Upon visiting the ProCon website, the first argument that stood out to me was the issue of gun control. Gun control has been a debate for many years, but in light of the heartbreaking event that took place in Parkland, Florida, killing seventeen people, it is ever so strong. The proponents of gun control argue there should be a change to the current gun control laws (ProCon.org, 2017). They contend if America had more gun control law, we could reduce gun deaths nationwide, not to mention the protection these laws would bring to the victims of domestic violence and stalking situations. Another stance is the necessity for banning high-capacity magazines because data illustrates “50% of mass shootings during 1982 and 2012 involved this type of weapon, and when high-capacity magazines are used, death rates rise 63% and injury rates rise 156%. That is definitely some alarming statistics, especially when the media continues to discuss the school shootings and casualties. Furthermore, proponents argue that the guns being used are those same legally owned guns that the current gun control laws allow individuals to have in their …show more content…
“Gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, but the murder rate decreased” (ProCon.org, 2017, n.p.). Coming from a military family, the talk of gun control comes up often, and most of the time it is reiterating that everyone needs to get their gun permit before the laws change and we are not able to, which brings us to the next argument. “Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety” (ProCon.org, 2017, n.p.). Both sides of the argument bring up the fact that gun control is the 12th leading cause of death. Proponents of course, argue that placing them a great risk; whereas, opponents maintain Americans are more likely to die from a health-related