, the European Union had 27 percent more casualties per mass shooting incidents than the U.S .”[ 10 ]
• All of the talks about establishing safeguards are meaningless for the following common-sense reasons. If you have a child in school, would you want teachers and others to be armed to prevent or stop such an attack on your child and others? Or would you want your child to be defenseless? What will happen if the police do not act on information they are given about a threatened attack, or if the police even responded but did not confront the killer? What good do the laws do if no one follows them or if they are not enforced? Only armed citizens or armed school sentinels on the spot can stop these murders.

San Bernardino: (December 2, 2015)

• “ The San Bernardino terrorist attack took place on December 2, 2015, when 14 people were massacred and 22 others were injured in the mass shooting and attempted bombing of the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. The perpetrators were a married couple, both of Pakistani descent, who had been radicalized by Islamic fundamentalism in the United States. Their target was a Department of Public Health Christmas party at a rented banquet room with about 80 employees in attendance, including the husband who was a public health inspector. After the shooting, the couple escaped but were pursued and later killed in a shootout with police. The motives were Islamic terrorism, incited by jihad and, apparently, seeking martyrdom. Several friends and family members were subsequently arrested under a variety of charges, ranging from conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, perjury, sham marriages, and immigration fraud. An armed citizen could have stopped the shooting rampage, but in a restricted public health setting, we must admit that armed self-defense would have been highly unlikely. Besides the fact that a group of public health workers is unlikely to have among them Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) holders, the Inland Regional Center is also most likely designated a gun-free zone (GFZ) that consigns those present to be helpless and defenseless victims in a mass shooting incident .”[ 10 ]
• “ Since 1950, 97.8 Percent of Mass Shootings have occurred in “Gun-Free Zones” “[Jerome Hudson. 50 things they don’t want you to know. Broadside Books; 2019; Chapter 6; available at amazon.com] .

Santa Fe, Texas High School Shooting: (May 18, 2018)

• “ Ten people – eight students and two teachers – were fatally shot and thirteen others were wounded. The suspected shooter was taken into custody and later identified by police as a 17-year-old student at the school .”[ 26 ] Could these murders have been prevented by an armed citizen?

First Baptist Church, Southerland Springs, Texas: (November 5, 2017)

• “ We suffered another tragic mass killing when a young man dressed in black and armed with a Ruger AR-556 rifle entered the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on November 5 and opened fire killing 26 people and wounding 20 other parishioners. No one, who was at the church, was untouched by death and destruction. The gunman fled the church but was pursued by two armed citizens. Thankfully, those two Texas heroes ended what could have been a series of massacres by another deranged malcontent .”[ 10 ]

Assault Rifles: The other side of the story

• In November 1990, Brian Rigsby and his friend Tom Styer left their home in Atlanta, Georgia, and went camping near Oconee National Forest, not too far from where I [Miguel A. Faria] live in rural Georgia. Suddenly, they were assaulted by two madmen, who had been taking cocaine and who fired at them using shotguns killing Styer. Rigsby returned fire with a Ruger Mini-14, a semiautomatic weapon frequently characterized as an assault weapon. It saved his life .[ 6 ]
• In January 1994, Travis Dean Neel was cited as citizen of the year in Houston, Texas. He had saved a police officer and helped the police arrest three dangerous criminals in a gunfight, street shooting incident. Neel had helped stop the potential mass shooters using once again a semiautomatic, so-called assault weapon with a high capacity magazine. He provided cover for the police who otherwise were outgunned and would have been killed .[ 6 ]
• What would have happened if these citizens did not have the “assault weapons” to save their lives and others from these mentally unstable assailants or outright criminals?

Banning of kitchen knives in England

“ The United Kingdom has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world, so the increased murder rate in the British capital is largely a result of a sharp rise in knife- related crime. The surge in violence prompted London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, to announce a massive ‘Knife Control’ campaign reminiscent of those sometimes suggested in the United States in response to firearms-related violence…The U.K. already criminalizes the purchase or possession of various types of knives, and the carrying of any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches in public is illegal unless it is carried “with good reason.” Self-defense is not considered a good reason .”

“ This crackdown on knives, and the surrounding rhetoric demonizing those who would carry them in public, should serve as a warning to Americans disconcerted by the vocal anti-Second Amendment activists in our own country. They will not be satisfied by merely taking away your scary “assault weapons.” In theory, the 1689 English Bill of Rights protects the right of individual British subjects to possess arms for purposes of self-defense. In reality, modern Britons have had this right completely stripped from them [by over more than 300 years of restrictive legislation in violation of the subjects’ rights-Ed], to the point where they may be reprimanded for using kitchen knives against home intruders…Disarming law-abiding citizens is dangerous because it does not stop criminals, who will never voluntarily discard their weapons, from engaging in violent activity. It is dangerous because it leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless against both crime and tyranny .”[ 20 ]

• This article describes the relentless progression of legislation restricting the right of citizens to be armed and explains why US citizens are so adamant in their defense of the Second Amendment rights, and to be against even minor compromises in that Right.

NYC truck terror attack (October 31, 2017)

• Dr. Faria states, “Before closing on the issue of Islamic terrorism, a word should be said about the most recent incident in New York City, which underscores not only the increasing new terroristic threat to American cities but also the use of cars and trucks to plow into unsuspecting crowds with mass casualties of innocent civilians. A vehicle driven into a crowd is becoming the terrorists’ weapon of choice in Europe, and the sanguinary practice seems to be taking hold in the U.S. as well.
• “ The Halloween truck attack on October 31, 2017, in Manhattan, a few blocks from the site of the Twin Towers [where the largest terrorist attack in the US history occurred on September 11, 2001], is the most recent egregious example. The atrocity also emphasizes the switch from mass shootings caused by deranged citizens to deliberate jihad by foreign and domestic Islamic terrorists. The courts’ disapproval of President Trump’s ban on immigration from seven countries with strong ties to terrorism has permitted dangerous individuals to continue to enter the country. Our faulty immigration laws and virtually open borders facilitate Islamic terrorism in this country, whether by mass shootings or by the use of vehicles to plow into crowds .”[ 10 ]
• Will banning guns stop these mass murders?

Bombs in Boston Marathon by terrorists (April 15, 2013)

• “ During the annual Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, two homemade pressure cooker bombs detonated 12 s and 210 yards (190 m) apart at 2:49 p.m., near the finish line of the race, killing three people and injuring several hundred others, including 16 who lost limbs… Three days later, the FBI released images of two suspects who were later identified as Chechen Kyrgyzstani-American brothers… They killed an MIT policeman, kidnapped a man in his car, and had a shootout with the police in nearby Watertown, during which two officers were severely injured, one of whom died a year later. One brother terrorist died. The other brother stated that they were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs… and learned to build explosive devices from an online magazine of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen. He also said they had intended to travel to New York City to bomb Times Square. The remaining brother was sentenced to death .”[ 22 ]
• Will banning guns stop these crimes?

THE PRESS: INACCURATE REPORTING AND CENSORSHIP

Editorial in the lancet: “gun deaths and the gun control debate in the usa”.

In the October 22, 2017 issue of The Lancet, an Editorial was published entitled, “Gun Deaths and the gun control debate in the USA.” There was no author listed. The editorial begins, “The numbing parade of mass shootings in the USA — like the one in Las Vegas that left at least 59 people dead — has often obscured the gun debate’s open secret: horrific, attention- grabbing, and mass shootings represent only a small minority of gun deaths each year. Two-thirds of all gun deaths in the USA are attributable to suicide…” The editorial continues, “…Rural counties have a higher prevalence of suicide than do small and medium metropolitan, or urban counties…” The author cites the passage of “the Dickey Amendment, [a] federal law that bans funding for most gun violence research, effectively stopping the CDC (since 1996) and National Institutes of Health (NIH; since 2012) from examining gun violence and ways to prevent it… .”

JAMA editorial on “Death by Gun Violence — A Public Health Crisis”

The JAMA Editorial by Bauchner et al. was entitled “Death by Gun Violence – A Public Health Crisis,” JAMA: 318:1763, 2017. Dr. Bauchner and colleagues start by repeating the details of the Las Vegas mass shooting in which 59 people died and over 500 were injured. They continue by saying that almost 100 people die each day in the USA from gun violence. They state that there were 36,252 deaths from firearms in the USA in 2015, which exceeded the number who died in motor vehicle accidents. They agree that 60% of gun deaths were from suicides. Their conclusion was, “the key to reducing firearm deaths in the United States is to understand and reduce exposure to the cause, just like in any epidemic, and in this case that is guns.”

Dr. Faria’s response

[Miguel Faria, MD, Associate Editor in Chief SNI Publications submitted editorials to each journal in response to their editorials. Both of Faria’s responses were similar. The following is Dr. Faria’s letter to the JAMA about its Editorial on gun violence. Neither of Faria’s Letters to the Editor were published. He was given no reason for their inaction.]

“Your editorial on gun violence has a number of glaring errors and distortions. For example, the statement that guns in the home are more likely to result “in the death of the loved ones rather than the intruder” has been thoroughly disproved directly in the criminology and sociologic literature by a number of investigators, including Dr. Edgar Suter, Prof. Gary Kleck, Prof. John R. Lott, as well substantiated by the seminal work of Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi .[ 15 - 17 , 19 , 28 ] You also disingenuously implied that the U.S. has a high suicide rate because of easy gun availability. Well, it is true that a gun is a very effective method of suicide. People in other countries kill themselves very effectively and at higher rates than the US by other methods. For example, recent figures (2016) show that Japan ranks 26 th in International Suicide Rates; the Japanese commit suicide via hanging, suffocation, jumping in front of trains, and Hara-kiri at a rate of 19.7/100,000, much higher than the United States. Americans rank 48 th and the rate is 14.3/100,000. Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Hungary, and many other European countries have higher rates of suicide than the U.S., and again all of them have stricter gun laws. As long as there are ropes, knives, pesticides, and trains, there will be suicides. Will we have to return to the Stone Age to stop suicides? Like it or not, possessing firearms is a constitutional right of Americans, supported by two Supreme Court decisions.” [ 5 , 27 ]

“ As to most of the investigations linking gun availability to violence, they have been …shown to be biased and politicized studies, conducted with predetermined conclusions — which is the case with most of the public health studies on gun violence. As to the rural suicide studies, Dr. Thomas Gift, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical School, has recently debunked the Maryland study on gun violence as faulty and poorly designed. Dr. Gift complained, “While the authors claim to be comparing rural and urban data, the counties in Maryland they label as “rural” seem to be largely suburban. They conducted numerous statistical tests without any attempt to control for the associations they call “significant” but which arise solely by chance in the course of doing so many numerical manipulations.” [ 11 ] In short, the CDC was restricted from conducting such gun studies because the studies were politicized, flawed, and conducted with preordained results so that they could only be characterized as junk science. I was one of the four experts, who testified to the Congressional Committee that led to the ban in 1996. It was and remains the correct step that public policy should be based on sound scholarship with consideration of constitutional issues, not emotionalism, and pseudoscience .”[ 2 , 14 , 19 , 29 ]

According to the writing of Dr. T. Wheeler, Director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership,[ 21 ] the readers should know that the American Medical Association has taken a position against gun ownership by the public since the AMA’s President Richard Corlin’s inaugural address in 1991. He spoke against guns, public gun ownership, and gun manufacturers for catering to the criminal market. The AMA has been joined by the Joyce Foundation and its anti-gun advocacy research money although denying this position vigorously. The AMA’s House of Delegates has not subsequently fully supported Gorlin’s position. The Editorial attests to the AMA’s continued biased stance agaist gun ownership by the public. The AMA’s membership has declined from 70% of the practicing physicians in the 1950s to 15% by 2011, indicating a lack of support by US physicians for its policies.[ 21 ] This is another example of bias behind some medical reporting that is assumed to represent most physicians thinking.

