Gun control laws have been debated for over a hundred years. Conservatives tend to claim that gun ownership is a constitutional right and should be left alone while liberals claim there should be certain restrictions on guns. There have been several studies and examples that show the effects of gun control and if it really is useful. I do not believe that most people who are shown a valid study opposing their viewpoint automatically change their position. Most people tend to have belief perseverance, which is the tendency to reject convincing proof against their current position.
One common argument used against gun control is that an armed population would prevent tyranny. Larry Pratt, The executive director of Gun Owners of America, a non-profit gun rights organization, stated, “The Democrat Party has increasingly become a party of tyranny. And you can’t be a good tyrant if there are a whole bunch of schlubs running around with guns.” This is a straw man fallacy because it intentionally misrepresents the opposing position by stating that the reason why the Democrat Party is for gun control is so the population cannot overtake them.
A common argument against gun rights is the notion that the only use for guns is for killing and therefore should be outlawed. This is an appeal to emotion fallacy. Guns are not exclusively used for killing and can also be used for recreational shooting. But, stating that the only use for a gun is to kill makes people emotional and less likely to be in favor of gun rights.
Another argument in favor of gun rights I have seen is that, because the second amendment grants the right to bear arms, there should not be any restrictions or it would go against the constitution. This is a circular fallacy. Even if this was true, there are still ways to change the constitution, so just stating the constitution would not solve anything.
Another common argument against gun rights is that citizens do not need guns and therefore should be...