PRO/CON: Is it time to pass tough

gun control laws?

By McClatchy Tribune, adapted by Newsela staff on 10.18.17
Word Count 911
Level 1070L

Semi-automatic weapons are displayed at a gun range in Las Vegas, Nevada. Photo by: Wikimedia Commons

PRO: Outrage over Las Vegas must outlive news and election
cycles
By now, the timeline after a mass shooting is predictable.

The community and country mourn. News outlets cover the story for several days, and
politicians send their thoughts and prayers. People talk about changing gun laws, but the
National Rifle Association (NRA) and its supporters largely remain silent or call for a cooling-
off period.

And then, nothing changes and the news cycle moves on. All the while, the powerful gun lobby
and the NRA, which influences politicians, prevents sane policies and laws on firearms.

This is a cycle we must break.

People against strict gun laws always use the same excuses. The Second Amendment,
personal protection, recreational use, fear of a police state, and a general call for freedom.

This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. 1

None of these arguments pass a simple logic test.

The Second Amendment grants U.S. citizens the right to bear arms, but it was written in a
very different time: there was no police protection, and there were no automatic weapons
available.

The idea that people own guns for self-defense is impractical and glamorized. Very few gun-
owning individuals have the experience, training and temperament to successfully defend
themselves or others in an emergency situation.

Guns for hunting and sport are fine. That doesn't mean we should have loose purchasing laws,
weak safety standards or massive stockpiles of automatic weapons.

There's also the slippery slope argument. It preys on people's fears that the government will
turn into a dictatorship or completely ban guns.

As for real freedom, I’ll reference Nelson Mandela, the revolutionary and former president of
South Africa who said, “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way
that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

For this, we can see that gun ownership is a false freedom if all residents of a community or
country are not free from gun violence.

I am not a liberal city boy. I grew up in rural Texas in a hunting family and lived my childhood
with a gun in my hand, but there comes a time when you must think outside of your own lived
experience.

Currently, deadly weapons are easily accessible and studies about the causes of gun violence
are prohibited. Meanwhile, the super-political gun industry profits from death. These truths are,
in turn, irresponsible, unthinkable and gutless.

We can't continue to hide behind falsehoods and political fear. We can't let elected officials
mourn publicly then fail to do their job to protect us. We must enact strict and smart gun
regulations.

Congress, as well as local and state bodies, must act now. Our elected leaders must be
fearless and look past the next newscast or election. Nothing less than our freedom is at stake.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Don Kusler is the national director of Americans for
Democratic Action, the nation’s oldest progressive advocacy organization.

CON: Gun control laws won’t stop Las Vegas-type massacres

To avoid another Las Vegas, people must be prepared.

Enacting more gun control laws would be the most ineffective and irrelevant reaction.

France has far stricter gun laws than the U.S. Yet, 130 were slain, mostly with illegal guns, in
the 2015 Paris attacks.

This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. 2

"Protection" offered by law guarantees nothing. Every person is ultimately responsible for his
or her safety. While critical in many contexts, armed citizens could not have helped in Las
Vegas — flight was the only choice.

Normally, large events employ security guards armed with pistols and screen entrants with
metal detectors. Such measures are useless when a killer secures a towering location above
the event.

The security guard and officers who responded to the massacre acted heroically and
effectively. But, could steps have been taken to prevent the carnage altogether?

That requires serious study, not just blaming the National Rifle Association for the murders.

Those who think a ban could prevent such killings ignore the nature of evil. Those that seek
political gain by saying that "guns are evil" refuse to address the complex motivations of killers.

Relying on Congress to pass further restrictions on law-abiding gun owners would do nothing
to stop mass murders.

California lawmaker Dianne Feinstein’s immediate reaction to Las Vegas was to start writing a
new law that would ban guns that somehow fire faster. Doing this made it clear that Feinstein
did not realize that speed depends on the user’s skill. The key piece Feinstein wanted to ban
was the bump-fire stock, which was used in the Las Vegas shooting. However, proposals to
ban the bump-fire stock are a sideshow to the real agenda of banning guns.

The Second Amendment of the constitution ensures that “the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founders of our country wanted the people to be able
to protect themselves from over-powerful governments.

Millions of people were murdered by strict and controlling governments over the course of the
1900s. It is ironic that those who fear the Trump administration are suggesting that only the
government should have guns.

“Gun control” takes away the ordinary citizen's constitutional right to possess firearms. Just
like our response to 9/11, our reaction to the Las Vegas massacre should be that we continue
to live and stand strong as free Americans.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Stephen P. Halbrook is a senior fellow with the

Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and the author of “Gun Control in
the Third Reich” and “The Founders’ Second Amendment.”

This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. 3

Quiz

1 Read the paragraph from the section "PRO: Outrage over Las Vegas must outlive news and
election cycles."

The idea that people own guns for self-defense is impractical and
glamorized. Very few gun-owning individuals have the experience,
training and temperament to successfully defend themselves or others
in an emergency situation.

Why does the author choose to use the word "glamorized"?