In his paper on “America, guns, and freedom. Part I: a recapitulation of liberty”[ 4 ] Faria states, “As neurosurgeons, we can be compassionate and still be honest and have the moral courage to pursue the truth and viable solutions through the use of sound, scholarly research in the area of guns and violence. We have an obligation to reach our conclusions based on objective data and scientific information rather than on ideology, emotionalism, or partisan politics.”

ADDITIONAL FACTUAL INFOMATION ON GUNS AND VIOLENCE

More gun possession in the united states has not resulted in increased crime.

In his paper, “America, guns, and freedom. Part I: a recapitulation of liberty,”[ 4 ] Dr. Faria states, “The role of gun violence and street crime in the United States and the world is currently a subject of great debate among national and international organizations, including the United Nations. Because the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the individual right of American citizens to own private firearms, availability of firearms is greater in the U.S. than the rest of the world except, perhaps, in Israel and Switzerland.”[ 4 ]

“ Indeed, although the American people continue to purchase and possess more firearms, homicides, and violent crimes have continued to diminish for several decades because guns in the hands of the law-abiding citizens do not translate into more crime .”[ 4 ]

Evidence guns prevent crime

Dr. Faria[ 3 ] cites a study by Dr. Edgar A. Suter, former Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Policy, and others, whose studies we have cited, which states,

“ the defensive use of firearms by citizens amounts to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarfs the offensive gun use by criminals. In the United States, between 25 and 75 lives are saved by a gun in self and family protection for every life lost to a gun in crime. The Media tend to cover the sensational side of the mass killings and not the successes of those with guns who prevent attacks or limit their severity by the armed citizens’ quick action .”

From his research, Faria states,

“ Australians learned the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens .”[ 3 ]

“ As a result, there was a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who, in small communities and particularly in rural areas, were now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, for example, there was a 300% increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased by almost 60% in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased by almost 20% in New South Wales. 2 years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies had risen by 73%, unarmed robberies by 28%, kidnappings by 38%, assaults by 17%, and manslaughter by 29%, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics .”[ 3 ]

He continues…

Switzerland stood… “ against the Nazi threat during World War II, because each and every male was an armed and free citizen …Nazi Germany could have overwhelmed Switzerland during World War II, but the price was too steep for the German High Command. Instead, the Nazi juggernaut trampled over Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, Norway, and other countries, and avoided the armed Swiss nation, the “porcupine,” which was prepared for war and its military was ready to die rather than surrender .”[ 3 ]

In his book on America Guns and Freedom , Faria states,

“ In Switzerland, where gun laws are liberalized, there was not a single report of armed robbery in Geneva in 1993! Except for isolated instances, Switzerland remains relatively crime free. Obviously, it is not all about guns; it is also about having a homogeneous population, and a civil and cultured society… ”[ 10 ]

Faria concludes, “ that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crimes, and …nations that trust their citizens with firearms have governments that sustain liberty and affirm individual freedom. Governments that do not trust their citizens with firearms tend to be despotic and tyrannical, and are a potential danger to good citizens---and a peril to humanity.” He quotes “Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States of America, who warned us, “When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny .”[ 3 ]

Value of concealed carry weapons to the citizens

“On the other hand,” Faria states, “Professor John R. Lott, Jr.,[ 17 ] using the standard criminological approach, reviewed the FBI’s massive yearly crime statistics for all 3054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977–1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use.”

“ The data show that neither states’ waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates. But by adopting concealed carry gun laws that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, the death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., as those which took place in 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland, and Tasmania, Australia or the infamous 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado in the United States) were cut by an amazing 69%. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime, without any apparent increase in accidental death .”[ 3 ]

Faria concludes from his review

…” how citizens can protect themselves from criminal assailants when the police, more often than not, are not there to protect them. the National Victims Data suggests that “while victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare hands are about twice as likely to be injured as those who submit, victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who put up no defense.”….“The gun is a great equalizer for law-abiding citizens in self and family protection, particularly women, when they are accosted in the street or when they are defending themselves and their children at home” (3, and multiple sources cited by Faria) .

The Second Amendment of the Constitution does not describe any restrictions for citizens to carry arms. However, as Faria describes in detail in his new book, America, Guns, and Freedom ,[ 10 ] legislation has been passed in some states restricting the use of guns. This legislation would appear to violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Faria writes in his book on this subject,

….”.“ Shall issue” refers to a legal requirement that a jurisdiction must issue a license to carry a concealed handgun to any applicant who meets a specified set of reasonable requirements. Implicit in the “shall issue” is the understanding that the applicant need not demonstrate a specific need or a “good cause.” Thus, the jurisdiction does not have the power to exercise discretion in the awarding of licenses, but “shall issue” them because the permit owners are subject only to meeting specific criteria written in the law. Therefore, most citizens should have CCW permits issued on demand .”

Faria continues, “Before 1990 there were very few states with ‘shall issue’ concealed carry laws. Beginning with Florida in 1987 and over the next 30 years, states began to pass CCW legislation [rapidly].” Presently, most states have approved either “shall issue” CCW licensing or laws for “constitutional carry” …which means that a person can exercise their Second Amendment right openly, and does not need a permit at all to carry a concealed… handgun openly. Twenty-nine states have CCW and eight states have “constitutional carry” freedom legislation…

There are 16 million concealed carry permit holders in the US, with 8% of Americans having permits. California and New York have “may issue” licenses by which the citizens may apply for a license by expressing need, but the privilege is so stringent that, even after providing evidence of a pressing need, licenses are frequently delayed or denied, and citizens have been killed while waiting to obtain one…

Before the American Civil War most states were “constitutional carry.” After the Civil War many states began to add gun control restrictions, and strict “may issue” gun licensing became the norm… ”[ 10 ]

The central concern about gun control legislation that is proposed is that “gun registration is the gateway to civilian disarmament which often precedes [tyranny and] genocide.”[ 10 ]

Violent crimes and crimes of passion

What is the profile of the person committing violent crimes?

From his research Faria answers:

“ According to the United States Department of Justice, the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least 6 years, with four felony arrests in his record, before he finally commits murder. FBI statistics reveal that 75% of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by 6% of hardened criminals and repeat offenders. Less than 2% of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed law- abiding citizens (e.g., CCW permit holders) .”[ 3 ]

Interpreted differently that means over 98% of violent crimes are committed by people without permits to carry concealed weapons.

In regard to “Crimes of Passion,” supposedly a result of impulse action by the killer, Faria concludes, from the evidence,

that violent crimes are a result of “violence in highly dysfunctional families in the setting of alcohol abuse, illicit drug use, or other criminal activities. Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities of the large metropolitan areas, with gangs involved in robberies, drug trade, juvenile delinquency, and even murder. Yet crimes in rural areas, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low .”[ 3 ]

Faria states in his recent book,

“The state with the most mass shootings (e.g., California) and the cities with the highest rates of serious crimes (Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, et cetera) are those with the strictest gun control laws.” [ 10 ]

Identify and treat the mentally ill. Those deemed dangerous should be prevented from hurting themselves and others by an effective mental health system that includes institutionalization

Faria blames changes in “the mental health system for the problem with the deinstitutionalization of mental patients, which began in America in the 1960s and put thousands of mental patients including dangerous ones back on the streets, which has only worsened in recent years.”[ 6 ]

Why have these developments taken place? Faria explains,

“This change has happened not only because of the recent drive for containment of health care costs but also because of the decades-long, misguided mental health strategy of administering mental health care via community outreach and outpatient treatment. In many cases, these strategies have led to inadequate follow-up of and poor compliance by patients as well as legal restraints placed on families. Some families cannot even obtain the health records of their children who are over 21 years of age to find out about their health history.” [ 6 ]

He also states that

“deadly rampages are the result of failure of the mental health system” [to identify those deranged individuals who have the potential to harm others.] He cites numerous examples in which armed citizens stopped a rampage killing using guns they had a license to carry or had nearby for personal protection .[ 6 ]

Faria cited a New York Times study in 2000 which revealed that in 100 cases of rampage shooting incidents, 63 involved people who “made threats of violence before the event, including 54 who threatened specific violence to specific people.” Nothing had been done about the threats. Moreover, over half of the shooters had overt signs of mental illness that had gone untreated .[ 6 ]

Thus, the evidence indicates that many people with mental illness who will commit violent crimes can be identified before the crime and should be managed more carefully or institutionalized.

For example, while it is true that the number of shooting rampages has increased in recent years, the rate of violent crimes and homicides for both Blacks and Whites (including those committed with firearms) has decreased significantly over the same period, despite the tremendous increase in the number of firearms in the U.S., according to both the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (5, and other sources)

Hence, another source indicates that the increased availability of guns has been related to a decrease in the rate of violent crimes in the US.

Convicted felons and mentally unstable people should not be allowed to possess guns

Faria reviewed a series of cases of violence and shooting rampages. His conclusion is that “Convicted felons and mentally unstable people,” should “forfeit the right to possess arms by virtue of the fact they are a potential danger to their fellow citizens.”[ 6 ]

Sanctuary Place, City, and Sanctuary Country laws which allow the felons to escape punishment and exist in society should be revoked

In the Introduction in cases #1 through #4, violent crimes were committed to what are regarded as GFZ, or places where guns are usually not permitted or which do not have armed people in the vicinity. Such places are preferred sites of violent crimes for the shooters. As additional examples of the dangers of GFZ,

A deadly rampage shooting in Norway occurred in a country that is a “GFZ” (where guns are not allowed) which also exists in most of Europe. Sixty-nine teenagers were killed during this rampage. In this circumstance, the deranged killer was free to murder these 69 young people. That is the fault of the state, which has GFZ that only apply to the unarmed citizens and not to the killers .[ 6 ]

See Introduction, San Bernardino: (December 2, 2015) b. for more on GFZ.

