Editorial #1 is the most persuasive since it is the only article that backs its content with research findings on why gun control has no effect on crime rates in the country. Additionally, the article shows that by reducing legal sources to buy guns, the cost of guns relative to criminals among law-abiding citizens is raised. Moreover, there is no direct relationship between one-gun-a-month and crime rates. People should understand that controlling criminals from accessing guns is a major challenge. While keeping guns from criminals is a good idea, the same laws make it hard for law-abiding citizens to get guns relative to criminals and are causing more harm than good.
Editorial #2 is the least persuasive since it lacks any support that renders it worthy of banning the sales of guns. While the article shows that closing the loophole will not affect the second amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, it fails to establish the relationship between crime rates and gun possession. Moreover, the article calls one of the victims on the need to close the loophole but fails to understand that no direct association exists between crime and gun possession. As evident in article one, the direct relationship between the two has been established, and it shows one-gun-a-month has no link to crime rates.
Among the key issues associated with gun control that has not been covered is that many gun owners in the U.S. own firearms for personal protection. Additionally, crime is the least reason for gun owners in the country since, apart from personal protection, they own guns for hunting, nonspecific recreation, family heirloom, and work-related reasons. While crime might be associated with possession of firearms, many legal gun owners in the country do not purchase firearms for illegal activities, and limiting them would mean limiting their second amendment rights.