The U.S. Gun Control Debate

There are few subjects in America that cause such disagreements as gun control. The debate is usually between liberal Americans and conservative Americans who disagree with many issues about the nature of guns and the American government. While liberals support stricter gun control laws and more government involvement, conservatives push back on gun policies that they believe invade their constitutional rights and strip them of their self-defense. Despite the differences in ideas made by liberals and conservatives, the gun debate today comes together on the problem of mental health and guns.

One of the main topics that liberals argue toward stricter gun control is their belief that more guns equal more violence in society. According to Whitney, “…in states with more guns, there were higher rates of homicide; and 70 percent of homicides are committed with guns, mostly handguns, at that” (155). A liberal would interpret these statistics as proving a need to prevent guns among the public. Conservatives however, would reason that more guns that are owned by responsible people can prevent or stop violence, especially gun violence. For example, Faria argued that most people are responsible gun owners and cited five incidents where gun violence was stopped because responsible citizens had their own guns (16). The matter of the nature of guns in society is just one of the main debate issues.

Another consideration point is the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the constitution. Liberals interpret the amendment very loosely and stress that the government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, not individuals, through military service (Valdez 14). Conservatives on the other hand, believe that the right to bear arms applies to all citizens, who are the ones who can best protect themselves and others around them. Not only do conservatives believe having guns is a constitutional right, they also think that stricter control of the amount of guns in society will not work. They argue that if criminals want to obtain guns, they will find a way to do it, with or without laws that may instead block responsible gun owners (Valdez 16). In this case, the argument for the interpretation of the Second Amendment is much divided.

Interestingly, both the liberal and conservative sides of the debate agree on one point: the mental health of gun owners. Liberals believe that the background checks that are done on gun buyers should include information on the buyer’s mental health and any history of gun violence (Whitney 215). In addition, Faria states, “…evidence mounts that these deadly rampages are the result of failure of the mental health system…” (16). Both sides tend to agree that there needs to be reform as to how mentally ill can people get help in society, such as addressing how difficult it is to get inpatient care for seriously mentally ill people.

Liberals and conservatives disagree on many points when it comes to gun control. Liberals stress that guns create violence, while conservatives believe that guns stop violence. While liberals think that the Second Amendment is limited only to the military, conservatives see it more broadly, affecting all U.S. citizens as a right. However, the importance of the mental health of gun owners is one issue both sides agree on and that demonstrates a way for the argument to come together. With a mental health focus, future gun laws may become more effective and satisfy both the liberal and conservative sides of the debate.

Works Cited

Faria Jr., Miguel A. "Shooting rampages, mental health, and the sensationalization of violence." Surgical Neurology International, vol. 4, no. 1, 2013, pp. 16-16. Proquest Central

Valdez, Angela. Gun control. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2003. Print.

Whitney, Craig. Living with Guns A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment. New York: PublicAffairs, 2012. Print.