The Gun Control Lobby

Pro 1: Gun control laws are needed, because the Second Amendment is not an unlimited, individual right to own guns.

In the June 26, 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” [3]

On June 9, 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that “[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment,” thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and “good cause” for concealed carry licenses in California. [145][146]

A 2018 study found that 91 percent of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violated the Second Amendment between the 2008  Hellerdecision and February 1, 2016, failed. [157]

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion in Heller, “the Framer’s single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee ‘to keep and bear arms’ was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias,” hence the inclusion of the phrase “well regulated militia.” [3]

Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and that all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed. [47]

Pro 2: More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

There were 823,204 total gun deaths between 2001 and 2023: 480,573 suicides, 312,380 homicides, 13,268 unintentional deaths, 10,182 legal intervention deaths, and 6,801 gun deaths of undetermined intent. Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (71.5 percent of all homicides) and by suicide (51.8 percent of all suicides). Firearms were the third leading cause of deaths (17 percent) for children aged 5-9, behind drug poisoning (25 percent) and motor vehicle deaths (19 percent).[30][162][211]

Female first-time firearm owners were 35 times more likely to commit suicide within 12 years of buying the gun compared to women who did not own guns; male first-time firearm owners were about eight times more likely to do so. [171][172]

Approximately 50 percent of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted, and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members. [4][18]

About 76 women are murdered with a gun every month in the United States, according to a 2024 Everytown for Gun Safety report. A woman’s risk of being murdered increases 500 percent if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 U.S. soldiers were killed in action between October 7, 2001, and January 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States. Furthermore, a 2025 study found that states with more lenient gun control laws had higher rates of pregnancy-related firearm homicide. [10][11][12][207][239]

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that “legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.” [6]

Researchers found that a “general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed.” [32]

According to a March 10, 2016, Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9 percent; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7 percent; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5 percent. [148]

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14 percent decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your-ground laws. [158][160]

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When U.S. gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9 percent increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after “red flag” laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5 percent and 13.7 percent respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill themselves is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable. [31][33][158][159][164]

The U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31 percent of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100 percent of deaths per year in which children under six years of age shoot and kill themselves or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks, and 23 percent of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired. [35]

Marjorie Sanfilippo, professor of psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children’s behavior around guns, stated, “We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves…. [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot ‘gun-proof’ them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children.” [36]

Pro 3: The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9 percent of the total). [37]

As an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health noted, “gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the U.S., two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns.” A study published in the same journal found that “the weapons used [in altercations] … were those closest at hand.” According to another study, “[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” [38][39][40]

Statistics show that guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79 percent of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. In 2010 there were 230 “justifiable homicides” in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every “justifiable homicide”). Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12 percent of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. [16][17]

Further, armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. None of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were stopped by an armed civilian. As Jeffrey Voccola of Kutztown University notes, “The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation.” [41][43]

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on September 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50 percent of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63 percent and the injury rate rose 156 percent. [7][8][48]

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most common arms were long rifles that had to be reloaded after every shot. Civilians today have access to folding, detaching, or telescoping stocks that make the guns more easily concealed and carried; silencers to muffle gunshot sounds; flash suppressors to fire in low-light conditions without being blinded by the flash and to conceal the shooter’s location; or grenade launcher attachments. Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, states, “These are weapons that will shred your venison before you eat it, or go through the walls of your apartment when you’re trying to defend yourself … [they are] made for mass killing, but not useful for law-abiding citizens.” [49][50]

Pro 4: A majority of adults, including gun owners, support commonsense gun control measures.

According to a March 2025 poll, 85 percent of American gun owners support universal background checks and disallowing violent criminals from owning guns. Most gun owners also support banning guns in sensitive locations such as schools (70 percent), standardizing serial numbers for gun kits and parts (63 percent), state-level permits (62 percent), red flag laws (59 percent), and facial ID or fingerprint recognition technology on guns or safes (54 percent). [212]

As much as 40 percent of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (a.k.a., the “gun show loophole”). [28]

Of adults surveyed, 53 percent approve of high-capacity magazine bans; 89 percent of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill; and 82 percent approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists. Some 77 percent of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun. [165]

Don Macalady, a member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, “As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns.” [29]

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2017 (the most recent data), Switzerland ranked number 34 in international gun ownership rates with 27.6 guns per 100 people (about 2.3 million guns total). In 2023 Switzerland had 8 gun homicides (0.09 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked 42 in international gun ownership rates with 32.4 guns per 100 people (about 1.8 million guns total). In 2023 Finland had 5 (0.09 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides. [44][45][200][213]