(A) to suggest that people believe that owning guns will make them famous and
beautiful

(B) to suggest that people have falsely positive ideas about the use of guns as self-
defense

(C) to suggest that people have a deep emotional attachment to their guns

(D) to suggest that people believe everyone else owns guns so they should too

2 Read the selection from the section "CON: Gun control laws won’t stop Las Vegas-type
massacres."

The key piece Feinstein wanted to ban was the bump-fire stock, which
was used in the Las Vegas shooting. However, proposals to ban the
bump-fire stock are a sideshow to the real agenda of banning guns.

Fill in the blank. The author uses the word "sideshow" to mean ____.

(A) loud entertainment

(B) temporary distraction

(C) acceptable substitute

(D) visual outline

This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. 4

3 Read the section "PRO: Outrage over Las Vegas must outlive news and election cycles."

Which of the following pieces of evidence is MOST relevant to the author's argument?

(A) People talk about changing gun laws, but the National Rifle Association (NRA)
and its supporters largely remain silent or call for a cooling-off period.

(B) There's also the slippery slope argument. It preys on people's fears that the
government will turn into a dictatorship or completely ban guns.

(C) For this, we can see that gun ownership is a false freedom if all residents of a
community or country are not free from gun violence.

(D) I grew up in rural Texas in a hunting family and lived my childhood with a gun in
my hand, but there comes a time when you must think outside of your own lived
experience.

4 The author of the section "CON: Gun control laws won’t stop Las Vegas-type massacres" claims
that stricter gun laws would not prevent mass shootings in the U.S.

Does he provide relevant and sufficient evidence to support his claim?

(A) Yes; he outlines the use of illegally obtained guns in a relevant mass shooting in
France, and provides a sufficient comparison between the gun laws and
security measures at major events there and in the U.S.

(B) Yes; he compares the recent shooting in Las Vegas to a relevant event in
France, and provides sufficient proof that the gunmen in France used illegal
methods to obtain their guns that could easily be used in the U.S.

(C) No; he explains the number of illegally obtained guns that are present in the
U.S., but does not provide relevant evidence about how they were obtained or
sufficient proof that they have been used in mass shootings.

(D) No; he cites the use of illegally obtained guns in France, but does not provide
relevant evidence related to mass shootings with illegal guns in the U.S. or
sufficient proof that strict gun laws have not prevented other shootings.

This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. 5

Answer Key

1 Read the paragraph from the section "PRO: Outrage over Las Vegas must outlive news and
election cycles."

The idea that people own guns for self-defense is impractical and
glamorized. Very few gun-owning individuals have the experience,
training and temperament to successfully defend themselves or others
in an emergency situation.

Why does the author choose to use the word "glamorized"?

(A) to suggest that people believe that owning guns will make them famous and
beautiful

(B) to suggest that people have falsely positive ideas about the use of
guns as self-defense

(C) to suggest that people have a deep emotional attachment to their guns

(D) to suggest that people believe everyone else owns guns so they should too

2 Read the selection from the section "CON: Gun control laws won’t stop Las Vegas-type
massacres."

The key piece Feinstein wanted to ban was the bump-fire stock, which
was used in the Las Vegas shooting. However, proposals to ban the
bump-fire stock are a sideshow to the real agenda of banning guns.

Fill in the blank. The author uses the word "sideshow" to mean ____.

(A) loud entertainment

(B) temporary distraction

(C) acceptable substitute

(D) visual outline

This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. 6

3 Read the section "PRO: Outrage over Las Vegas must outlive news and election cycles."

Which of the following pieces of evidence is MOST relevant to the author's argument?

(A) People talk about changing gun laws, but the National Rifle Association (NRA)
and its supporters largely remain silent or call for a cooling-off period.

(B) There's also the slippery slope argument. It preys on people's fears that the
government will turn into a dictatorship or completely ban guns.

(C) For this, we can see that gun ownership is a false freedom if all
residents of a community or country are not free from gun violence.

(D) I grew up in rural Texas in a hunting family and lived my childhood with a gun in
my hand, but there comes a time when you must think outside of your own lived
experience.

4 The author of the section "CON: Gun control laws won’t stop Las Vegas-type massacres" claims
that stricter gun laws would not prevent mass shootings in the U.S.

Does he provide relevant and sufficient evidence to support his claim?

(A) Yes; he outlines the use of illegally obtained guns in a relevant mass shooting in
France, and provides a sufficient comparison between the gun laws and
security measures at major events there and in the U.S.

(B) Yes; he compares the recent shooting in Las Vegas to a relevant event in
France, and provides sufficient proof that the gunmen in France used illegal
methods to obtain their guns that could easily be used in the U.S.

(C) No; he explains the number of illegally obtained guns that are present in the
U.S., but does not provide relevant evidence about how they were obtained or
sufficient proof that they have been used in mass shootings.

(D) No; he cites the use of illegally obtained guns in France, but does not
provide relevant evidence related to mass shootings with illegal guns
in the U.S. or sufficient proof that strict gun laws have not prevented
other shootings.

This article is available at 5 reading levels at https://newsela.com. 7