A media that sensationalizes violence leading the perverted minds of criminal malcontents and deranged individuals to believe that committing those types of high-profile crimes, such as mass shootings, will turn them into the celebrities and achieve the macabre fame they seem to crave

Faria writes: “ There is the sinister and perhaps more insoluble contributing factor to violence — namely, the problem of how the media report and how popular culture sensationalizes violence, which in association with the fruitless pursuit of celebrity status in vogue today is all pervasive. What more evidence is needed for the “15 min worth of fame” phenomenon, than the immense popularity of vulgar “reality” television shows? It is not a big step to link extensive coverage of shooting rampages in both the press and the colorful electronic media as a major contributing factor in the pathologic and even morbid attainment of celebrity status even in death.”[ 6 ]

Where is the Responsibility of the Press? What other issues can the Press correct to reduce violent crimes?

Failure to honestly report those who prevented crimes by carrying concealed weapons

As Faria states,

…“the Media do not report these citizens with guns who protect others and stop the killers. Instead the media sensationalizes the violence, blames the use of guns for the violence, and do not praise the defenders. Thus, the public gets a biased view of the crime.”…Faria states, …“the truth is that the incidence of mass shootings is very low by any standard.” Consider the fact that mass shootings are a miniscule portion of homicides, <4%, because most shootings are committed by common criminals not mass shooters. Faria describes research that “has shown that firearms are used more frequently by law-abiding citizens to repel crime than used by criminals to perpetrate crime.” He continues, “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage.” [ 6 ] and renders the people at the school defenseless.

Thus, by a biased reporting of violent crimes particularly with the use of guns, the media fails to inform the public of the value of armed citizens in stopping crime. The purpose of this bias is to provide more propaganda to remove guns from the citizens and to support centralized control of the people.

Why is there only selective reporting of violence using guns? Are there other responsible steps the media and press can take to reduce violent crime?

A child who reaches the age of 18 has witnessed 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence on television (American Psychiatric Association, 1988). The media need to take responsibility for this example

In a paper by Muscari published in 2003, she stated,

“American children watch an average of 28 hours of television a week. By the time they reach the age of 18, they will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence (American Psychiatric Association 1998). These numbers exclude time spent watching movies, playing video/computer games or with online interactive media, and listening to music- all of which may contain violent content. Since the deregulation of broadcasting in 1980, there has been a proliferation of media content that encourages violent and other antisocial behaviors.” [ 18 ]

She continues, “Media violence can be hazardous to children’s health. Six medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, recently released a joint statement on the impact of violence on children. They stated that studies point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive attitudes, values, and behaviors in some children.” [ 18 ]

With such bombardment of violence through the mass media and the popular culture, if guns were to be successfully banned, people will resort to violence using knives and any other available means.[ 20 ]

On this subject Faria states,

“It is not a big step to link extensive coverage of shooting rampages in both the press and the colorful electronic media as a major contributing factor in the pathologic and even morbid attainment of celebrity status, even in death.” Citing the work of Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health, Faria adds, “The homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10–15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television. Moreover, it was noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes, and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television.” [ 6 ]

The Media needs to take responsibility on its own for presenting violent solutions to problems.[ 6 ] Government regulation of the Media is not the solution to this problem, no more than it should be involved in Gun Control legislation. Both issues deal with Fundamental Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The People need to decide these issues not the government, whose bureaucrats at the slightest chance, will limit our Freedoms and enhance their Power.

What else can be done to reduce violent crime in the US, particularly in GFZ, as schools.

Encourage teachers and those who are willing and properly educated in the use of guns to carry weapons in schools to prevent school shootings

Faria proposes that we consider allowing teachers to have special concealed- carry firearm licenses to defend students. It would be a sensible and easy strategy “to protect the children in this mad, dystopian world we are creating in which we are too permissive to criminals and too protective of the rights of deranged individuals, while we easily blame and propose more laws and controls to limit the rights of the lawful citizens in society at large.” “Guns are inanimate objects. The responsibility for crimes rests on the criminals and those who facilitate their crimes! ”[ 6 ]

Can Public Education be returned to its original principles that include compulsory studies on Social Science, History, Civics, the Constitutional Principles of Government, and factual objective data on Criminology including Violent Crimes and their causes? Will removing guns from society solve this deficiency in our education systems? Or is our only solution to disarm the people but not the criminals and to establish a nationwide GFZ that will only incentivize Violent Crime as this paper has shown?

Need for public education on the principles of liberty, democratic governments, and the need for citizens to be armed against authoritarian government control

On the subject of Failed Social Systems and Gun Violence, Faria states,

“The American media and proponents of gun control assert that the problem lies in the “easy availability of guns“ and “too many guns” in the hands of the public. Second Amendment and gun rights advocates, on the other hand, believe the problem lies elsewhere, including a permissive criminal justice system that panders to criminals; the failure of public education; the fostering of a culture of dependence, violence, and alienation engendered by the welfare state; and the increased secularization of society with children and adolescents growing up devoid of moral guidance.”[ 6 ]

Other factors influencing criminal behavior are a prevalent attitude in the past half of the 20 th century which degrades the wisdom of generations of human history and the values of religious principles for guiding life, while replacing them with beliefs that life is meaningless and that human existence has no purpose, all of which leads to alienation, despair, violence, and suicide.

By the way, these are all goals necessary to establish authoritarian rule, goals supported by those who want to eliminate our Constitutional Republic.

Faria believes there are additional, contributing, and more proximate causes for the loss of moral compasses in our youth that lead them to violence — for example, the misguided role of the media and popular culture in the sensationalization of violence.[ 6 ]

In his paper on “America, Guns, and Freedom. Part I: a Recapitulation of Liberty”[ 4 ] Faria states,

“… freedom comes with responsibilities. Children should be taught not only the basic academic subjects but also instructed in civics, constitutional principles of government, and the meaning of liberty. Simply stated, education is important, and a system of constitutional governance that guarantees individual liberties and protects citizens from disarmament (by their own governments) comes with concomitant responsibilities. The citizens’ necessary civic involvement in the society in which they live is paramount, and it requires that the empowered population remain an informed and vigilant citizenry, the ultimate guardians of their own rights and freedoms .” These fundamental educational principles are an essential part of the understanding and responsibility for the use of firearms.

In regard to the education of children in the use of firearms, Faria describes a study performed by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.[ 3 ]

“The Agency tracked 4000 juveniles aged 6–15 years, in Denver (CO), Pittsburgh (PA), and Rochester (NY) from 1993 to 1995. The investigators found that children who were taught to use firearms with parental supervision, as in hunting or target shooting, were 14% less likely to commit acts of violence and street crimes than children who had no guns in their homes (24%); whereas, children who obtained guns illegally, did so at the whopping rate of 74%. This study also provided more evidence that in close nuclear families, where children were close to their parents, youngsters could be taught to use guns responsibly. These youngsters, in fact, grew up to be more responsible in their conduct and more civil in their behavior .[ 3 ]

Constitutional protection of the rights of citizens to bear arms against the state — Second Amendment

Faria explored the genocide attacks that have occurred throughout modern time.[ 3 ]

All these genocides occurred after guns had been taken from the people by the government, so the people are helpless to protect themselves against the armed militias of the state. He states that well-recognized legal scholars have concluded, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms” — for the purpose of defending themselves against the state.[ 4 ]

Nevertheless, Faria writes in his paper,[ 4 ]

… “gun prohibitionists, in justifying their crusade for gun control in place of crime control, have erroneously maintained that the Second Amendment only permits the National Guard or the police to possess firearms for collective police functions… In 2008 the Supreme Court of the USA ruled that U.S. citizens have an inalienable, personal right to keep and bear arms in the federal districts of the nation, a preexisting natural right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution…. and Under legal tradition, a constitutional right is protected and inalienable under the 14 th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, if it is considered a fundamental right, an inherent natural right deeply rooted in American history and jurisprudence.[ 4 ]

Attempts to subvert the Second Amendment

After mass shootings, the gun control movement has immediately demanded passage of laws restricting the sale of guns before the investigations into the causes of the crime have been completed, even though these proposed regulations are ruled unconstitutional.

“To further their efforts to over-rule the US Constitution, the Gun Control supporters have appealed to the UN to adopt a worldwide sanction on the possession of guns by the public. For years the UN has been trying to formalize a global, civilian disarmament treaty with the intention of circumventing the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners … so far without success.” [ 4 ]

Faria writes that

...”the United Nations is already set to commence discussing and approving its Small Arms Treaty in March 2013, which its proponents believe would overrule the Constitution and establish gun laws in the USA, formulated by people from other countries where the problems are worse. As one can see, the fundamental goal of the gun control proponents is to find a way to prevent all citizens from possessing arms that threaten the establishment of an authoritarian government .

President Obama encouraged the Democrats in Congress to pass gun control legislation that he could sign into laws .

The American people and their conservative representatives in Congress rose to the occasion and stopped the passage of gun control laws sponsored by the Obama administration and his liberal allies in the Democratic Party. And then in 2016 a pro- Second Amendment Republican, Donald Trump, was elected President. It seemed as if the gun control activists were at least temporarily neutralized .[ 6 ]

Still, these efforts to establish laws restricting gun ownership continue to this time. It is obvious to those pursuing this gun regulation that Amending the Constitution to make such a change in gun possession would fail. It seems that calls for gun control occur immediately after a mass shooting even before any analysis of the facts in each case is made. It is reasonable for people to be upset when people are killed. Are there calls for banning automobiles which are involved in far more deaths than are killed in homicides with guns?[ 24 , 25 ] No. Are there calls for banning trucks used in the intentional killing of people? No. What is the reason behind this selective almost hysterical emotional reaction to control guns? Guns do not kill people but People using guns do. Could it be that there is an organized effort to take guns from the public?

People and Tax-Exempt foundations promoting gun control while acting as social or public health research organizations

An answer to the questions raised previously about the immediacy of the calls for gun control before the facts are known in mass shootings, the lack of a similar response to mass murders using trucks, bombs, or knives, and the hysterical emotional responses almost perfectly timed and organized at each shooting event can be found in Dr. Faria’s new book, “America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey into Politics and the Public Health and Gun Control Movements.”[ 10 ] He states,

“While the CDC has tempered its stand on guns and violence research in the last two decades following the restrictions of 1996 (events that will be described in other chapters), the rest of the PHE (Public Health Establishment) movement — supported financially by wealthy gun control proponents such as Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, as well as progressive (Leftist, Collectivist) gun prohibitionist organizations such as The Joyce Foundation — continue to promote gun control masquerading as social or public health scientific research [ 10 ] [page 18] .

“It should also be of interest that private researchers, particularly those associated or sponsored by the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, are frequently disparaged by those in the PHE as if the fiduciary association of the former immediately taints their integrity, work, and conclusions. But why is this not so the other way around, for those receiving tax money or donations from anti-gun magnates such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg? Why is this not the case also for research funded by private tax-exempt foundations, such as the Joyce Foundation, which are known to have progressive, socioeconomic agendas to reconstruct society in their image and with ideological axes to grind? Why do those same gun researchers, decade after decade, keep telling us that more studies are needed (and additional funding necessary) — acting for their own financial self-interests as well as subsidizing their ideological agendas? These are good questions whose answers may save taxpayers bundles of money and in the long-term, perhaps, even preserve their freedom!” [ 10 ] [page 127] .

