The Two Sides of Gun Control

By Cabe Packard

Since America’s birth, gun culture has always pervaded. For better or worse, firearms were used to create the country, to build it, and to protect its people. In recent years the debate over gun control has grown exponentially. This is significantly due to the growing number of mass shootings that have taken place over the past decade. In response to this, two extremes can be found: A push for the complete banning of firearms, and the idea that everyone should be able to get a gun. Despite the seemingly growing divide of the right and left, most citizens do not fall fully on one side of the spectrum, holding more nuanced opinions on the issue. Among these is Emma González, an 18-yearold student who lost friends in a school shooting at her high school. Another is David French, a supporter of gun ownership rights and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Although both give compelling arguments in the essays they have written on the subject, there are differences in their personal experiences with danger, views on civilian ownership of military-grade firearms, and opinions on American gun regulations.

The first major difference between their two respective essays is in each authors’ different experiences with dangerous situations. González starts by talking about how her own identity doesn’t matter after losing her friends, and due to this, she refers to herself as “we” throughout her essay. She explains why she does this when she asks, “who are we? We are the people who died in the freshman building on Valentine’s Day at Douglas High, and the people who died in every mass shooting in U.S. History. We are everyone who has been shot at, grazed or pierced by bullets, terrorized by the presence of guns and gun violence in America” (González 890). From this, the reader learns that she hopes to make a difference in the fight against gun violence, given her personal connection to it. French on the other hand gives an example of a time his family was at risk, saying, “A man got out and walked up to my wife and kids. Strangely enough, at his hip was an empty gun holster. She’d never seen him before. She had no idea who he was. He demanded to see me... My wife cleverly defused the confrontation before it escalated, but we later learned that this same person had been seen, hours before, slowly driving through the parking lot of our kids’ school” (French 893). This excerpt tells of a time when French’s family was greatly vulnerable, which allows him to later explain why he personally sought to get a gun and a concealed carry permit for their protection. This personal account is in contrast with González, who speaks in absolutes and tries to convey her own emotions in her writing. With this, both essays deeply connect with the audience but do so in different ways.

The essays also use these same tones when continuing to explain their different views on assault weapon ownership. González proposes her logic by writing, “If I’m able to communicate one thing to adults, it would be this: it should not be easier to purchase a gun than it is to obtain a driver’s license, and military-grade weapons should not be accessible in civilian settings. You don’t drive a NASCAR on the street, no matter how fun it might be, just like you don’t need an AR-15 to protect yourself when walking home at night. No one does” (González 891). Ignoring the fact that she doesn’t know NASCAR is an association (not a vehicle), González makes a witty argument that personal enjoyment should not trump safety. French takes the same stance on safety but supports the right of citizens to own assault weapons. This is seen when he says, “Progressive policy prescriptions, like assaultweapons bans and bans on large-capacity magazines, are opposed because they’re perceived to have exactly the wrong effect. They’ll present only the most minor of hurdles for the lawless, while the law-abiding experience the law’s full effect. It’s a form of collective punishment for the innocent, a mere annoyance--at best--for the lawless” (French 895). Comparing this quote with the one from González’s essay shows that, despite their similar desire for safety, the two writers have different ideas on the role of assault weapons in the U.S. This is also reflected in the way they address their audience. French references his knowledge of various proposed policies, while González attempts to use comparisons and quick, absolute statements. Their differing personal thoughts also play a part in their stances on

American gun regulation. González begins by stating her opinion that, “At the end of the day, we don’t want people to have their guns taken away. We just want people to be more responsible. We want civilians to have to go through more rolls of red tape to get what they want, because if any of that tape can stop those who shouldn’t own a gun from owning a gun, then our government will have done something right...We don’t need the NRA’s excuses, we need the NRA to finally stand up and use its power to supply the American people with something they deserve” (González 891-892). In saying this, González is trying to convince her audience to support harsher gun regulation. Her argument relies more on emotion than it does on facts. This makes sense as she must work with what she has; emotion, not a background of American legislation. French combats her argument by saying, “It’s a myth that gun owners despise regulation. Instead, they tend to believe that government regulation should have two purposes - to deny guns to the dangerous while protecting rights of access for the law-abiding. The formula is simple: Criminals and the dangerously mentally ill make our nation more violent. Law-abiding gun owners save and protect lives. Thus the overwhelming support for background checks, the insistence from gun-rights supporters that the government enforce existing laws and lock up violent offenders, and the openness to solutions - like so-called “gun violence restraining orders” that specifically target troubled individuals for intervention” (French 895). With this argument, French tells us that he believes in regulation, but also limiting it to dangerous individuals. Like in the previous quote, he argues that good people can use guns for good, and evil people can use them for evil; the trick is punishing the evil without minimizing the good. This is similar to González’s hope to improve the good, but unlike her, he cites examples and doesn’t rely on emotion nearly as much.

Altogether, the two essays differ in their author’s own dangerous experiences, views on civilians owning assault weapons, and stances on gun regulation in the United States. What is so interesting about this is that both essays cover very similar topics, but do so in such different ways. González is trying to make her audience empathize with the victims of gun violence to try and create change. This is evident in the way she relies very heavily on emotional impact rather than logic. French is a completely different case, relying on facts and his knowledge of gun regulation. Unlike González, he makes no demands and absolute statements, instead simply trying to provide information on gun culture. Despite these differences, neither calls for a revolution nor stays completely to one political side. González doesn’t want to make all guns illegall, and French doesn’t want everyone to own a gun. They both have complex and reasonable arguments and share the goal to make America the best it can be. The past decade has seen the divide between the right and left grow bigger and bigger each year, or at least that’s how it seems. Not only do these essays remind us that are there issues for America to address, but also that its citizens can work together and practice compromise in order to make the country better as a whole.

Works Cited

French, David. “What Critics Don’t Understand about Gun Culture.” The Norton Reader, edited by Melissa Goldthwaite, W.W. Norton & Company, 2020, pp. 893-896.

González, Emma. “Fighting for Gun Control.” The Norton Reader, edited by Melissa Goldthwaite, W.W. Norton & Company, 2020, pp. 890-892.