At the heart of arguments about firearms in the United States is the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A debate about gun control should take into consideration how each side understands “the right to keep and bear arms” as well as what constitutes infringement of that right. A well-structured debate may include widely divergent views. For example, one side could argue that there should be no controls or regulation, while the other side could advocate for strict controls of all areas of gun ownership and use. An effective debate will probably adopt a more moderate stance on both sides. The underlying reasons for advocating each position should also be included.
The broad heading of gun control covers a wide range of possible restrictions. A debate could be organized focusing exclusively on sales, registration, and related matters such as background checks. One widely debated point relates to restrictions on purchase and ownership, which may be based on age, criminal record, or mental illness. A related topic concerns restrictions related to the type of gun rather than focusing on the owner. Some people believe there should be no restrictions on the type of gun, while others argue against personal ownership of military-type weaponry and high-capacity magazines.
Another line of debate can address who has the power to impose such regulations. Some people favor the creation of a national policy, while others firmly believe that such authority belongs only in the hands of the states.