Faria ends by providing his opinion after years of study of this problem. He states, “Let’s stop demonizing guns and end the shootings by incarcerating the criminals and healing the mentally sick. Much work needs to be done in the mental health arena and in the task of de-sensationalization of violence by the media in our dumbed-down popular culture.”[ 6 ]

DISCUSSION BY THE AUTHOR

Statement by Thomas Jefferson: “When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the People fear the government, there is tyranny.” [ 3 ]

The USA is a Constitutional Republic which means the rulers are bound by the rule of laws. Thus, in a Republican form of government, the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. A democracy governs by majority rule and the capricious and mischievous rule of man .[ 7 ]

All of the evidence presented in this review article points to the complex issues surrounding “gun violence.” It presents a different perspective from what you read in the Mainstream Media (MSM), which focus on the elimination of guns and civilian disarmament, instead of the reasons for criminal behavior. This simplistic approach of eliminating guns is not the answer. People will find other means to express their frustrations or outright criminality. The most reasonable solutions are education about guns and gun safety; instruction in civics and ethics; learning the principles of self-government and liberty; supporting the rule of law inherent to a Constitutional Republic, which we still are; and understanding the perils of Tyranny. The facts presented here indicate that after disarming citizens, crime escalates by the use of illegal guns or by substitution methods of lethality, such as knives, bombs, and vehicles plowing into crowds. Disarming good citizens does not prevent violent behavior. It leaves them defenseless and only encourages more crime by the criminal elements and deranged people. However, a clear fact stands out from this review. Arming citizens is the most reasonable, economic, and best choice to discourage gun- based violent behavior by empowering the citizen to protect one’s self, family, fellow citizens, and ultimately be used as a check on government.[ 12 ]

Although eliminating guns is a “quick fix” in response to this complex set of issues, it should be obvious to the reader that the solution to these issues is multifaceted and will take time. It has taken time for our cultures and civilizations to disintegrate into the chaotic situation that we are experiencing today. Family dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse, and violent behavior from repeat offenders are central to this problem. Add to that mental illness that is not properly treated and the misuse of guns becomes obvious. Filling minds with an incessant stream of Media and Entertainment featuring gun violence, over and over, conditions individuals to resort to those copycat behaviors. Having an Educational system that does not equip the young with the proper civic and ethical principles to deal with life’s challenges and to appreciate our Republican form of government only compounds this problem. Taking guns from the citizens will not solve these problems as this paper has shown. The problem goes deeper.

On top of all of these new challenges, the individual is subjected to a world that is being transformed as people, family structures, jobs, societies, industries of all types, communication technology, and legal and governmental systems are changing rapidly in the 21 st century. There are different populations all over the world in different stages of technological advances and civilizations. However, the global elites, who desire power, want to enforce a rigid same-size- fits-all type of approach, including forcing the adoption of the type of government that the elites themselves want without noting ethnological, historic, and political differences, and above all, the desires of the people.[ 1 ] The oligarchical types of social democracy, or rule by a few, are the preferred system of rule of the Western European elites.

Compounding all these issues, in this group of self- appointed leaders are a number who have their own “tax- exempt foundations,” which they use to fund support for their ideas. In general, these elites believe they are smarter than the average citizen, whom they are convinced should not be allowed to make decisions on life’s complicated issues, such as the possession of guns. Evidence shows that this type of thinking is now infiltrating the US government and private institutions.[ 1 ] Examples involve the revelation of unlawful spying on and the attempted “Coup” against the President of the US, Donald Trump, as a citizen, President-Elect, and now President, in violation of the US Constitution. It is becoming clear this “coup” was planned and executed over time by unelected people in various branches of government including the FBI, Justice Department, Intelligence agencies, and others to remove the duly elected President from office and to establish their own form of authoritarian government.[ 1 , 9 , 13 ]

We have already witnessed Anarchy in our streets as unchecked, political, mostly left-wing groups (Antifa), prevent citizens from expressing opposing viewpoints, and limit Free Speech. Violence has been used by them with little condemnation from the MSM.[ 28 ] In fact, these groups are supported by the MSM and the entertainment industry in all its forms, as outlined above in this paper, in its biased reporting, in its violent-prone entertainment, frequently paid for by certain “charitable” and “nonprofit” corporations. They are committed to limiting conservative free expression, and in particular, opposite points of view in their television programming, print media, and worldwide websites. That is why most of the public is unaware of all the facts behind these events. These actions all point to the establishment of authoritarian rule and the elimination of our Constitutional and Republican form of government.[ 1 , 9 , 13 ]

The methods being used today for gun control were described by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin to establish and enforce collectivist central control and authoritarianism. These same tactics also apply to government-controlled health care. Unfortunately, a detailed discussion of all of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper but will be addressed in a separate publication in the future. For those interested in further reading, the following references should be useful.[ 1 , 7 - 9 , 12 , 13 ]

Asking the government to solve the problem of violent crime with gun control will ultimately lead down the path to authoritarian and Tyrannical government. It is like asking a dictator what he would decide about Liberty for his people. The government should have less responsibility for our lives rather than more. The problem of violent crimes and the factors behind them should be debated and solved in each community.

FINAL COMMENTS BY THE AUTHOR

From the evidence presented in this paper, Gun Control is not about guns. Guns are not responsible for killing people. Guns cannot be blamed for deaths, being inanimate objects that require a person to pull the trigger. People who use guns irresponsibly are to blame. Therefore, the real subject of the “sometimes hysterical” Gun Control movement seems to be People Control by the elimination of the individual possession and use of firearms, despite the guarantee of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Gun Control is intended to make it easier to control the people. For the same reason, Gun Control is constantly supported by the self- appointed media elites and the hypocritical entertainment industry. The progressive stripping of the citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms in the 300-year history of the U.K., which began not long after the Glorious Revolution (1688), has reached the point where people are incarcerated for using kitchen knives against home intruders. As crime increases in the U.K, it provides evidence of how futile gun control legislation is in stopping criminal behavior and reducing violence. Tyranny is progressing as violence increases. And why just gun control and not knife control, or truck, or bomb control? Why is the focus on guns? There is no other logical reason except what I have stated:

People Control is the real purpose of depriving people of the right to possess arms for self-defense. Recent increases in violence seem not to be random events, but events that are used to cascade into more laws and more government intervention. Elimination of or circumventing the Second Amendment removes the fear of the collectivist authoritarian leaders that the citizens will rise against them with their firearms. At the same time, eradication of Freedom of Speech is already muzzling certain conservative media and website outlets, a practice the Media are now strangely supporting. The eventual elimination of Freedom of Speech, which is a collectivist goal, in the end will shock all of the Media. The Media are supporting its own destruction. Is Media Control the solution or is Media Responsibility to objectively report the Truth and to protect the people and the Constitution that grants the right to Free Speech, a better answer? The real goal of the gun control movement is to establish a governmental system that is centrally controlled and to overthrow Rule by the People or their Constitutional Republic. The issue is not about Crime Control either because we are seeing that the only way to reduce rampant crime is to arm the good citizens, as there are not enough police to prevent, much less, stop all crimes.[ 1 ]

Some gun control advocates may not even realize that they are being manipulated by people who seek Power to destroy their freedoms. Evidence is suggested that there are those who are determined to undermine our Constitutional Republic, and who are financing many programs planned to replace our individual rights and personal liberty with central control and an authoritarian government.

It is obvious that in the rapidly changing world, we need to find answers to the dynamically changing challenges we face. That will take time and patience. In the meantime, is there a gray area for compromise in the Guns and Violence issue? Yes, logically, from all the evidence presented, citizens should be encouraged to carry arms for self, family, and fellow citizen protection, and as a check on government, a right guaranteed by the Constitution and endowed by our God-given natural right. The challenges facing us are multifaceted.

All of the issues discussed in this paper are a result of the disintegration of the principles of moral and ethical behavior, a failed education system, a loss of the guidance of a good family structure, and an insatiable desire for self-satisfaction above family and country.

FREEDOM WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THOSE FREEDOMS WILL LEAD TO A LOSS OF ALL FREEDOMS AND TO TYRANNY. DEFENSE OF THE REPUBLIC AND ITS FREEDOMS IS EVERY PERSON’S RESPONSIBILITY, NOT THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

As John F Kennedy stated in his Inaugural Address on January 20, 1961: “ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU. ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY,”

How to cite this article: Ausman JI, Faria MA. Is gun control really about people control? Surg Neurol Int 2019;10:195.

Financial support and sponsorship

James I and Carolyn R Ausman Educational Foundation.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the journal or its management.

The authors want to thank Russell Blaylock, MD for his contributions to this manuscript .

Miguel A. Faria, M.D., is the Associate Editor in Chief in socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is a Board-Certified Neurological Surgeon (American Association of Neurological Surgeons); Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. He was appointed and served at the behest of President George W. Bush as member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002-2005. Dr. Faria is an escapee from Communist Cuba at age 13 to the USA. Educated in the U.S., he became a neurosurgeon, was Editor of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, and founded the Medical Sentinel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He has authored a number of books and is an authority on Public Health and Gun Control. His latest book is America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements which is to be released October 1, 2019. Mascot Books, Herndon VA; President , https://haciendapublishing.com , USA-JIA]

Hot Topics: Gun Control

Places to start, let's do the numbers, some activist groups, current news.

• School, Youth, and Gang Violence
• Gun Legislation, Controls, and Rights
• Mass Shootings
• Extending Your Research

What's the Issue?

G un control is a much discussed topic in American politics, education and society, and when new mass shootings occur the discussion begins with renewed vigor.  Research topics could include looking at mass shootings causes and aftermath, youth and school gun violence, exploring arguments and statistics on both sides of the issue, examining the issue in domestic terror and border control, and researching and comparing the history of gun use and controls in America and other countries.

Librarian, Head of Research & Instruction

• Gun Policy Pew Research Center
• Gun Policy in America Rand
• Gun Violence CQ Researcher Report, August 2022
• U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons Council on Foreign Relations, 2022

• Firearm Mortality Centers for Disease Control
• Firearms in the US - Statistics and facts Statista Dossier
• Guns: In-Depth Gallup
• Key Facts about Americans and Guns Pew Research Center
• Mass Shootings in 2023 Gun Violence Archive
• Violent crime statistics in the US Statista Dossier
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
• Center for Gun Violence Solutions
• Gun Owners of America
• National Association for Gun Rights
• National Rifle Association
• States United to Prevent Gun Violence
• Violence Policy Center
• ABC News: Gun Control
• Huffington Post: Gun Control
• NPR: Gun Control
• PBS News Hour: Gun Control
• US News & World Reports: Gun Control and Gun Rights

Newspaper Databases

• Ethnic NewsWatch
• Global Newsstream This link opens in a new window
• Nexis Uni National and international news

Selected Books

• Next: School, Youth, and Gang Violence >>
• Last Updated: Dec 22, 2023 12:24 PM
• URL: https://libguides.library.umaine.edu/guncontrol

5729 Fogler Library · University of Maine · Orono, ME 04469-5729 | (207) 581-1673

Gun Control Argumentative Essay: 160 Topics + How-to Guide [2024]

After the recent heartbreaking mass shootings, the gun control debate has reached its boiling point.

