Some of these are drivel, or like the UK example, actually counter-arguments. Plus, I'm not sure why the phrase "arguments for gun control" is italicized throughout. Looking for info to research for an academic paper, but this has not helped at all.

Even before reading this article, I was against higher gun control laws and this article made me feel even stronger about it. The many different topics that you touched on happened to be very contradicting which hurt the effect of your claims severely. Such as the reason regarding suicide. You started it off very well which had me intrigued but then you ruined it by saying if the person was truly depressed and set on taking their own life, having a gun wouldn't change this feeling due to the fact that they would try to kill themselves in a different way. Your argument centered around the UK shooting also hurt the overall article due to the fact that it contradicted your entire paper. It started out giving factual evidence regarding the event and then moved to talking about how even after a ban on guns had occurred, the amount of murders continued to grow... The first argument that was presented here was centered around guns and the amount of homicides. This one wasn't too bad because it supported your argument the entire time, however the part about people "who are in rage will be more likely to use a gun if it is present" doesn't seem highly likely to me. Just because someone is angry doesn't always mean they will turn to violence because every person is different and just because they own a gun, doesn't mean they are going to resort to pulling it out every time they get into an argument with their wife or child. Another argument I'd like to address is the one about Australia and their choice to ban guns for the most part due to a massacre. Yes, their country did see massive improvements but how could this compare to a country with hundreds of thousands of more guns than Australia? If their rate of massacres per decade is now zero than what was it before? What many people don't tend to understand is the fact that guns are easy accessible in the United States even for the people who are not allowed to carry one legally. They could buy them off of their friends or connections that they have and the gun could still be registered to the person with the clean record. Requiring background checks on people before they purchase a gun is very smart, I agree, but who's to say that the people who fail these background checks can't acquire guns from other sources. Another part i would like to refute would be the statement that "citizens don't need assault rifles." If one is fighting for gun control rights, they are fighting for all guns not just specific ones which is why I don't particularly like this section; it's as if saying you want to monitor every candy that comes into your store but people just do not need to eat spicy candies so they shouldn't be allowed into stores at all. Overall, I think that this article hurt your argument more than it helped. The constant contradicting killed it for me.