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

Do we need stricter gun control laws ? Should everyone get a weapon to oppose crime? Or should guns be banned overall? You have the opportunity to air your opinion in a gun control argumentative essay.

Below, you’ll find everything you need to write a great paper in no time. Check weighty arguments, catchy gun control essay titles, and the latest sources on the subject.

Don’t forget to check our writing service . With it, you can get your gun control essay done just in a few hours.

🔝 Top 10 Gun Control Essay Titles

💥 take a stand in the gun control debate.

• 👍 Pro Gun Control Essay Topics

👎 Against Gun Control Essay Topics

⚡ gun violence essay titles, ⚖️ gun laws essay topics to explore, 🔫 gun control controversial topics for a research paper, 🔰 pros and cons of gun control, ✍️ 5 steps in writing a gun control essay.

• 🤔 Frequent Questions
• Does gun ownership deter crime?
• Ethics of owning guns for sport.
• Gun control laws and suicide rate.
• Do weapons bring a sense of safety?
• Guns and domestic abuse protection.
• Do gun control laws reduce gun deaths?
• Gun control laws and government tyranny.
• Are gun control laws invasion of privacy?
• Should high-capacity magazines be banned?
• Gun control as a way to reduce the crime rate.

Did you know that 33 people are killed with guns every day in America? This is one of the numbers you can use in your essay on gun control. Are you ready to learn more reasons both for and against gun control? Here they are, in a nutshell:

Have you chosen which side you’re on? Great! Now you already have solid background knowledge on the issue.

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

The information above will help you write an outstanding essay on gun control. Moreover, you can easily proofread it using Grammarly and avoid common grammar mistakes.

👀 150 Catchy Gun Control Topics

Do you want to know the next step toward your A+ gun control essay? It’s a catchy title that expresses your standpoint and grabs your readers’ interest.

Here are some examples.

👍 Pro-Gun Control Essay Topics

Arms possession is a right enshrined in the US constitution. Yet, more and more people voice their concerns about owning firearms. Mass shootings, suicides, and abuse are among the top arguments for stricter laws. Here, we’ve collected plenty of insightful pro-gun control topics for you to explore.

• Pro-gun radicalism and American fears. Guns and fear often go hand in hand. Studies suggest that gun owners are more prone to phobias and distrust. The topic requires showing the irrational essence of gun ownership .
• Being pro-gun equals being anti-women. Firearms make domestic violence a lot more likely to end in death. Prohibiting gun access for abusers could save women’s lives.
• Why background checks don’t always work. Background checks are essential. Yet, they don’t always prevent ineligible individuals from acquiring a firearm . This “why we need gun control” essay shines a light on the procedure’s flaws.
• The economic burden of firearms. This topic concerns the costs linked to gun-related injuries and deaths. These preventable expenditures strain the US economy. You can underline the necessity of gun control to alleviate the problem.
• Gun control to protect schools from firearms. Schools are at the heart of the anti-gun movement. Meanwhile, gun control plays a vital role in preserving safety in educational facilities. An essay could communicate the intricate connection between the two.
• Kids are not ok: pediatric gun-related injuries and deaths. Children often become victims of gun violence. The number of pediatric firearm-related injuries and deaths is disproportionate. Should parents remove all guns from their households to protect their kids?
• Rising gun deaths: a call for action. The high firearm-related death rate is a notorious problem. In the United States, the number is consistently above average. In this gun control argumentative essay, it becomes a reason for stricter gun policies.
• Reducing firearm ownership is not decreasing civil liberties . The topic handles primary gun control opponents’ counterarguments. The key reasoning is that gun ownership is not a universal human right. In this essay, you can explore the notion of civil liberties .
• Suicide and the availability of guns. Gun control topics are rarely concerned with suicide. It’s an essential yet underexplored and part of it. You can show how stricter gun control would help reduce suicide rates .
• More guns, more shootings : understanding gun control. This topic requires exploring the link between firearms and shootings. You can use gun ownership and mass shooting rates to prove your point. In this pro-gun control essay, statistical information is instrumental.
• Gun control as an answer to violent murders.
• Do firearm restrictions harm democracy?
• The perverseness of being pro-life and pro-gun.
• Do guns in households cause more accidental deaths?
• Why are some people scared of stricter gun control ?
• Debunking “guns for self-defense ” myths.
• Gun control’s positive impact on hospitalization rates.
• Does better gun control improve life quality?
• Firearms and suicidal behavior : another case for restrictions.
• What fears drive opponents of gun laws ?
• Do firearms restrictions increase the value of life?
• Do gun laws reduce societal costs?
• Restricting the carry of firearms for societal benefit.
• Does pro-gun activism favor domestic abusers?
• Firearms: used far less for defense than for attacks.
• More guns – more violence
• Stop the wrong people from getting guns
• Revision of the Second Amendment to prevent human tragedies
• The Second Amendment and gun control can co-exist
• The thin line between self-defense and deadly force

Stricter laws can’t solve every problem. In cases such as prostitution and drug use, they are even detrimental. But does this reasoning also apply to gun control? Find it out by discussing its disadvantages with one of the following engaging prompts:

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

• Gun control laws : a waste of taxpayers’ money. Firearm restrictions have economic consequences. Additional gun control measures are not free— they require more monetary resources. Besides, stricter gun control deprives many citizens of firearm-related jobs.
• Firearm regulations deny the right to self-defense . Self-defense is a constitutional right granted by the Founding Fathers. When an attacker is armed, defensive gun use remains the only option. Gun control diminishes the capacity of citizens to protect themselves.
• Guns don’t breed crime—society does. Crime is a colossal social challenge. It is vital to direct resources for crime prevention and management. Yet, gun control is not the ultimate solution to this problem.
• Gun control laws are not fruitful . One of the purposes of gun control is to curb the gun violence epidemic. Yet, whether it works or not is debatable. This “is greater gun control a great idea” essay demonstrates gun control’s ineffectiveness.
• Gun control : limiting citizens’ freedoms. Gun control is not only fruitless, but it’s also unconstitutional. The right to possess and carry guns is civil liberty. Firearm restrictions violate the essence of the country’s constitution.
• Gun ownership increases the sense of security. Besides, firearms perform an important psychological function. They give their owners a sense of safety, bringing emotional comfort. Gun control takes away the knowledge that one can protect oneself.
• Firearms black market: a bigger problem. Gun control will not prevent determined individuals from obtaining firearms. Restricting access to legal guns could prompt people to buy weapons from black markets.
• Knives, hardware, and vehicles are lethal weapons , too. Firearms are only a small part of a criminal’s arsenal. For instance, they frequently use cars as deadly weapons. Firearm control can’t always prevent those determined to harm someone from doing it.
• Eliminating guns: an oversimplified approach. Gun control proponents often oversimplify the problem. Access to firearms is not the root cause of gun-related deaths and violence. The phenomenon has multiple origins that you could examine.
• Disarming Americans kills their national identity. Guns are deeply ingrained in American culture and national identity. The right to bear them has a profound symbolic notion. This “against gun control” essay covers the meaning of firearms in American nationhood.
• Gun control hinders African American emancipation.
• How does gun control incite government tyranny?
• Gun control doesn’t prevent violent behavior.
• The racist history behind firearm restrictions .
• The Second Amendment: the cornerstone of gun rights .
• Firearms as an answer to domestic violence .
• Would gun control make the country safer ?
• Firearm ownership : gaining control over life.
• Gun control and the demise of democracy.
• The empowering role of firearms .
• Gun control as a method of disabling citizens.
• What’s your position on the statement: “ Assault is not a weapon but a behavior”?
• Why gun control laws should be scrapped .
• Is there a link between firearm ownership and crime ?
• Banning guns means more black markets.
• Gun control is not the answer – education is
• Gun culture propaganda starts with cartoons
• Mass media is to blame: murder is an easy route to fame
• Gun control : why not ban everything that poses a potential threat?
• Criminals don’t obey gun control laws

Firearm violence has developed into a significant human rights issue. It affects our right to life and health. Not only that, but it can also limit our access to education. Gun violence disrupts school processes and endangers student safety. An essay on this issue gives you many different directions to explore.

• Firearm violence as a racial equity challenge. Studies have shown that some ethnicities are more likely to experience gun violence than others. African Americans , in particular, are affected by the issue. Your essay can investigate how firearm violence reflects and aggravates discrimination.
• The relationship between mental health and mass shootings. Mental illness is the prime suspect as the root of gun violence. Researchers often consider it a determiner for mass shootings . For this topic, it’s vital to analyze literature regarding the correlation.
• Preventing and responding to firearm-related deaths. Each year, thousands of US citizens die due to gun violence . As the rate of firearm death rises, the issue becomes exponentially troubling. Decreasing the gun-related mortality rate is a topic of high priority.
• The socio-economic roots of firearm violence . Gun violence has pronounced socio-economic causes. Low income and life in a deprived neighborhood are among the most significant risk factors. Examining how certain circumstances prompt gun violence is instrumental in alleviating the issue.
• Long-term psychological effects of gun violence . Survivors and witnesses of gun violence experience grave psychological consequences, including PTSD and depression. Your essay can present gun violence as an extremely traumatic event.
• The contagion effect in mass shootings . The contagion effect describes the spread of behavior. You can use it to explain the epidemic of gun violence. The topic requires you to look into the phenomenon.
• Intimate partner violence : the role of firearms. The severity of intimate partner violence is related to how accessible guns are to abusers. Many domestic homicides involve the use of weapons. This gun ownership essay prompts to explain how firearms contribute to the phenomenon.
• Mass shootings and weapon availability. This topic prompts you to investigate the mass shootings aspect of gun violence. In particular, it’s concerned with the link between gun accessibility and mass murder . You could use quotes and statistics regarding gun laws to establish the connection.
• Gun violence : A poignant human rights issue. Firearm violence causes psychological, social, and financial harm. Its victims suffer from long-term consequences in the form of mental disorders. It’s unwise to overestimate the issue’s global burden.
• Gun violence against women and girls. Firearms violence negatively impacts the life quality of women. Women and girls frequently become victims of gun attacks. Here, you could discuss how deep-seated misogyny contributes to the problem.

• The global burden of guns .
• Firearms violence: A community health problem .
• The reasons behind gun violence in the United States .
• A gender profile of firearm violence .
• School shootings : portrayal in media.
• What are the economic consequences of firearm violence?
• Preventing gun violence in vulnerable neighborhoods.
• The role of toxic masculinity in gun violence .
• Discuss the effect of firearm ownership regulations .
• How can the government reduce firearm violence in low-income neighborhoods?
• Psychological consequences of school shootings.
• Supporting school shooting survivors.
• What are the effects of gun ownership on violence?
• The epidemiology of mass shootings .
• Mass shootings from a sociological perspective.
• Fighting against gun violence: social activism .
• Gun violence : the primary cause of premature death.
• What ethical problems occur regarding mass shootings ?
• How does the media promote gun violence?
• The health implications of gun violence .

Gun laws are vital to ensure the safe handling and purchase of firearms. Regulations come from the federal as well the state level. It makes gun laws confusing for many. If you’d like to entangle the issue, this section is for you.

• Major loopholes in gun laws . Federal and state laws are vulnerable to exploitation. It means they contain gaps endangering public safety. The “Charleston loophole” is the most notorious example. You can inspect it along with other deficiencies.
• Gun laws : too strict or too weak? The harshness of gun laws is a debatable issue. Given the present gun violence epidemic, the answer might appear evident. Still, this topic encourages viewing the problem from multiple perspectives.
• Prohibiting the possession of assault weapons. Assault weapons are another intriguing facet of America’s gun problem. Currently, there is no federal law prohibiting their ownership. Using such a weapon in a shooting increases mortality and traumatism.
• The problem with private gun sales. Private firearms trade results in excessive gun accessibility. Private sellers are allowed to bypass crucial standards such as sales recordkeeping. The situation poses a threat to communal well-being.
• Mental illness in the context of firearms control legislation. In the context of gun laws, mental illness is a prominent notion. The term and its usage in state and federal laws have nuances. You can interpret them in your essay.
• Using deadly force to defend property. Firearms constitute a part of the “deadly force” notion. Regarding the defense of private property, its use is not always justifiable. This gun law essay proposes to reflect on the norms of firearm use.
• Nuances and limitations of the stand-your-ground law. The stand-your-ground law is the subject of heated debate. It’s easy to misinterpret it. It most notably concerns the boundaries of gun use. Yet, knowing what is allowed is essential in self-defense .
• The need for federal registration laws. Although there is no national gun registry, its introduction could be beneficial. It would allow law enforcement agencies to track firearms more efficiently. In your essay, you could research other advantages of federal registration as well.
• Differences in gun laws at the state level . Besides federal laws, each state has its own firearms policies. Federal and state regulations tend to vary considerably. It could be interesting to analyze how gun use and possession regulations differ from state to state.
• Buying guns without a background check: a dangerous loophole. Background checks are indispensable under federal law . Still, a loophole makes it possible to sell firearms to incompetent and dangerous individuals. Say what could be done to make background checks more efficient.
• Are tougher gun laws a solution?
• Politically polarizing firearm policies .
• What are the public’s views of federal firearms laws?
• Gun licenses and political affiliation.
• Firearm registration and accessibility of guns to criminals .
• Gun laws : State vs. Federal.
• How are state gun laws and firearm mortality connected?
• Gun laws from the constitutional point of view .
• Understanding the duty to retreat in US legislation.
• Gun-friendly state laws and criminality.

• Open carry and concealed carry laws.
• The extent of federal gun laws .
• Concealed carry: not covered by the Second Amendment .
• Should the US government enforce firearm registration?
• Limiting concealed carry under the influence.
• Weaker gun laws equal less public safety.
• Gun control policies: Democrats vs. Republicans.
• The benefits of a universal background check.
• Analyze gun laws in the state of Missouri .
• Restoring the federal assault weapons ban.

There are few topics more controversial than gun control. That’s why it’s the perfect base for a good debate. Controversies surrounding gun control include questions of race, gender, and ethics.

• Gun ownership: gender, ethnicity, and class . The demographic portrait of a gun owner is a politically loaded subject. Despite the possible implications, it necessitates in-depth research. This topic suggests considering gun owners’ social class, gender, and ethnicity.
• The racial element in American gun culture . Racism and gun control are more connected than might appear. A range of opinions exists. Evaluating their interconnection might yield compelling results. In your essay, investigate American gun culture through the prism of racial inequality.
• Firearms ownership: do we need incentives or fees? Gun ownership has several advantages, such as a sense of security . Nevertheless, its less positive effects could eclipse them. Discussing whether gun ownership should be discouraged or encouraged could help you write an engaging paper.
• The usage of firearms in self-defense. The efficacy and frequency of self-defense weapon use are essential for the gun control debate . Analyzing these factors could help establish the validity of the argument.
• Gun ownership regulation: the Swiss example. In terms of firearm possession, Switzerland is a liberal country. It has lax laws regarding the acquisition and usage of guns. What can Switzerland teach the US about gun control ?
• The ethicality of firearm ownership. It is common to examine whether gun ownership is constitutional. Looking at its ethicality is a rarer approach. This controversial gun control essay topic helps to bridge the knowledge gap.
• Constitutional contradictions regarding gun rights . The Constitution’s meaning is not as self-evident as it may appear. Whether gun rights are constitutional or unconstitutional is at the core of the debate.
• Do gun rights promote vigilantism? Vigilante violence is a severe community challenge. A vengeful armed vigilante is a threat to their society. In your paper, investigate the role of gun rights in contributing to the problem.
• Preventing criminals from accessing guns. How effective is gun control in stopping gun violence? Contradictory opinions denying or supporting its productiveness need scrutiny. For this paper, you can use statistics and facts to clarify the situation.
• The ideology behind gun control and rights. The gun control debate has long gone beyond objective arguments. By now, the problem entails larger political implications. Gun ownership or its absence strongly correlates with political behavior.
• Interpretations of the Second Amendment regarding gun control .
• Does unrestricted gun ownership lead to more shootings ?
• The effectiveness of firearm restrictions.
• Multiple origins of gun-related crime .
• Are gun restrictions instrumental for public safety?
• Gun control as a measure against crime and gun violence .
• Firearm control rhetoric: an analysis.
• Should the public use of guns remain legal?
• Gun control : creating optimal policies.
• Presidential elections and gun control rhetoric.
• Limiting access to guns: is it useful or debilitating?
• Evaluating gun control and its impact on crime.
• The future of gun laws.
• The political battle over gun control .
• Gun policies and common sense.
• How relevant is firearms control?
• What effect does gun ownership have on domestic abuse ?
• The economics of gun control.
• Gun control: Is it saving lives or narrowing freedoms ?
• Should you ever be able to buy a gun without a license or permit?

Gun control pros and cons have been discussed and thoroughly analyzed countless times. Both advocates and opponents have stuck to their positions, leaving the issue unresolved. Here are a few important pros and cons:

Points made in support of gun control (pros)

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

• Gun control statistics reveal that although the United States accounts for only 5% of the world’s population, U.S. residents own 50% of guns in the world.
• When gun deaths statistics for different countries were expressed as the number of gun deaths in a population of a million people, the United States was ranked below South Africa.

Points against gun control (cons)

• The very idea of gun control goes against the US constitution that allows people the right to safeguard their lives. People need guns to defend themselves when being attacked by others. Additionally, firearms can provide a sense of comfort and security. It would be undemocratic to take away a person’s right to feel safe.
• Since the Second Amendment upholds the right to gun ownership, it should not be restricted. It seems dangerous to start altering the constitution whenever we see fit. In doing so, we might create a precedent that others can use to promote more harmful agendas.

Whichever side you chose, now you already have a few persuasive arguments. Let’s move on to the actual writing part.

Writing an impressive essay on gun control can be a bit difficult without proper organization. No matter what type of paper you are going to work on, you’ll need some detailed planning and thorough research.

Follow these five steps to write a perfect gun control essay:

• Define what gun control is. Whether you are writing an argumentative, persuasive, or any other type of paper, the first thing you need is context. Use the definitions that are most appropriate for your essay. For example, you might start with a dictionary definition. Then, add some general facts about types of firearms. Next, you might give statistics on gun control , such as ownership and reasons for it.
• Write a gun control thesis statement. Besides context and definitions, any essay introduction requires a thesis. It’s the message you’re going to argue in the following paragraphs. So, work on it before writing the rest of the paper. Make sure your gun control thesis statement is concise and easy to understand. You can use an online thesis generator if that requirement is hard for you to achieve.
• One option is to use studies that have collected plentiful information over the years.
• If you are writing a pro-gun control essay, you can use studies or statistics on how guns owned by private citizens have killed innocent people. You can also cite cases where students used their parents’ guns to commit violent crimes in school.
• If you are arguing against gun control, cite studies proving that private gun ownership saves lives. You could also add research revealing the positive effects of gun ownership.
• Organize your paper. Of course, the content and organization vary for each particular essay. The facts remain the same. It is the way that you arrange and present them that will create a concrete argument. That’s why you should make sure to draft an outline before you get started.
• End with a strong conclusion. In there, you should summarize your essay and reiterate the most important points. Don’t forget to restate and develop your statement based on the facts you mentioned. If it’s not an argumentative essay, present your findings and suggestions about the issue.

As you can see, writing an impressive gun control essay takes time and effort. It also requires deep research. If you’re finding this task too challenging, you can order an essay from our custom writing service. We provide 100% original papers at reasonable prices.

You might also be interested in:

• Top Ideas for Argumentative or Persuasive Essay Topics
• Best Argumentative Research Paper Topics
• 97 Inspirational & Motivational Argumentative Essay Topics
• Great Persuasive & Argumentative Essay on Divorce
• Proposal Essay Topics and Ideas – Easy and Interesting
• Free Exemplification Essay Examples

🤔 Gun Control FAQ

To create a great title, you should express your point of view in a concise and eye-catching manner. A creative title grabs your readers’ interest. Try to make up an unusual keyword combination, or paraphrase a metaphor or a set expression. Using two opposite ideas works well, too.

If you want to spark a discussion, you need to make an educated standpoint choice. For a good debate essay, make sure to thoroughly study the topic. A list of pros and cons will help you gain a deeper insight. Then decide where you stand before you start writing.

Good persuasive topics provoke emotions. A great topic for an essay is an issue that concerns nearly everyone in society. For example, gun control or animal testing may be good topics for college essays.

Good thesis statements give a clearly formulated opinion. You need to state whether you are for or against gun control. Either way, the author’s position must be based on convincing arguments and facts.

🔗 References

• Gun Control Latest Events
• The Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control
• Gun Control Pros and Cons
• Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms
• A Brief History of the National Rifle Association
• Gun Control Essays at Bartleby
• Argumentative Essays on Gun Control
• Gun Control Issues, Public Health, and Safety
• Universal Background Checks: Giffords
• Gun Violence: Amnesty International
• Facts on US Gun Ownership: Pew Research Center
• Gun Control in the US: Encyclopedia Britannica
• Gun Control: The Debate and Public Policy: Social Studies
• Guns and Gun Control: The New York Times
• Gun Control Topic Overview: Gale
• US Gun Policy: Global Comparisons: Council of Foreign Relations
• US Gun Debate: Four Dates that Explain How We Got Here: BBC News
• Gun Control and Gun Rights: US News
• Why Gun Control Is So Contentious in the US: Live Science
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Many people believe that childhood is the happiest period in a person’s life. It’s not hard to see why. Kids have nothing to care or worry about, have almost no duties or problems, and can hang out with their friends all day long. An essay about childhood gives an opportunity...

Just when you think you’re way past the question “How to write an essay?” another one comes. That’s the thing students desperately Google: “What is an informative speech?” And our custom writing experts are here to help you sort this out. Informative speaking is a speech on a completely new issue....

Literature courses are about two things: reading and writing about what you’ve read. For most students, it’s hard enough to understand great pieces of literature, never mind analyzing them. And with so many books and stories out there, choosing one to write about can be a chore. But you’re in...

In school and college, you will be required to write research papers. Yes — papers in the plural. And that’s the first reason you may want to turn to Custom Writing and seek help with research projects. When assigned a paper, the very first undertaking is to choose from a...

The success of any college essay depends on the topic choice. If you want to impress your instructors, your essay needs to be interesting and unique. Don’t know what to write about? We are here to help you! In this article by our Custom-Writing.org team, you will find 335 interesting...

Social studies is an integrated research field. It includes a range of topics on social science and humanities, such as history, culture, geography, sociology, education, etc. A social studies essay might be assigned to any middle school, high school, or college student. It might seem like a daunting task, but...

If you are about to go into the world of graduate school, then one of the first things you need to do is choose from all the possible dissertation topics available to you. This is no small task. You are likely to spend many years researching your Master’s or Ph.D....

Persuasive speech is the art of convincing the audience to understand and trust your opinion. Are you ready to persuade someone in your view? Our list of sports persuasive speech topics will help you find a position to take and defend. If you need more options quick, apart from contents...

When you look for a good research paper topic, you can easily become the severest critic of any proposed idea. Some topics do not interest you at the very least, while others might shock your teachers. Where is the golden mean? Check out this list of top 100 research paper...

Can there possibly be anything fun about academic writing? It seems there is – what are all those fun persuasive speech topics then for, after all? However, creating a bunch of good topics might seem hard the first time around. No need to worry though – there’s always plenty of...

A persuasive speech on any topic is a performance designed to convince people about something and prove your point. Choosing a suitable topic is crucial for your speech’s success. Do you need some help with finding easy topics for a persuasive speech? Then check these fantastic and easy ideas from...

Do you know the secret place where people go to get their good informative speech topics? Looking for an interesting topic for speech? Congratulations, because you’ve just found it! So, if you’re ready to get some really good topics for an informative speech, all you need to do is to...

my thing is this it’s not the guns it’s people now if we could make it to where you’ll have to possess a gun ownership license kinda like a drivers license that would solve most problems don’t you think

I agree with you, Richard.

I am trying to cite this website for my English paper on “NoodleTools” and there are multiple things I can’t find. Like the publisher, publication date, “permalink,” and more. I really like this article though!

Grace, glad you liked the article! Regarding the question about citing, maybe this page will help you somehow: https://custom-writing.org/contact

My opinion if I may is that guns should be in the hands of law enforcement and military. If a person wants a gun for protection they only need to call 911 on their cell or landline if a person is frightened to take steps which are many, to ensure your safety guns do kill people and there have been far too many innocent people dying! Football games schools churches concerts outdoor activities and or indoor activities places just about anywhere and people in danger it is terrible. What has become to civilization where people are going about their innocent daily lives and get killed!!!!! What is wrong with this picture? Many years ago American citizens did not have to live in such danger as it is today, the government does nothing including NRA. Congress does nothing, sadly we live in a dangerous and volatile world and something needs to be done about this to prevent innocent children and adults from dangerous people who have guns in their hands the government should protect America from harm and danger!!!!

This helped me with my essay due. I wanted to do it on gun control, but I had no idea where to start. This really helped to develop my thesis statement and claim to turn in. Now I just have to write 8 pages on it. 🙂 Wish me luck, lol.

Do you still have a copy of this essay ?

Good luck, Danielle! 🙂 Glad the article was useful for you.

I think you should add how guns can be a big cause in the world because guns are a bad thing.

Thanks for the advice, Robert!

This helped me with a 5-paragraph essay I need due.

I’m happy the article was useful for you, Dulce!

This article saved me so much time, thank you!!!

Glad to help, Michael!

Thank you! This post helped me a lot with my essay.

Glad the article was helpful for you, Logan!

• MJC Library & Learning Center
• Research Guides

Guns in America

• Gun Issues Research

Pro Con Arguments

Start learning about your topic, create research questions to focus your topic, find books in the mjc library catalog, find articles in library databases, find web resources, cite your sources, key search words.

Use the words below to search for useful information in   books and articles .

• gun control
• gun violence
• Second Amendment
• assault weapons
• school shootings

Background Reading:

It's important to begin your research learning something about your subject; in fact, you won't be able to create a focused, manageable thesis unless you already know something about your topic.

This step is important so that you will:

• Begin building your core knowledge about your topic
• Be able to put your topic in context
• Create research questions that drive your search for information
• Create a list of search terms that will help you find relevant information
• Know if the information you’re finding is relevant and useful

If you're working from off campus , you'll need to sign in if you aren't already logged into your MJC email or Canvas. If you are prompted to sign in, use the same credentials you use with email and Canvas. 

All of these resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff. 

• Issues and Controversies: Gun Control June 2022 article giving opposing answers to the question "Should the United States Adopt Stronger Gun Control Laws?"
• CQ Researcher: Gun Violence: have efforts to control firearms reached a turning point? Comprehensive overview article from 2018
• Gale eBooks: Gun Control A collection of overview articles from a variety of specialized encyclopedias
• Gale eBooks: Gun Safety A collection of overview articles from a variety of specialized encyclopedias
• America's Gun Wars: A Cultural History of Gun Control in the United States This eBook from 2019 examines the controversies surrounding gun control in the U.S., which, it asserts, are about whether to prioritize the traditional values of rugged independence or newer values of communitarian interdependence.
• Gun Legislation The library's collection of eBooks on U.S. legislation on guns.

The issues surrounding gun violence, gun safety, and gun legislation are complex. You could concentrate on one issue and do in-depth research on that, or use several of the questions below to focus more generally on the topic of guns.

• Is gun violence a serious problem in America?
• Does limiting access to guns reduce gun violence?
• What laws exist to control gun ownership?
• How are guns purchased and transferred in America?
• How do other countries regulate gun ownership?
• Should gun rights be controlled by states or by the federal government?
• What are the arguments for regulating gun ownership?
• What are the arguments against regulating gun ownership?

Why Use Books:

Use books to read broad overviews and detailed discussions of your topic. You can also use books to find  primary sources , which are often published together in collections.  

Where Do I Find Books?

You'll use the library catalog to search for books, ebooks, articles, and more.  

What if MJC Doesn't Have What I Need?

If you need materials (books, articles, recordings, videos, etc.) that you cannot find in the library catalog , use our  interlibrary loan service .

All of these resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff.

• Gale Databases This link opens in a new window Search over 35 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. Gale databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
• EBSCOhost Databases This link opens in a new window Search 22 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. EBSCO databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
• Access World News This link opens in a new window Search the full text of editions of record for local, regional, and national U.S. newspapers as well as full-text content of key international sources. Your source for The Modesto Bee for local and regional news from January 1989 to the present. more... less... Watch this short video to learn how to find The Modesto Bee .
• Kanopy This link opens in a new window A video streaming database containing thousands documentary films suitable for research. Use the search terms guns, gun violence, or gun control for films on both sides of the issue.
• Films on Demand This link opens in a new window Thousands of credible streaming documentaries and clips. Search guns, gun safety, gun violence, gun control more... less... Instructions for embedding Films on Demand into Canvas .

Search Google Scholar:

Browse Featured Web Sites:

• Everytown for Gun Safety "The largest gun violence prevention organization in America"
• National Rifle Association "While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world."
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "A unique law enforcement agency in the United States Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products"

Your instructor should tell you which citation style they want you to use. Click on the appropriate link below to learn how to format your paper and cite your sources according to a particular style.

• Chicago Style
• ASA & Other Citation Styles
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2024 2:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mjc.edu/guns

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC 4.0 Licenses .

Gun Control

• Research Starters
• School Shootings
• Video Tutorials & Workshops

Keywords & Search Terms

Use the words or phrases below to search for useful information in the library catalog or databases:

• Assault weapons
• Columbine High School
• Concealed carry 
• Firearms and crime
• Firearms law and legislation
• Firearms ownership 
• Gun control
• Gun violence
• Sandy Hook Elementary School
• School shootings
• School violence
• Second amendment 
• Stand Your Ground
• Youth AND violence
• Virginia Tech

Focus In with Research Question

Gun control is a complex issue that involves crime, legislation, and the Constitution. You could concentrate on one issue and do in-depth research on that, or use several of the questions below to focus more generally on the topic of gun control or gun violence.

• Is gun violence a serious problem in America?
• Does limiting access to guns reduce gun violence?
• What laws exist to control gun ownership?
• How are guns purchased and transferred in America?
• How do other countries regulate gun ownership?
• Should gun rights be controlled by states or by the federal government?
• What are the arguments for regulating gun ownership?
• What are the arguments against regulating gun ownership?

Help! Resources

Find the resources on how to start Writing Your Research Paper 

There are MLA Formatting and APA Style Formatting resources to help too! 

• << Previous: Books
• Next: School Shootings >>
• Last Updated: Dec 7, 2023 10:36 AM
• URL: https://smc.libguides.com/Guns

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

What the data says about abortion in the u.s..

Pew Research Center has conducted many surveys about abortion over the years, providing a lens into Americans’ views on whether the procedure should be legal, among a host of other questions.

In a  Center survey  conducted nearly a year after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision that  ended the constitutional right to abortion , 62% of U.S. adults said the practice should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% said it should be illegal in all or most cases. Another survey conducted a few months before the decision showed that relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the issue .

Find answers to common questions about abortion in America, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, which have tracked these patterns for several decades:

How many abortions are there in the U.S. each year?

How has the number of abortions in the u.s. changed over time, what is the abortion rate among women in the u.s. how has it changed over time, what are the most common types of abortion, how many abortion providers are there in the u.s., and how has that number changed, what percentage of abortions are for women who live in a different state from the abortion provider, what are the demographics of women who have had abortions, when during pregnancy do most abortions occur, how often are there medical complications from abortion.

This compilation of data on abortion in the United States draws mainly from two sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, both of which have regularly compiled national abortion data for approximately half a century, and which collect their data in different ways.

The CDC data that is highlighted in this post comes from the agency’s “abortion surveillance” reports, which have been published annually since 1974 (and which have included data from 1969). Its figures from 1973 through 1996 include data from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and New York City – 52 “reporting areas” in all. Since 1997, the CDC’s totals have lacked data from some states (most notably California) for the years that those states did not report data to the agency. The four reporting areas that did not submit data to the CDC in 2021 – California, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey – accounted for approximately 25% of all legal induced abortions in the U.S. in 2020, according to Guttmacher’s data. Most states, though,  do  have data in the reports, and the figures for the vast majority of them came from each state’s central health agency, while for some states, the figures came from hospitals and other medical facilities.

Discussion of CDC abortion data involving women’s state of residence, marital status, race, ethnicity, age, abortion history and the number of previous live births excludes the low share of abortions where that information was not supplied. Read the methodology for the CDC’s latest abortion surveillance report , which includes data from 2021, for more details. Previous reports can be found at  stacks.cdc.gov  by entering “abortion surveillance” into the search box.

For the numbers of deaths caused by induced abortions in 1963 and 1965, this analysis looks at reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. In computing those figures, we excluded abortions listed in the report under the categories “spontaneous or unspecified” or as “other.” (“Spontaneous abortion” is another way of referring to miscarriages.)

Guttmacher data in this post comes from national surveys of abortion providers that Guttmacher has conducted 19 times since 1973. Guttmacher compiles its figures after contacting every known provider of abortions – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, and it provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond to its inquiries. (In 2020, the last year for which it has released data on the number of abortions in the U.S., it used estimates for 12% of abortions.) For most of the 2000s, Guttmacher has conducted these national surveys every three years, each time getting abortion data for the prior two years. For each interim year, Guttmacher has calculated estimates based on trends from its own figures and from other data.

The latest full summary of Guttmacher data came in the institute’s report titled “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2020.” It includes figures for 2020 and 2019 and estimates for 2018. The report includes a methods section.

In addition, this post uses data from StatPearls, an online health care resource, on complications from abortion.

An exact answer is hard to come by. The CDC and the Guttmacher Institute have each tried to measure this for around half a century, but they use different methods and publish different figures.

The last year for which the CDC reported a yearly national total for abortions is 2021. It found there were 625,978 abortions in the District of Columbia and the 46 states with available data that year, up from 597,355 in those states and D.C. in 2020. The corresponding figure for 2019 was 607,720.

The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020. It said there were 930,160 abortions that year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, compared with 916,460 in 2019.

• How the CDC gets its data: It compiles figures that are voluntarily reported by states’ central health agencies, including separate figures for New York City and the District of Columbia. Its latest totals do not include figures from California, Maryland, New Hampshire or New Jersey, which did not report data to the CDC. ( Read the methodology from the latest CDC report .)
• How Guttmacher gets its data: It compiles its figures after contacting every known abortion provider – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, then provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond. Guttmacher’s figures are higher than the CDC’s in part because they include data (and in some instances, estimates) from all 50 states. ( Read the institute’s latest full report and methodology .)

While the Guttmacher Institute supports abortion rights, its empirical data on abortions in the U.S. has been widely cited by  groups  and  publications  across the political spectrum, including by a  number of those  that  disagree with its positions .

These estimates from Guttmacher and the CDC are results of multiyear efforts to collect data on abortion across the U.S. Last year, Guttmacher also began publishing less precise estimates every few months , based on a much smaller sample of providers.

The figures reported by these organizations include only legal induced abortions conducted by clinics, hospitals or physicians’ offices, or those that make use of abortion pills dispensed from certified facilities such as clinics or physicians’ offices. They do not account for the use of abortion pills that were obtained  outside of clinical settings .

(Back to top)

The annual number of U.S. abortions rose for years after Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973, reaching its highest levels around the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. Since then, abortions have generally decreased at what a CDC analysis called  “a slow yet steady pace.”

Guttmacher says the number of abortions occurring in the U.S. in 2020 was 40% lower than it was in 1991. According to the CDC, the number was 36% lower in 2021 than in 1991, looking just at the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported both of those years.

(The corresponding line graph shows the long-term trend in the number of legal abortions reported by both organizations. To allow for consistent comparisons over time, the CDC figures in the chart have been adjusted to ensure that the same states are counted from one year to the next. Using that approach, the CDC figure for 2021 is 622,108 legal abortions.)

There have been occasional breaks in this long-term pattern of decline – during the middle of the first decade of the 2000s, and then again in the late 2010s. The CDC reported modest 1% and 2% increases in abortions in 2018 and 2019, and then, after a 2% decrease in 2020, a 5% increase in 2021. Guttmacher reported an 8% increase over the three-year period from 2017 to 2020.

As noted above, these figures do not include abortions that use pills obtained outside of clinical settings.

Guttmacher says that in 2020 there were 14.4 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Its data shows that the rate of abortions among women has generally been declining in the U.S. since 1981, when it reported there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in that age range.

The CDC says that in 2021, there were 11.6 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. (That figure excludes data from California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.) Like Guttmacher’s data, the CDC’s figures also suggest a general decline in the abortion rate over time. In 1980, when the CDC reported on all 50 states and D.C., it said there were 25 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

That said, both Guttmacher and the CDC say there were slight increases in the rate of abortions during the late 2010s and early 2020s. Guttmacher says the abortion rate per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 rose from 13.5 in 2017 to 14.4 in 2020. The CDC says it rose from 11.2 per 1,000 in 2017 to 11.4 in 2019, before falling back to 11.1 in 2020 and then rising again to 11.6 in 2021. (The CDC’s figures for those years exclude data from California, D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.)

The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.

The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.

Guttmacher, which measures this every three years, says 53% of U.S. abortions involved pills in 2020, up from 39% in 2017.

Two pills commonly used together for medication abortions are mifepristone, which, taken first, blocks hormones that support a pregnancy, and misoprostol, which then causes the uterus to empty. According to the FDA, medication abortions are safe  until 10 weeks into pregnancy.

Surgical abortions conducted  during the first trimester  of pregnancy typically use a suction process, while the relatively few surgical abortions that occur  during the second trimester  of a pregnancy typically use a process called dilation and evacuation, according to the UCLA School of Medicine.

In 2020, there were 1,603 facilities in the U.S. that provided abortions,  according to Guttmacher . This included 807 clinics, 530 hospitals and 266 physicians’ offices.

While clinics make up half of the facilities that provide abortions, they are the sites where the vast majority (96%) of abortions are administered, either through procedures or the distribution of pills, according to Guttmacher’s 2020 data. (This includes 54% of abortions that are administered at specialized abortion clinics and 43% at nonspecialized clinics.) Hospitals made up 33% of the facilities that provided abortions in 2020 but accounted for only 3% of abortions that year, while just 1% of abortions were conducted by physicians’ offices.

Looking just at clinics – that is, the total number of specialized abortion clinics and nonspecialized clinics in the U.S. – Guttmacher found the total virtually unchanged between 2017 (808 clinics) and 2020 (807 clinics). However, there were regional differences. In the Midwest, the number of clinics that provide abortions increased by 11% during those years, and in the West by 6%. The number of clinics  decreased  during those years by 9% in the Northeast and 3% in the South.

The total number of abortion providers has declined dramatically since the 1980s. In 1982, according to Guttmacher, there were 2,908 facilities providing abortions in the U.S., including 789 clinics, 1,405 hospitals and 714 physicians’ offices.

The CDC does not track the number of abortion providers.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that provided abortion and residency information to the CDC in 2021, 10.9% of all abortions were performed on women known to live outside the state where the abortion occurred – slightly higher than the percentage in 2020 (9.7%). That year, D.C. and 46 states (though not the same ones as in 2021) reported abortion and residency data. (The total number of abortions used in these calculations included figures for women with both known and unknown residential status.)

The share of reported abortions performed on women outside their state of residence was much higher before the 1973 Roe decision that stopped states from banning abortion. In 1972, 41% of all abortions in D.C. and the 20 states that provided this information to the CDC that year were performed on women outside their state of residence. In 1973, the corresponding figure was 21% in the District of Columbia and the 41 states that provided this information, and in 1974 it was 11% in D.C. and the 43 states that provided data.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported age data to  the CDC in 2021, the majority of women who had abortions (57%) were in their 20s, while about three-in-ten (31%) were in their 30s. Teens ages 13 to 19 accounted for 8% of those who had abortions, while women ages 40 to 44 accounted for about 4%.

The vast majority of women who had abortions in 2021 were unmarried (87%), while married women accounted for 13%, according to  the CDC , which had data on this from 37 states.

In the District of Columbia, New York City (but not the rest of New York) and the 31 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to  the CDC , 42% of all women who had abortions in 2021 were non-Hispanic Black, while 30% were non-Hispanic White, 22% were Hispanic and 6% were of other races.

Looking at abortion rates among those ages 15 to 44, there were 28.6 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic Black women in 2021; 12.3 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; 6.4 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic White women; and 9.2 abortions per 1,000 women of other races, the  CDC reported  from those same 31 states, D.C. and New York City.

For 57% of U.S. women who had induced abortions in 2021, it was the first time they had ever had one,  according to the CDC.  For nearly a quarter (24%), it was their second abortion. For 11% of women who had an abortion that year, it was their third, and for 8% it was their fourth or more. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

Nearly four-in-ten women who had abortions in 2021 (39%) had no previous live births at the time they had an abortion,  according to the CDC . Almost a quarter (24%) of women who had abortions in 2021 had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 7% had four or more previous live births. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation,  according to the CDC . An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 40 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

About 2% of all abortions in the U.S. involve some type of complication for the woman , according to an article in StatPearls, an online health care resource. “Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection and post-anesthesia complications,” according to the article.

The CDC calculates  case-fatality rates for women from induced abortions – that is, how many women die from abortion-related complications, for every 100,000 legal abortions that occur in the U.S .  The rate was lowest during the most recent period examined by the agency (2013 to 2020), when there were 0.45 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. The case-fatality rate reported by the CDC was highest during the first period examined by the agency (1973 to 1977), when it was 2.09 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. During the five-year periods in between, the figure ranged from 0.52 (from 1993 to 1997) to 0.78 (from 1978 to 1982).

The CDC calculates death rates by five-year and seven-year periods because of year-to-year fluctuation in the numbers and due to the relatively low number of women who die from legal induced abortions.

In 2020, the last year for which the CDC has information , six women in the U.S. died due to complications from induced abortions. Four women died in this way in 2019, two in 2018, and three in 2017. (These deaths all followed legal abortions.) Since 1990, the annual number of deaths among women due to legal induced abortion has ranged from two to 12.

The annual number of reported deaths from induced abortions (legal and illegal) tended to be higher in the 1980s, when it ranged from nine to 16, and from 1972 to 1979, when it ranged from 13 to 63. One driver of the decline was the drop in deaths from illegal abortions. There were 39 deaths from illegal abortions in 1972, the last full year before Roe v. Wade. The total fell to 19 in 1973 and to single digits or zero every year after that. (The number of deaths from legal abortions has also declined since then, though with some slight variation over time.)

The number of deaths from induced abortions was considerably higher in the 1960s than afterward. For instance, there were 119 deaths from induced abortions in  1963  and 99 in  1965 , according to reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC is a division of Health and Human Services.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 27, 2022, and first updated June 24, 2022.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

Public opinion on abortion, three-in-ten or more democrats and republicans don’t agree with their party on abortion, partisanship a bigger factor than geography in views of abortion access locally, do state laws on abortion reflect public opinion, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .