essay on top gun

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, top gun: maverick.

Now streaming on:

In “Top Gun: Maverick,” the breathless, gravity and logic-defying “ Top Gun ” sequel that somehow makes all the sense in the world despite landing more than three decades after the late Tony Scott ’s original, an admiral refers to Tom Cruise ’s navy aviator Pete Mitchell—call sign “ Maverick ”—as “the fastest man alive.” It’s a chuckle-inducing scene that recalls one in “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” when Alec Baldwin ’s high-ranking Alan Hunley deems Cruise’s Ethan Hunt, “the living manifestation of destiny.” In neither of these instances are Cruise’s co-stars exclusively referring to his make-believe screen personas. They are also (or rather, primarily) talking about the ongoing legacy of Cruise the actor himself. 

Truth be told, our fearless and ever-handsome action hero earns both appraisals with a generous side of applause, being one of the precious remnants of bona-fide movie superstardoms of yore, a slowly dwindling they-don’t-make-'em-like-they-used-to notion of immortality these days. Indeed, Cruise’s consistent commitment to Hollywood showmanship—along with the insane levels of physical craft he unfailingly puts on the table by insisting to do his own stunts—I would argue, deserves the same level of high-brow respect usually reserved for the fully-method sorts such as Daniel Day-Lewis . Even if you somehow overlook the fact that Cruise is one of our most gifted and versatile dramatic and comedic actors with the likes of “ Born on the Fourth of July ,” “ Magnolia ,” “ Tropic Thunder ,” and “ Collateral ” under his belt, you will never forget why you show up to a Tom Cruise movie, thanks in large part to his aforesaid enduring dedication. How many other household names and faces can claim to guarantee “a singular movie event” these days and deliver each time, without exceptions?

In that regard, you will be right at home with “Top Gun: Maverick,” director Joseph Kosinski ’s witty adrenaline booster that allows its leading producer to be exactly what he is—a star—while upping the emotional and dramatic stakes of its predecessor with a healthy (but not overdone) dose of nostalgia. After a title card that explains what “Top Gun” is—the identical one that introduced us to the world of crème-de-la-crème Navy pilots in 1986—we find Maverick in a role on the fringes of the US Navy, working as an undaunted test pilot against the familiar backdrop of Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone.” You won’t be surprised that soon enough, he gets called on a one-last-job type of mission as a teacher to a group of recent Top Gun graduates. Their assignment is just as obscure and politically cuckoo as it was in the first movie. There is an unnamed enemy—let’s called it Russia because it’s probably Russia—some targets that need to be destroyed, a flight plan that sounds nuts, and a scheme that will require all successful Top Gun recruits to fly at dangerously low altitudes. But can it be done?

It’s a long shot, if the details of the operation—explained to the aviator hopefuls in a rather “It can’t be done” style reminiscent of “ Mission: Impossible ”—are any indication. But you will be surprised that more appealing than the prospect of the bonkers mission here is the human drama that co-scribes Ehren Kruger , Eric Warren Singer , and Christopher McQuarrie spin from a story by Peter Craig and Justin Marks . For starters, the group of potential recruits include Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw ( Miles Teller , terrific), the son of the dearly departed “Goose,” whose accidental death still haunts Maverick as much as it does the rest of us. And if Rooster’s understandable distaste of him wasn’t enough (despite Maverick’s protective instincts towards him), there are skeptics of Maverick’s credentials— Jon Hamm ’s Cyclone, for instance, can’t understand why Maverick’s foe-turned-friend Iceman ( Val Kilmer , returning with a tearjerker of a part) insists on him as the teacher of the mission. Further complicating the matters is Maverick’s on-and-off romance with Penny Benjamin (a bewitching Jennifer Connelly ), a new character that was prominently name-checked in the original movie, as some will recall. What an entanglement through which one is tasked to defend their nation and celebrate a certain brand of American pride ...

In a different package, all the brouhaha jingoism and proud fist-shaking seen in “Top Gun: Maverick” could have been borderline insufferable. But fortunately Kosinski—whose underseen and underrated “Only The Brave” will hopefully find a second life now—seems to understand exactly what kind of movie he is asked to navigate. In his hands, the tone of “Maverick” strikes a fine balance between good-humored vanity and half-serious self-deprecation, complete with plenty of quotable zingers and emotional moments that catch one off-guard.

In some sense, what this movie takes most seriously are concepts like friendship, loyalty, romance, and okay, bromance. Everything else that surrounds those notions—like patriotic egotism—feels like playful winks and embellishments towards fashioning an old-school action movie. And because this mode is clearly shared by the entirety of the cast—from a memorable Ed Harris that begs for more screen time to the always great Glen Powell as the alluringly overconfident “ Hangman ,” Greg Tarzan Davis as “Coyote,” Jay Ellis as “ Payback ,” Danny Ramirez as “Fanboy,” Monica Barbaro as “ Phoenix ,” and Lewis Pullman as “Bob”—“Top Gun: Maverick” runs fully on its enthralling on-screen harmony at times. For evidence, look no further than the intense, fiery chemistry between Connelly and Cruise throughout—it’s genuinely sexy stuff—and (in a nostalgic nod to the original), a rather sensual beach football sequence, shot with crimson hues and suggestive shadows by Claudio Miranda . 

Still, the action sequences—all the low-altitude flights, airborne dogfights as well as Cruise on a motorcycle donned in his original Top Gun leather jacket—are likewise the breathtaking stars of “Maverick,” often accompanied by Harold Faltermeyer ’s celebratory original score (aided by cues from Hans Zimmer and Lorne Balfe ). Reportedly, all the flying scenes—a pair of which are pure hell-yes moments for Cruise—were shot in actual U.S. Navy F/A-18s, for which the cast had to be trained for during a mind-boggling process. The authentic work that went into every frame generously shows. As the jets cut through the atmosphere and brush their target soils in close-shave movements—all coherently edited by Eddie Hamilton —the sensation they generate feels miraculous and worthy of the biggest screen one can possibly find. Equally worthy of that big screen is the emotional strokes of “Maverick” that pack an unexpected punch. Sure, you might be prepared for a second sky-dance with “Maverick,” but perhaps not one that might require a tissue or two in its final stretch.

Available in theaters May 27th. 

Tomris Laffly

Tomris Laffly is a freelance film writer and critic based in New York. A member of the New York Film Critics Circle (NYFCC), she regularly contributes to  RogerEbert.com , Variety and Time Out New York, with bylines in Filmmaker Magazine, Film Journal International, Vulture, The Playlist and The Wrap, among other outlets.

Now playing

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Matt Zoller Seitz

Art College 1994

Simon abrams.

Mother of the Bride

Marya e. gates.

Girls State

Terrestrial Verses

Godfrey cheshire, film credits.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action, and some strong language.

131 minutes

Tom Cruise as Captain Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell

Miles Teller as Lt. Bradley 'Rooster' Bradshaw

Jennifer Connelly as Penny Benjamin

Jon Hamm as Vice Admiral Cyclone

Glen Powell as Hangman

Lewis Pullman as Bob

Charles Parnell as Warlock

Bashir Salahuddin as Coleman

Monica Barbaro as Phoenix

Jay Ellis as Payback

Danny Ramirez as Fanboy

Greg Tarzan Davis as Coyote

Ed Harris as Rear Admiral

Val Kilmer as Admiral Tom 'Iceman' Kazansky

Manny Jacinto as Fritz

• Joseph Kosinski

Writer (based on characters created by)

• Jack Epps Jr.

Writer (story by)

• Peter Craig
• Justin Marks
• Ehren Kruger
• Eric Warren Singer
• Christopher McQuarrie

Cinematographer

• Claudio Miranda
• Chris Lebenzon
• Eddie Hamilton
• Lorne Balfe
• Harold Faltermeyer
• Hans Zimmer

Latest blog posts

Cannes 2024: The Second Act, Abel Gance's Napoleon

Meanwhile in France...Cannes to Be Specific

Heeramandi: The Diamond Bazaar Wastes Its Lavish Potential

​Nocturnal Suburban Teen Angst Fantasia: Jane Schoenbrun on I Saw the TV Glow

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Top Gun: Maverick review – irresistible Tom Cruise soars in a blockbuster sequel

Cinema’s favourite ageless fighter pilot returns with all the nail-biting aeronautics and emotional sucker punches that made the original an 80s-defining hit

A nd we’re back. A full 36 years (including some Covid-related runway delays) after Tony Scott’s big-screen recruitment advert for US naval aviators became an epoch-defining cinema hit, Tom Cruise is back doing what he does best – flashing his cute/crazy superstar smile and flexing his bizarrely ageless body in an eye-popping blockbuster that, for all its daft macho contrivances, still manages to take your breath away, dammit.

From the burnished opening shots of planes waltzing off an aircraft carrier to the strains of Kenny Loggins’s Danger Zone , little has changed in the world of Top Gun – least of all Cruise. Maverick may be testing jets out in the Mojave desert, but he’s still got the jacket, the bike(s), the aviator shades and (most importantly) the “need for speed” that made him a hit back in 1986. He also has the machine-tooled rebellious streak that has prevented him rising above the level of captain – showcased in an opening Mach 10 sequence that doesn’t so much tip its hat to Philip Kaufman’s The Right Stuff as fly straight past it with a super-smug popcorn-eating grin. See ya, serious movie suckers!

“Your kind is headed for extinction,” growls Ed Harris’s forward-looking rear admiral (nicknamed the “Drone Ranger”) before admitting through gritted teeth that Maverick has in fact been called back to the Top Gun programme – not to fly, but to teach the “best of the best” how to blow up a uranium enrichment plant at face-melting velocity, a mission that will require not one but “ two consecutive miracles”. “I’m not a teacher,” Maverick insists, “I’m a fighter pilot.” But, of course, he can be both.

True to form, Maverick promptly throws the rulebook in the bin ( literally – the metaphors are not subtle) and tells his team of fresh-faced hopefuls that the only thing that matters is “your limits; I intend to find them, and test them”. Cue dog-fight training sequences played out to classic jukebox cuts, while thrusting young guns do 200 push-ups on the runway. In the local bar, an underused Jennifer Connelly serves up drinks and love-interest sass (Kelly McGillis was apparently not invited to this party) while Miles Teller ’s Rooster bangs out Great Balls of Fire on the piano, prompting a flashback to Maverick cradling Anthony Edwards’s Goose, who got famously cooked in the first film.

And therein lies what passes for the heart of the piece; because Rooster is Goose’s son, and Maverick (who still blames himself) doesn’t want to be responsible for history repeating itself. “If I send him on this mission,” Cruise emotes, “he might not come back; if I don’t send him, he’ll never forgive me. Either way I could lose him for ever.” Tough call, bro.

Cruise has described making a Top Gun sequel as being like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet – which is exactly the kind of thing that Maverick would say. Yet working with director Joseph Kosinski (with whom Cruise made Oblivion ) and scriptwriters including regular collaborator Christopher McQuarrie, he has done just that. For all its nostalgic, Miller Time sequences of shirtless beach sports and oddly touching character callbacks (a cameo from Val Kilmer ’s Iceman proves unexpectedly affecting), Top Gun: Maverick offers exactly the kind of air-punching spectacle that reminds people why a trip to the cinema beats staying at home and watching Netflix.

The plot trajectory may be predictable to the point of ridicule (like Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman , Tom is going up where he belongs) but the emotional beats are as finely choreographed as the stunts. As for the “don’t think, just do” mantra (a cheeky rehash of Star Wars ’s “Use the force, Luke”), it’s as much an instruction to the audience as to the pilots.

Personally, I found myself powerless to resist; overawed by the ‘“real flight” aeronautics and nail-biting sky dances, bludgeoned by the sugar-frosted glow of Cruise’s mercilessly engaging facial muscles, and shamefully brought to tears by moments of hate-yourself-for-going-with-it manipulation. In the immortal words of Abba’s Waterloo, “I was defeated, you won the war”. I give up.

• Top Gun: Maverick
• Mark Kermode's film of the week
• Action and adventure films
• Miles Teller

Most viewed

The Ludicrous Beauty of Top Gun: Maverick

It’s just what every cineplex in the country needs.

In the original Top Gun , the enemy is intentionally obscure: anonymous pilots flying MiGs from a hostile but unnamed country who have to be chased away and shot down by the heroic Maverick (played by Tom Cruise) and his fellow graduates of the Top Gun naval flight school. Who exactly the enemy is does not matter. What matters is that the hero is America. Tony Scott’s film was a highly successful, undeniably compelling advertisement for brash 1980s jingoism. Now, 36 years later, after many pandemic-induced delays, comes Top Gun: Maverick , a legacy sequel that brings the same hotshot pilot back to the fore, assigned to an all-new mission against another faceless antagonist. But this time, the hero isn’t America. It’s, well, Tom Cruise.

Of course, Top Gun: Maverick is still overflowing with muscular displays of American military might, but this follow-up, directed by Joseph Kosinski, has less flag-waving abandon. Instead, the propaganda is for its twinkly-eyed star, who throws on a pair of aviators and a flight jacket, revs his motorcycle, and zooms back to the Top Gun academy. His mission? Making the case for genuine movie stars continually blowing audiences away on the big screen. As a sequel , the film is not narratively groundbreaking, focusing on the protagonist’s struggle to let go of the past in our less sentimental present. But as a stand-alone blockbuster that’s just trying to suck viewers’ eyeballs out of their sockets with hellacious flight photography and thunderous sound, Maverick is just what every cineplex in the country has been crying out for.

Read: Top Gun is an infomercial for America

If that assessment sounds hyperbolic, I urge every reader to try to see Maverick in major cinemas if possible, because even by the standards of today’s mega-budgeted blockbusters, this one is a particularly immersive experience. I myself was furiously Googling where to buy some Dramamine as I exited the theater. (I say this as a high compliment.) The screenplay also has a solid hook. Maverick returns to train a group of pilots that includes Rooster (Miles Teller), the son of his deceased wingman, Goose (Anthony Edwards), whose death in the first film hangs over this one. But Maverick works best when it’s in the air, battering the viewers’ senses and showing off just how much intense piloting Cruise and the rest of the cast did to achieve the film’s spectacular action.

Plenty of summer action films have exciting visuals—think caped superheroes shooting energy beams at one another while zipping around the galaxy. And yet, all the expensive CGI in the world can’t match the visceral view of Cruise sitting in the cockpit of an F-18 with plane-mounted cameras pointed right at him as the forces of gravity smoosh his face flat. The flight photography in the original Top Gun was massively impressive for its time, but it’s Stone Age stuff compared with what Kosinski and his team have accomplished here, where every action sequence looks utterly real even when the circumstances are absolutely ludicrous.

That quality is a hallmark of Cruise’s recent cinematic output, which has stressed big-screen verisimilitude and the sense that the actor is stretching his physical limits. His stunt work in the Mission: Impossible series has seen him strapped to the outside of airplanes as they take off, and tossed into the air at nearly 30,000 feet. In Maverick , he’s safely ensconced inside a cockpit, but the physical strain of what he’s doing still looks extraordinary. That tension is just about the only way he can function as a movie star anymore. Cruise seems aware that audiences stopped accepting him as a relatable, normal human being long ago—but will still buy in if he’s playing someone who’s unnaturally obsessed with succeeding.

For that reason, I’m surprised he took so long to return to the character of Maverick (that’s his aviator call sign, of course—real name, Pete Mitchell), who’s defined by his sense of defiance. In Top Gun , he’s a skilled pilot chasing the ghost of his much-admired dad, a deceased Navy legend, and he’s constantly taking risks, to the consternation of his commanding officers. In Maverick , he’s not all that different, having declined promotions beyond the rank of captain and now working as a test pilot for experimental military planes accelerating toward 10 times the speed of sound. After he flouts authority during a test flight, Maverick is bumped back to Top Gun to lead a team of graduates, under the grumpy command of a vice admiral named Cyclone (Jon Hamm).

This time, the ghost haunting Maverick is Goose, and the film’s emotional weight rests on him fighting to earn the respect of Rooster, a crack pilot who holds Maverick responsible for his father’s death. A few gentle subplots revolve around Maverick rekindling his relationship with an old flame named Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly, luminous if underused), some traditional macho jockeying for respect among the graduates, and a somewhat wrenching cameo by Iceman (Val Kilmer), Maverick’s old rival, an admiral who is now plagued with health problems similar to those that have curtailed Kilmer’s career in recent years.

That’s all secondary to the central question of whether Maverick, whose best-of-the-best attitude so closely parallels Cruise’s action-star exceptionalism, can still outclass all of his competitors. The character often ponders whether his individualism still has value in such a rigid field of work. But this is a Tom Cruise vehicle, one where he’s hitching himself to jets for our delight and amusement. The answer is never really in doubt.

Listen to David Sims discuss Top Gun on an episode of The Atlantic ’s culture podcast The Review :

Advertisement

Supported by

Your Burning Questions About ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Answered

How similar is it to the original? Who’s back? Who’s absent? We have answers.

• Share full article

By Jason Bailey

Listen to This Article

“Top Gun: Maverick” turns and burns its way into theaters this week, landing 36 years after the 1986 original. That’s a lot of time to form a lot of questions about the new film and its relationship to its predecessor — and we’ve got answers.

Didn’t this already come out?

You would think! Thanks to its complex production, the Covid-19 pandemic and Paramount’s insistence on holding out for a proper theatrical rollout, “Top Gun: Maverick” has set and missed five previous release dates: July 2019 , June 2020 , Christmas 2020 , the 2021 Fourth of July weekend , Thanksgiving of 2021 , and then finally, its current Friday berth .

How similar are the stories?

Very. Both films begin with Maverick (Cruise) engaging in a display of hot-dogging that gets him called on the carpet — but not really, since he’s sent to Top Gun, essentially promoted, by its conclusion. (This time, he’ll instruct a class of hotshot young fliers for a dangerous mission.) The goings-on at the Navy flight school include dogfight exercises, philosophical conflicts and a love story. Plus, a devastating loss is followed by a crisis of conscience before the eventual triumph.

The original film’s primary conflict was between Maverick, the cocky risk-taker, and Iceman (Val Kilmer), a by-the-book pilot who finds Maverick’s rule-breaking dangerous. In the sequel, that dynamic is replicated between adrenaline junkie Hangman (Glen Powell) and the more conservative Rooster (Miles Teller), whose tendency to play it safe in the air is rooted in the premature death of his father: Maverick’s old flying buddy Goose (Anthony Edwards).

Who’s back?

Only one actor, aside from Cruise, returns: Val Kilmer’s Iceman, now the commander of the Pacific fleet. Teller did not play little Rooster in the original film, but the character was present, bouncing on a bar piano as Maverick and his old man sing and play “Great Balls of Fire”; here, Rooster leads a piano singalong of the same tune, and the director Joseph Kosinski flashes back to that scene (just in case Rooster’s costume, mustache and aviators, identical to Goose’s, aren’t enough of a giveaway).

And, as the film critic Alison Wilmore noted , Maverick’s love interest, Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly), while not seen in the first film, was mentioned in an early scene.

Who’s noticeably absent?

That new love interest means that Kelly McGillis, who played the instructor Charlie Blackwood in the original, does not appear — she’s not even mentioned. Nor does Meg Ryan, whose brief but memorable turn as Goose’s widow was an early career highlight, or Rick Rossovich, who played Iceman’s fly buddy Slider to memorable effect.

Do we hear “Danger Zone”?

Do we ever. The opening minutes are a painstaking recreation of the same stretch in “Top Gun”: Harold Faltermeyer’s distinctive “bong” and synthesizer score accompany the exact same opening text explaining what Top Gun is and what it does (with one notable alteration: it now notes that the school trains a “handful of men and women ”), before we see planes taking off from Navy carriers and roaring into the sky as the score gives way to Kenny Loggins’s pulse-pounding hit “Danger Zone.”

The detail of the replication is meticulous, approaching the level of Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot “Psycho” remake. But it turns out to be a head-fake, framing “Maverick” as exactly the kind of empty nostalgia play that it turns out not to be.

What about “Take My Breath Away”?

Surprisingly, Berlin’s love ballad (the soundtrack’s other big hit) is nowhere to be found, though Cruise and Connolly’s love scene initially apes some of the compositions of the original scene when it was used. But their foreplay ends quickly for a tasteful cut to the afterglow, as Kosinski seems more interested in (gasp) what they have to say to each other than what they want to do to each other.

This is true to the picture’s general approach to romance, replacing the entirely physical attraction of the first film with a solid, complicated relationship between two adults, who’ve lived a life and shared a history. But yes, she rides on the back of his Kawasaki, and her hair looks great blowing in the breeze.

How homoerotic is it?

Barely, sadly. The guy-on-guy overtones of the original film were so pronounced that they became part of the picture’s lore, articulated by no less a pop culture expert than Quentin Tarantino (in a cameo appearance in the 1994 comedy “Sleep With Me”). But this one mostly plays it straight, so to speak.

OK, but is there at least a beach volleyball scene?

There is a beach football scene, but it’s comparatively chaste — skin is bared and muscles are flexed, but it feels like the sequence is actually about the game they’re playing, and not, y’know, other stuff.

How propagandistic is it?

The original “Top Gun” was such an effective piece of rah-rah flag-waving that Navy recruiting officials notoriously posted up outside screenings to field inquiries from would-be Mavericks. The new film isn’t quite as jingoistic (though it was again made with the full cooperation of the Department of Defense), emphasizing personal over political conflict. But the central mission, to bomb an unnamed enemy’s “unsanctioned uranium plant” that threatens “our allies in the region,” has some troubling historical analogues .

Will I like it if I loved the original?

Probably. The culture-war inclined may decry the film’s inclusivity (beyond the opening text alteration, the flying crew is more racially and sexually diverse), but “Maverick” checks all the expected boxes: thrilling action, shades and leather jackets aplenty, and Cruise at his coolest.

Will I like it if I hated the original?

Speaking as part of this demographic: yes. Cruise and the screenwriters make the deliberate (and frankly risky) choice of making Hangman, the character most reminiscent of Maverick in the first film, the most unlikable character in this one. It proves a genuinely thoughtful and effective method of grappling with what “Top Gun” was, what it said and what it represented at that moment in history — and in this one.

Audio produced by Tally Abecassis .

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

Andy Serkis, the star of the earlier “Planet of the Apes” movies, and Owen Teague, the new lead, discuss the latest film in the franchise , “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.”

The HBO series “The Sympathizer” is not just a good story, it’s a sharp piece of criticism on Vietnam war movies, our critic writes .

In “Dark Matter,” the new Apple TV+ techno-thriller, a portal to parallel realities allows people to visit new worlds and revisit their own past decisions .

The tennis movie “Challengers” comes to an abrupt stop midmatch, so we don’t know who won. Does that matter? Our critics have thoughts .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

Reader's Choice

Reviews commissioned and selected by Patrons

Review by Brian Eggert December 29, 2022

The first images in Top Gun , the 1986 hit about Naval aviators that made Tom Cruise a superstar, build a montage that has the energy of a soft drink commercial. Against the opening credits, a ground crew aboard an aircraft carrier prepares planes for takeoff. It’s an iconic-looking sequence, complete with slow-motion and director Tony Scott’s regular use of red lens filters at sunrise to heighten the visual drama. Then Scott’s name appears onscreen, prompting jet engines to fire and Kenny Loggins to sing about the “Danger Zone.” Now the shots escalate to showcase planes taking off, marshallers directing traffic, aircraft landing, and the enthused reactions of the deck crew in a random confluence of guitar riffs and positivity. At any moment, you expect someone will open a Pepsi, look at the camera, and announce some hollow slogan. Legendary critic Pauline Kael, undoubtedly aware of Scott’s background in commercials, asked in her review of Top Gun , “What is this commercial selling?” She also noted the film’s famous homoerotic overtones, but that wasn’t intended by the filmmakers, even if it drips off the screen in salty beads of man sweat.

Instead, as intended, Top Gun serves as a jingoist chunk of Cold War propaganda designed to reinforce Reagan-era ideologies about being “the best”—a concept that saturated 1980s cinema in several Rocky sequels and various other sports and military movies. Even the poster’s tagline reads, “Up there with the best of the best.” But what does it mean to be “the best” in this context? If you’re the best, according to Top Gun , you’re an American. You rank the highest. You get the girl, but also your sexual conquests are many. You have zero body fat and look great playing shirtless volleyball. You respect your parents, particularly your father (and if he’s not around, the nearest father figure will do). You defeat the bad guys. You win the trophy. But if you come in second place, you can still be the best by learning a valuable lesson or making friends with the competition. After all of that, if you can walk away and give a thumbs up or high-five, then one way or another, you’ve become “the best.” 

Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer produced Top Gun . Peter Biskin described them as “megaproducers” who “preferred novices they could hire for a song and push around, like Adrian Lyne or Tony Scott.” However, Bruckheimer got his start in the world of advertising, which might be why he’s drawn to commercial directors like Scott and Michael Bay. Scott, who started out making commercials for Ridley Scott Associates, was fresh off the heels of his feature debut and arguably his best film, The Hunger (1983), also produced by Simpson and Bruckheimer. And so, the talent behind the cameras on Top Gun was focused more on selling than on composing drama or telling a personal story. Indeed, the film exists for commercial synergy. It’s about creating individual moments that can be packaged and sold to audiences in a trailer. And it worked. The distributors at Paramount made millions in receipts and plenty more from soundtrack sales—the Oscar-winning song “Take My Breath Away,” performed by Berlin, joins Kenny Loggins and oldies by Jerry Lee Lewis (“Great Balls of Fire”) and The Righteous Brothers (“You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling”). It’s a memorable and best-selling soundtrack, and it’s also evidence of an increasing desire by Hollywood studios to sell just as many tapes and CDs as movie tickets. 

While the film’s commercial enterprise resulted in a box-office triumph for Paramount, there were other consequences, some unintended. Author David Robb notes that the US Navy saw a 500% increase in enlistment from those wanting to become the next Maverick (or Cruise (or Kilmer)). The Navy cooperated with the production and helped back the film, suggesting its intended function as a recruitment tool. Top Gun also became inseparable from American pop culture, so fixed in the zeitgeist that its story serves almost no function next to the familiar images: Cruise’s smile, aviator shades (even at night), Cruise racing on a motorcycle next to a jet, unquestioning patriotism, “Great Balls of Fire” at the piano, plane fetishism, and sweaty interactions between sweaty men. Meanwhile, the queer association with Naval servicemen fuelled the film’s accidental but abundant homoerotic appeal, complete with lockerroom scenes and loaded dialogue (“You can be my wingman anytime” and “I’d like to bust your butt but I can’t”). And famously, Quentin Tarantino has a convincing monologue in the 1994 indie comedy Sleep with Me that argues how Maverick’s need to break the rules represents the emergence of his gay identity. However, queer readings easily apply to many examples from 1980s action cinema, which was rooted in male bonding, muscle obsession, and eroticized male bodies as ideal forms. 

If the writers intended any kind of parallel for Top Gun , it’s between the Navy and a sports team. Maverick is the superstar who must learn to play in a team. Even the Top Gun locker room scenes feel similar to those seen in countless sports movies. Thus, the conflict against the opposing team—presumably the Soviets, though they remain unspecified—turns politics into a disturbing form of war-as-gameplay. The sports movie analogy proved so evident that even Hot Shots! (1991), the Top Gun spoof, lampooned this quality when Charlie Sheen’s hero returns from an aerial battle to a crowd of cheering servicemen. Replicating the familiar post-game question reporters often asked around this time, a voice from behind the camera inquires, “Now that you’ve killed the bad guy and made the world safe for democracy, what are you going to do to cash in on your newfound fame?” Sheen’s character replies like a Super Bowl victor: “I’m going to Disneyland!” To be sure, Maverick’s return home after their victory recalls many team celebrations (it’s surprising Gatorade isn’t dumped on Viper’s head).  

And so, Top Gun doesn’t take my breath away. Whether it’s selling the idea of America’s military superiority and status as “the best” or simply rewarding Maverick’s overconfident behavior throughout, Top Gun feels more like a historical marker than an escapist blockbuster. Doubtless, you’re reading this review and telling me to “lighten up.” After all, Top Gun is a staple of Hollywood cinema, a landmark entry in Cruise’s career, and a gateway that led to Scott becoming a major action director (the impressive display of various high-speed dogfights are expertly filmed and edited). It’s all very cool looking, and its imagery is memorable in the way commercials from decades ago linger in the mind. But it didn’t make me feel anything. Perhaps if I had grown up watching Top Gun on repeated viewings, I would still love the film today and apologize for its missteps along with its devoted fans (the way I do for my personal favorites from this era). Alas, Top Gun remains a dramatically unsatisfying and mostly superficial experience, leaving my thoughts to wander, similar to how I zone out during the commercials before the main attraction. Whatever it’s selling, I’m not buying.

(Note:  This review was originally suggested on and posted to Patreon on May 17, 2022. )

Bibliography: 

Arnett, Robert. “Understanding Tony Scott: Authorship and Post-Classical Hollywood.” Film Criticism , vol. 39, no. 3, 2015, pp. 48–67, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24777935. Accessed 14 May 2022.

Biskind, Peter. Easy Riders, Raging Bull s. Simon and Schuster, 1998.

Modleski, Tania. “Misogynist Films: Teaching ‘Top Gun.’” Cinema Journal , vol. 47, no. 1, 2007, pp. 101–05, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30132003. Accessed 14 May 2022.

Robb, David. Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies . Prometheus, 2004. 

Schuckmann, Patrick. “Masculinity, the Male Spectator and the Homoerotic Gaze.” Amerikastudien / American Studies , vol. 43, no. 4, 1998, pp. 671–80, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41157425. Accessed 14 May 2022.

Related Titles

The Definitives

• In Theaters

Recent Reviews

• I Saw the TV Glow 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Last Stop in Yuma County 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Back to Black 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
• Stress Positions 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Evil Does Not Exist 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Coma 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Humane 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Short Take: Unfrosted 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
• The Fall Guy 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Idea of You 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: The Ex-Mrs. Bradford 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Beast 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Challengers 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Infested 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆

Recent Articles

• Guest Appearance: The LAMBcast - The Fall Guy
• The Definitives: Paris, Texas
• Reader's Choice: Saturday Night Fever
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 4
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 3
• Guest Appearance: KARE 11 - 3 movies you need to see in theaters now
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 2
• Reader's Choice: Birth/Rebirth
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 1
• MSPIFF 2024

Find anything you save across the site in your account

“Top Gun: Maverick,” Reviewed: Tom Cruise Takes Empty Thrills to New Heights

By Richard Brody

When Ronald Reagan was elected President, in 1980, it seemed only slightly more absurd than if Ronald McDonald had won. Both were entertainers, but the burger clown knew it, whereas Reagan believed the nostalgic and noxious verities of the movies that he had appeared in—and as a politician he attempted to force modern American life to conform to them. Thus “Top Gun,” which I saw when it came out, in 1986, felt like the cultural nadir of a time that was itself something of a nadir. As a film of cheaply rousing drama and jingoistic nonsense, “Top Gun” played like feedback—a shrill distillation of the very world view that it reproduced. Little did we know that there was another, less accomplished yet more bilious entertainer waiting in the wings to wreak even more grievous damage, more than three decades later, on the polity and the national psyche.

No less than the original “Top Gun,” its new sequel, “Top Gun: Maverick,” directed by Joseph Kosinski, is an emblem of its benighted political times. That’s why, in comparison with the sequel, the original comes off as a work of warmhearted humanism. Yet, paradoxically, and disturbingly, “Maverick” is also a more satisfying drama, a more accomplished action film—I enjoyed it more, yet its dosed-out, juiced-up pleasures reveal something terrifying about the implications and the effects of its narrative efficiency.

“Maverick” is less a sequel to “Top Gun” than a renovation of it. The framework of the story is borrowed from the original, nearly scene for scene; drastic changes, while updating it for the present time, leave it recognizable still. In the new film, Tom Cruise returns as Lieutenant Pete Mitchell, whose call sign is Maverick. Now he’s a test pilot at an isolated post in the Mojave Desert, where the project he’s working on—the development of a new airplane—is about to be cancelled in favor of drones, on the pretext of a performance standard that can’t be met. So Maverick, defying an admiral’s order, takes the plane airborne and, against all odds and at grave personal danger, pushes it past Mach 10 (which, for the record, is more than seven thousand miles per hour), thus temporarily saving the project but also risking court martial. Instead, Maverick is sent back to Fighter Weapons School, a.k.a., Top Gun—of which he is, of course, a graduate—in San Diego, summoned by the academy’s commanding officer, Admiral Tom (Iceman) Kazansky, his classmate and respected rival in the first film (again played by Val Kilmer). Maverick’s assignment is to train a dozen young ace pilots for a top-secret and crucial mission, to fly into a mountainous region in an unnamed “rogue” state and destroy a subterranean uranium-enrichment plant.

Yet soon another admiral, Beau (Cyclone) Simpson, played by Jon Hamm, sidelines Maverick and changes the mission’s parameters. In response, Maverick steals another plane and undertakes another unauthorized and dangerous flight, thereby justifying his own set of parameters to Cyclone—who orders him back to lead the younger flyers. Yet Maverick has history with one of those flyers, Lieutenant Bradley Bradshaw (Miles Teller), call sign Rooster, whose late father, Nick (Goose) Bradshaw, played by Anthony Edwards, was Maverick’s wingman in the original “Top Gun” and died saving Maverick’s life. There’s more to that history (spoiler), but the dramatic point is that Maverick has to overcome both the distrust and the enmity of one of the best pilots he’s training—for the sake of the mission, the unit’s esprit de corps, Rooster’s peace of mind, and his own sense of responsibility for a fatherless young man for whom he assumed paternal responsibilities.

There’s also a romance, perhaps the most perfunctory one this side of a children’s movie. Like the one in the original “Top Gun,” it is centered on a bar. This time, Maverick re-meets cute a former lover named Penny (Jennifer Connelly), the owner of the bar where the pilots all hang out. (In the original “Top Gun,” there’s mention of a woman named Penny as one of Maverick’s romantic partners, but the hint goes undeveloped.) What it takes for them to get back together is a kind of barroom hazing that costs Maverick money and dignity, plus a jaunt on her sailboat where she literally teaches him the ropes. (As to what happened between him and Charlie, his instructor and lover in the first film, played by Kelly McGillis, the new film says not a word.) Their relationship is the hollow core around which the movie is modelled, and its emptiness comes off not as accidental or oblivious but as the self-conscious dramatic strategy of the director and the film’s group of screenwriters.

The first ten minutes of “Top Gun”—showing the midair freakout of a pilot called Cougar (John Stockwell)—contain more real emotion than the entire running time of the sequel, and therein lie the key differences between the two films. The powerful feelings, troubled circumstances, and unsettling ambiguities in the original posed dramatic challenges that its director, Tony Scott, and its screenwriters never met. Their film thrusted a handful of significant complexities onto the screen but never explored or resolved them. It wasn’t only Cougar who fell apart in “Top Gun.” Maverick himself, racked with guilt over Goose’s death, first attempted to quit the Navy and then, returning to combat duty, froze up in midair. Of course, Maverick quickly got over it (thanks to Goose’s dog tags), and his suddenly resurgent heroic skills saved the day, brought the movie to a quick triumph, and aroused three decades of impatience for a sequel—but his vulnerability and fallibility at least made a daunting appearance.

By contrast, “Maverick” allows for no such doubts or hesitations. There’s certainly danger in the film, including a pilot who passes out midair and needs to be rescued. Maverick himself ends up in some perilous straits. But none of these situations suggests any weakness or failure of will, any questioning of the mission or of the pilots’ own abilities. The challenges are visceral rather than psychological, technical rather than dramatic, and the script offers them not resolutions but merely solutions—ones that are as impersonal as putting a key in a lock and as gratifying as hearing it click open. “Maverick” feels less written and directed than engineered. It is a work that achieves a certain sort of perfection, a perfect substancelessness—which is a deft way of making its forceful, and wildly political, implicit subject matter pass unnoticed.

Again, comparison with the original is telling. Whatever else the original “Top Gun” is, it’s a movie of procedure. The astounding upside-down maneuver with which Maverick flaunts his daring and prowess early on isn’t a violation of rules, just a departure from textbook methods. On another flight, he does break the rules, in relatively minor ways—he goes briefly below the “hard deck” (the lower limit) to win a competition and then playfully buzzes officers in a tower—and gets seriously called on the carpet for it. By contrast, in the sequel Maverick openly defies the orders of his superior officers, and not merely for a quick maneuver or a playful twit—he steals two planes, and destroys one of them. (For that matter, the destruction is kept offscreen and is merely played for laughs.) The essence of “Maverick” is that a naval officer breaks the law but gets away with it, because he and he alone can save the country from imminent danger.

The lawbreaker-as-hero model rings differently in an age of Trumpian politics and practices, of open insurrection and a near-coup. “Maverick” is evidence, as strong as any in the political arena, that the Overton window of authoritarianism has shifted. This is apparent in the movie’s cavalier attitude toward the rule of law, even in the seemingly sacrosanct domain of military discipline. In the original “Top Gun,” Maverick and the other pilots are told, by the instructor Viper (Tom Skerritt), “Now, we don’t make policy here, gentlemen. Elected officials, civilians do that. We are the instruments of that policy.” (Yes, “gentlemen”—all the fliers in the original are men.) In “Maverick,” there is no parallel line of dialogue, and the military is hermetically sealed off from any reference to politics—perhaps because such sentiments would likely now, in many parts of the country, be booed.

In “Top Gun,” Maverick is a warrior who needs to master his emotions in order to serve his country and to protect his colleagues. In the new film, Maverick, nearing sixty, succeeds solely by giving in to his emotions, by expressly not controlling them—and this, above all, is the doctrine that he imparts to young pilots: “Don’t think, just do.” That mantra, which his best students repeat back to him and follow, is a strange perversion of a key phrase that the young Maverick, explaining himself in class, blurts out in “Top Gun”: “You don’t have time to think up there; if you think, you’re dead.” There’s a world of difference between the young Maverick’s nearly apologetic instrumentalizing of instinct and the elder Maverick’s exaltation of unthinking action. This key line—which, following the quotability of the original film, seems devised to become a catchphrase—isn’t limited to flying and fighting but is delivered as a dictum that could as easily be echoed by anyone with anything to do anywhere.

Thinking means reflecting on consequences and contexts, going past immediate desires and appearances to consider causes and implications. Not thinking is easy for the characters in “Maverick,” because they have no individual attributes at all. The pilots and the officers are played by a diverse group of actors, but the screenwriters give them identities outside of their military actions and no backstories beside the ones that issue from the original “Top Gun.” In the entire film, not a single event or idea or experience is discussed that doesn’t specifically relate to the plot. As a result, the stars and the supporting cast alike have little to do and are reduced to flattened emblems of themselves. Yet the reduction of the characters to cipher-like mechanical functions is part of the charm of “Maverick,” thrusting into the foreground the many extended sequences of high-risk flight, and rendering them more dramatically characterized than anything that takes place on the ground. Also, these airborne scenes far outshine the ones in “Top Gun,” because they are filmed largely from the point of view of the pilots, looking out through the front of the cockpit into the onrush of other planes and in the face of looming and menacing obstacles. They are some of the most impressive and exciting—and strikingly simple—action sequences that I’ve seen in a while.

Apparently, the flight scenes in “Maverick” were realized in actual planes in flight, and the cameras in the cockpits were wielded by the actors themselves. Cruise, who famously enjoys doing his own stunts, supposedly trained his castmates in the requisite skills of aerial cinematography. I wouldn’t have guessed any of this, though, if I hadn’t read the publicity materials in which Cruise and others say so. The scenes of pilots in flight are cut into rapid fragments that reduce aerial views to mere moments of excitement. They are interspersed with aggrandizing grunt-and-sweat closeups of the actors, especially Cruise. This amounts to a kind of malpractice in the editing room, transforming the actors’ brave and devoted exertions into a seeming cheat, an ersatz experience that might as well have been created with C.G.I.

What’s most impressive about “Top Gun: Maverick” is its speed—not the speed of the planes in flight but the speed with which the movie dashes in a straight line from its opening act to its conclusion. The flights at the center of the film are vertiginously twisty, but the drama is a bullet train on a rigid track. Both midair and on the ground, Kosinski is an approximator. He doesn’t let his eye get distracted by the piquant detail, and he doesn’t turn his head to overhear a stray confidence or an incidental remark. He’s narrowly focussed on the relentless course of the action, and incurious about its byways, its implications, its material or emotional realities. He keeps the drama as abstract as the military software and as inhuman as the military hardware that are the movie’s true protagonists. I repeat: I enjoyed it, and you might, too—if you don’t think, just watch.

New Yorker Favorites

The day the dinosaurs died .

What if you started itching— and couldn’t stop ?

How a notorious gangster was exposed by his own sister .

Woodstock was overrated .

Diana Nyad’s hundred-and-eleven-mile swim .

Photo Booth: Deana Lawson’s hyper-staged portraits of Black love .

Fiction by Roald Dahl: “The Landlady”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Justin Chang

By Alex Ross

By Amanda Petrusich

Watching Top Gun 60 times has taught me profound lessons about gender and identity

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Watching Top Gun 60 times has taught me profound lessons about gender and identity

Nothing illustrates America's complicated relationship with gender performance like Top Gun . It presents itself as military prowess, bomber jackets, and dudes bein' dudes united against those who would oppose the American ideal (Russia, who else?). What it actually does remarkably well, if accidentally, is set up classic masculinity to fail and promises that is going to turn out fine. We don't need it, because it's an act. Tom Cruise takes America by the hand and says, "Gender is a performance that doesn't matter."

I was 6 years old the first time I saw Top Gun , which turns 30 this week. The film follows Pete Mitchell, call sign "Maverick," a reckless and talented young pilot looking to buff up his tarnished family name by earning top honors at the elite military training facility known as Top Gun. The year is 1986.

Mav and his best friend Goose find themselves lucky to earn a position in a very small class of talented pilots, including rivals Iceman and Slider. Iceman has a reputation in complete contrast to Mav's: Where Maverick is gutsy and unique, Iceman follows the rules of engagement to perfection. They compete for power in class and on the training grounds, Maverick constantly asserting himself as the best.

Maverick also takes on the challenge of wooing his instructor, call sign "Charlie," who reminds him in her own way that he is blinded by the act he tries to maintain.

But Maverick finds his foundation most shaken when, during a mission, Goose is killed as an indirect result of Maverick's showboating. While it's not Maverick's fault, he knows his act has gone too far and takes the brunt of the blame. He decides to quit altogether, and only when urged to get back up again for an emergency skirmish against the Russians that demands his skill as a fighter pilot does he get back behind the controls.

He succeeds when he accepts Iceman as a teammate and not a rival. Iceman allows him a moment to recover his masculine act in front of the other men in the iconic final moments of the film: "You can be my wingman anytime." Maverick lets go of his grief, throwing Goose's dog tags into the sea, and chooses to become a flight instructor.

The story, if predictable, is a good one. I've watched it approximately 60 times in my life and always find myself proud of its conclusion. It may be overblown and flashy, but underneath Maverick there is a kid learning to make his way in the world just like the rest of us.

In the decades and multiple viewings since that first time, the movie has taught me how to perform an identity, how to play the gender game, and, probably most importantly, what it means to inhabit yourself. If that sounds like a lot for a movie with a Kenny Loggins soundtrack, you're not wrong. But you might want to watch it again.

Why I identified with Goose but tried to be Maverick

There are only two women in this film: a bitch and a bimbo. Maybe I was supposed to see myself in the love interest Charlie, the no-nonsense Our Lady of Perpetual Shoulder Pads, or her character foil Carole, Meg Ryan's bubbly blonde airhead, but these characters didn't land for me. Their motivations seemed to pivot around their men. Carole appears as a device to ground Goose and double down on Maverick's grief when he sees a family torn apart by his antics. Other than loving her man and bearing his child, she doesn't offer much.

More on Top Gun

Top Gun was the biggest, cockiest superhero movie of its time

Charlie, on the other hand, at least appears to have functioning ambitions. She's highly intelligent and successful while still vulnerable enough to fall for Maverick. That said, she gives up these ambitions at the film's end when she chooses him over a career. She evolves into a Carole. I didn't like either of them, and I already had Disney princesses for the things I was supposed to be absorbing as a girl child in the '90s. Top Gun was a new primer: I saw myself in Goose.

Game recognizes game, as they say; a perpetual beta tends to root for an underdog. I connected with Goose because I saw myself in the same league. I was always too tall, always too chubby, gregarious but forgettable, and obsessively worried about the social ladder as soon as I saw it in action.

I was the youngest kid in the neighborhood gang; my mom will tell you she could hear me blocks away shouting for the older kids to wait up. In school, however, I was the oldest, held back a year at kindergarten because I couldn't tie my shoes. I can still tell you full names of the girls in my class who were alphas, whose birthday parties I was not invited to attend that year.

It was an awkward social caste, to be older but less popular. I found the sidekick role accessible and more welcoming; every alpha needed one or two sidekicks, and so long as I kept providing support I was allowed to sit in their hair-braiding lines at recess and pretend.

At first, I liked being a Goose just fine. There's satisfaction in helping others, and the pressure is moderately low. There is, of course, the obvious drawback of playing second fiddle, which is that your personal needs tend to take a back seat to the cause.

I felt that, but I didn't always see it in the movies I watched. Disney sidekicks and best friends didn't typically take the time to ask themselves what they really want and need from the main character, or how their identity serves their ambition. Usually they were animals or sentient furniture.

But Top Gun didn't hold back that lesson. Goose sat in the literal back seat and paid the ultimate price. No matter how many times I watched, Goose always died for Maverick's arrogance. What was Goose's crime? Goose was the ultimate best friend: loyal and sensitive when Maverick needed a family, supportive and wise on the battlefield; he lifted Maverick up when others put him down. Surely there was a better fate in store for Goose? I started to worry there wasn't for me.

As a little girl I began to see myself there: sacrificed on the altar of manhood. And I realized I didn't want to be Goose. I had to try harder, I reasoned, to earn my own wingman. What sets Maverick apart from Goose? His assertion that he ought to be set apart in the first place.

To that end, Maverick is interesting because his confidence is a big fat lie. Here is a young man who desperately wants to escape his sullied family name and constantly seeks to prove himself. He hides this very sensitive shoulder chip with a reputation for danger, bravado, and risk.

Maverick, I realized in my small and questioning state, is still somehow more of a man than Goose because he demonstrates it outwardly, even at others' expense. To a point of excess, he plays the part of the alpha in order to achieve that standing. Pete Mitchell, hurting and emotional, is a totally different animal without that facade. He's a maverick only insofar as he says so.

The smaller me was confused as to what I was supposed to do with this information. If power and gender performance are games, what's to keep anyone from being exactly who they want to be, and the best version of it? The only difference between an alpha like Mav and a beta like Goose was, apparently, a high degree of theatrics. Maverick walked into his classroom and slouched in the front row with his legs spread as wide as his ego, scanning the room for threats and asserting his confidence. He makes a show of his identity from the first possible moment, the impulsive one with the skills to back it up.

At the bar, a room full of rivals and threats (or classmates and possible friends, as a normal human might observe), he pulls the loudest and most public display of peacocking with Goose that he can, leading a sing-along to "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" right to Charlie's face, met with a resounding cheer and many slaps on the back. Even when told explicitly otherwise, he showboats on missions, because that's what a maverick would do.

As Iceman points out, he works alone, even with others, and that makes him dangerous. Pete Mitchell is clearly hurt by this idea, but he wears the identity of Maverick like a security blanket. Underneath, he's confused and hurting all the time. When alone, or with Charlie in a vulnerable state, he is quiet and thoughtful and admits his baggage is weighing him down. But it's Maverick, not Pete, that he feels can be the best of the best. Maverick has the confidence to survive at Top Gun, and it's Maverick he wears in order to achieve his ambitions.

More from First Person

Bullies ruined my childhood. Then I realized my daughter is one.

So when I most needed the security of a confident identity in high school years later, I turned back to Top Gun . I looked at Maverick's successful mask and saw an opportunity there. If I asserted myself strongly enough, I could seize a bit of control over the social circles that made me the most anxious.

I didn't go for Maverick's masculine act, specifically, because I wasn't trying to subvert any expectations so obviously. I wasn't that revolutionary; I just wanted to survive. Instead, I went the other direction, into hardcore traditional femme, and became the most Maverick-esque alpha mom character I could possibly imagine. I drove the car, I straightened the ties, I baked the cookies, I listened to the Eagles.

That identity game worked great for me. If I had a Top Gun call sign in high school, it would have been Kanga, because I practically carried my squad around in my pouch.

The Maverick School of Overblown Gender Performance kept me very safe in the target-rich environment of dramatic teenagers. I didn't have enemies, I didn't have love interests, and I pretended so hard that even I believed, for a while, that I was confident in my identity. This was not the case, as anyone who hasn't blacked out the high school experience can tell you, but it worked the magic it needed to.

Most importantly, I realized how much I resented that gender profile. I didn't feel at home in that costume. At the end of the day it didn't make me happy, and I recognized that the security of that power didn't do anything for me if the identity wasn't mine.

The idea behind Maverick's performance was right: I could achieve it if I could fake my way through it. But I lost myself, and looking back I should have predicted that, knowing how Maverick's hypermasculine performance crumbled when he finally faced his baggage of loss and grief. I dropped the hyperfemme act. It wasn't me, just as Maverick wasn't Pete.

My Top Gun adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing

When I got to college, my first dorm window looked onto the lawn of a frat house. On Saturday mornings, as I pored over philosophers, my neighbors poured High Life into tube contraptions and played whiffle ball in the street. I loved them instantly; they only listened to the greatest hits of mullet rock and wore bro tanks for all seasons.

Their hierarchy was clear. They had a Mav and an Iceman, a Goose and a Slider. I liked watching them through the window, my own little masculinity TV. I wanted that.

So, in the true spirit of performing masculinity, I asked for it outright. I proposed a Top Gun adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing to the university Shakespeare troupe, the Dean's Men, and the proposal passed. I got my frat. The first obstacle was that I had never directed anything before, but what would Maverick do? I acted like I could.

Do you know who loves faulty gender theatrics almost as much as Tony Scott? The Bard. The challenge I faced was not a room full of stuffy academics dismissing a modern lens for a treasured text. Rather, I found myself lecturing a room of dudes on how to be dudes.

"You sit like you've got the biggest dick in the room," I remember saying. Someone asked me how I even knew what that meant. "Because nine times out of 10, I do," I said. Maverick smiled.

The most important scene in Top Gun

To ask what makes a man a man in Top Gun is almost asking for a punchline in 2016. Top Gun is supposed to be a gleaming monument to American machismo, and it sure is. On a sliding scale it pushes masculinity so far that it drops off into a no-man's land of anything-goes performance art.

They would not have said so in 1986, but Top Gun is camp. How else do you describe a Kenny Loggins montage of shirtless beach volleyball dropped into the middle of the film for no goddamn reason other than to celebrate the strength and brotherhood among these very sweaty, very tactile gentlemen that is in no way homoerotic unless you open your eyes?

Bravado is hilariously overblown. There is no air conditioning anywhere in this film, every building has a locker room, and the secondary uniform seems to be dog tags and towels. The VHS practically drips testosterone, and that's part of why Top Gun lives in a sort of cult classic niche today. It takes itself (and its take on masculinity) so seriously that it doubles back and becomes absurd.

I've spent a lot of time in the headspace of this film, digging out the pieces of myself that I thought I saw. There's a lot to dissect if you look past all the razzle-dazzle. But here is the secret, 30 years after Top Gun first buzzed the tower: The most important scene in the film is not the immortal "need for speed" double high-five, or Tom Cruise frenching his way to heterosexuality in blue silhouette to "Take My Breath Away," or even Iceman ambiguously inviting Maverick to be his wingman any time.

The most important moment in Top Gun is when Maverick cries. Goose dies instantly when their plane goes down in the ocean, hitting his head on the canopy of the jet. Maverick feels the sting of that loss and keeps up a stony facade in front of his superiors, but he breaks down when he has to face Carole and apologize. She tells him that Goose loved flying with him, and he would have flown with anyone, but he would have hated it. He loved Maverick.

This is what wakes him up: not the loss of face in front of his classmates, not the military failure, but the love he took for granted while trying to be someone he wasn't.

Maverick drops the hypermasculine act then, and the world does not collapse into genderless chaotic space dust. No one holds it against him. His trauma is validated and addressed, and he is more successful as a pilot and a human when he's supported. He can be a team player without the pretext of his fake bravado. In fact, he's better for it.

Pete Mitchell is real human being with feelings, not the cardboard cutout of American masculinity that Maverick would have had you believe earlier in the film. When given the space to explore his own motivations, away from that fake gender performance that had everyone fooled, he is a better version of his real self.

For me, the real Danger Zone of Top Gun is a place where emotions, expression, and identity are suppressed. Sometimes I end up hiding there, in survival mode, like Maverick does. But the best me, the one that wears Old Spice pomade and menswear to my job as a nanny, gets more done happily flitting between one extreme and the other, when it suits me and best helps others.

Now, when Maverick cries, I see myself more than what I saw in Goose as a child. I see how difficult and jarring it is to find a comfortable place in yourself and with the people you care most about. It may not have been a movie for children, but a poignant reality shines through the farce, and there's a human onscreen for a split second, admitting a personal charade is unhealthy. That's the Top Gun I needed at 6, and still need at 26.

Claire Stone is a Chicago-based teaching artist and nanny. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago, where she studied English and children's literature, and is a company member at First Floor Theater. When she's not folding tiny clothes, she writes military historical fiction.

First Person is Vox's home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our submission guidelines , and pitch us at [email protected] .

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Is J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let’s let her speak for herself.

The gamestop stock frenzy, explained, so, what was the point of john mulaney’s live netflix talk show, sign up for the newsletter today, explained, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Gun Control Essay: Important Topics, Examples, and More

Gun Control Definition

Gun control refers to the regulation of firearms to reduce the risk of harm caused by their misuse. It is an important issue that has garnered much attention in recent years due to the increasing number of gun-related incidents, including mass shootings and homicides. Writing an essay about gun control is important because it allows one to explore the various aspects of this complex and controversial topic, including the impact of gun laws on public safety, the constitutional implications of gun control, and the social and cultural factors that contribute to gun violence.

In writing an essay on gun control, conducting thorough research, considering multiple perspectives, and developing a well-informed argument is important. This may involve analyzing existing gun control policies and their effectiveness, exploring the attitudes and beliefs of different groups towards firearms, and examining the historical and cultural context of gun ownership and use. Through this process, one can develop a nuanced understanding of the issue and propose effective solutions to address the problem of gun violence.

Further information on writing essays on gun control can be found in various sources, including academic journals, policy reports, and news articles. In the following paragraphs, our nursing essay writing services will provide tips and resources to help you write an effective and informative guns essay. Contact our custom writer and get your writing request satisfied in a short term.

Gun Control Essay Types

There are various types of essays about gun control, each with its own unique focus and approach. From analyzing the effectiveness of existing gun laws to exploring the cultural and historical context of firearms in society, the possibilities for exploring this topic are virtually endless.

Let's look at the following types and examples from our essay writing service USA :

• Argumentative Essay : This essay clearly argues for or against gun control laws. The writer must use evidence to support their position and refute opposing arguments.
• Descriptive Essay: A descriptive essay on gun control aims to provide a detailed topic analysis. The writer must describe the history and evolution of gun laws, the different types of firearms, and their impact on society.
• Cause and Effect Essay: This type of essay focuses on why gun control laws are necessary, the impact of gun violence on society, and the consequences of not having strict gun control laws.
• Compare and Contrast Essay: In this type of essay, the writer compares and contrasts different countries' gun laws and their effectiveness. They can also compare and contrast different types of guns and their impact on society.
• Expository Essay: This type of essay focuses on presenting facts and data on the topic of gun control. The writer must explain the different types of gun laws, their implementation, and their impact on society.
• Persuasive Essay: The writer of a persuasive essay aims to persuade the reader to support their position on gun control. They use a combination of facts, opinions, and emotional appeals to convince the reader.
• Narrative Essay: A narrative essay on gun control tells a story about an individual's experience with gun violence. It can be a personal story or a fictional one, but it should provide insight into the human impact of gun violence.

In the following paragraphs, we will provide an overview of the most common types of gun control essays and some tips and resources to help you write them effectively. Whether you are a student, a researcher, or simply someone interested in learning more about this important issue, these essays can provide valuable insight and perspective on the complex and often controversial topic of gun control.

Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

A persuasive essay on gun control is designed to convince the reader to support a specific stance on gun control policies. To write an effective persuasive essay, the writer must use a combination of facts, statistics, and emotional appeals to sway the reader's opinion. Here are some tips from our expert custom writer to help you write a persuasive essay on gun control:

• Research : Conduct thorough research on gun control policies, including their history, effectiveness, and societal impact. Use credible sources to back up your argument.
• Develop a thesis statement: In your gun control essay introduction, the thesis statement should clearly state your position on gun control and provide a roadmap for your paper.
• Use emotional appeals: Use emotional appeals to connect with your reader. For example, you could describe the impact of gun violence on families and communities.
• Address opposing viewpoints: Address opposing viewpoints and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
• Use statistics: Use statistics to back up your argument. For example, you could use statistics to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
• Use rhetorical devices: Use rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and analogies, to help the reader understand complex concepts.

Persuasive gun control essay examples include:

• The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to own any firearm.
• Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in the United States.
• The proliferation of guns in society leads to more violence and higher crime rates.
• Gun control laws should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.

Argumentative Essay on Gun Control

A gun control argumentative essay is designed to present a clear argument for or against gun control policies. To write an effective argumentative essay, the writer must present a well-supported argument and refute opposing arguments. Here are some tips to help you write an argumentative essay on gun control:

• Choose a clear stance: Choose a clear stance on gun control policies and develop a thesis statement that reflects your position.
• Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and use credible sources to back up your argument.
• Refute opposing arguments: Anticipate opposing arguments and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
• Use evidence: Use evidence to back up your argument. For example, you could use data to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
• Use logical reasoning: Use logical reasoning to explain why your argument is valid.

Examples of argumentative essay topics on gun control include:

• Gun control laws infringe upon individuals' right to bear arms and protect themselves.
• Gun control laws are ineffective and do not prevent gun violence.

If you'd rather have a professional write you a flawless paper, you can always contact us and buy argumentative essay .

Do You Want to Ease Your Academic Burden?

Order a rhetorical analysis essay from our expert writers today and experience the power of top-notch academic writing.

How to Choose a Good Gun Control Topic: Tips and Examples

Choosing a good gun control topic can be challenging, but with some careful consideration, you can select an interesting and relevant topic. Here are seven tips for choosing a good gun control topic with examples:

• Consider current events: Choose a topic that is current and relevant. For example, the impact of the pandemic on gun control policies.
• Narrow your focus: Choose a specific aspect of gun control to focus on, such as the impact of gun control laws on crime rates.
• Consider your audience: Consider who your audience is and what they are interested in. For example, a topic that appeals to gun enthusiasts might be the ethics of owning firearms.
• Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and current events. For example, the impact of the Second Amendment on gun control laws.
• Choose a controversial topic: Choose a controversial topic that will generate discussion. For example, the impact of the NRA on gun control policies.
• Choose a topic that interests you: You can choose an opinion article on gun control that you are passionate about and interested in. For example, the impact of mass shootings on public opinion of gun control.
• Consider different perspectives: Consider different perspectives on gun control and choose a topic that allows you to explore multiple viewpoints. For example, the effectiveness of background checks in preventing gun violence.

You can also buy an essay online cheap from our professional writers. Knowing that you are getting high-quality, customized work will give you the peace of mind and confidence you need to succeed!

Pro-Gun Control Essay Topics

Here are pro-gun control essay topics that can serve as a starting point for your research and writing, helping you to craft a strong and persuasive argument.

• Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in America.
• The Second Amendment was written for a different time and should be updated to reflect modern society.
• Gun control and gun safety laws can prevent mass shootings and other forms of gun violence.
• Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases.
• The availability of assault weapons should be severely restricted.
• Concealed carry permits should be harder to obtain and require more rigorous training.
• The gun lobby has too much influence on government policy.
• The mental health of gun owners should be considered when purchasing firearms.
• Gun violence has a significant economic impact on communities and the nation as a whole.
• There is a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher gun violence rates.
• Gun control policies can help prevent suicides and accidental shootings.
• Gun control policies should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.
• More research is needed on the impact of gun control policies on gun violence.
• The impact of gun violence on children and young people is a significant public health issue.
• Gun control policies should be designed to reduce the illegal gun trade and access to firearms by criminals.
• The right to own firearms should not override the right to public safety.
• The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from gun violence.
• Gun control policies are compatible with the Second Amendment.
• International examples of successful gun control policies can be applied in America.

Anti-Gun Control Essay Topics

These topics against gun control essay can help you develop strong and persuasive arguments based on individual rights and the importance of personal freedom.

• Gun control laws infringe on the Second Amendment and individual rights.
• Stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
• Gun control laws are unnecessary and will only burden law-abiding citizens.
• Owning a gun is a fundamental right and essential for self-defense.
• Gun-free zones create a false sense of security and leave people vulnerable.
• A Gun control law will not stop mass school shootings, as these are often premeditated and planned.
• The government cannot be trusted to enforce gun control laws fairly and justly.
• Gun control laws unfairly target law-abiding gun owners and punish them for the actions of a few.
• Gun ownership is a part of American culture and heritage and should not be restricted.
• Gun control laws will not stop criminals from using firearms to commit crimes.
• Gun control laws often ignore the root causes of gun violence, such as mental illness and poverty.
• Gun control laws will not stop terrorists from using firearms to carry out attacks.
• Gun control laws will only create a black market for firearms, making it easier for criminals to obtain them.
• Gun control laws will not stop domestic violence, as abusers will find other ways to harm their victims.
• Gun control laws will not stop drug cartels and organized crime from trafficking firearms.
• Gun control laws will not stop gang violence and turf wars.
• Gun control laws are an infringement on personal freedom and individual responsibility.
• Gun control laws are often rooted in emotion rather than reason and evidence.
• Gun control laws ignore the important role that firearms play in hunting and sport shooting.
• More gun control laws will only give the government more power and control over its citizens.

Example Essays

Whether you have been assigned to write a gun control research paper or essay, the tips provided above should help you grasp the general idea of how to cope with this task. Now, to give you an even better understanding of the task and set you on the right track, here are a few excellent examples of well-written papers on this topic:

Don’t forget that you always have a reliable essay writing service USA by your side to which you can entrust writing a brilliant essay for you!

Final Words

In conclusion, writing a sample rhetorical analysis essay requires careful analysis and effective use of persuasive techniques. Whether you are a high school student or a college student, mastering the art of rhetorical analysis can help you become a more effective communicator and critical thinker. With practice and perseverance, anyone can become a skilled writer and excel in their academic pursuits.

And if you're overwhelmed or unsure about writing your next AP lang rhetorical analysis essay, don't worry - we're here to help! Our friendly and experienced research paper writers are ready to guide you through the process, providing expert advice and support every step of the way. So why not take the stress out of writing and let us help you succeed? Buy essay today and take the first step toward academic excellence!

Looking to Take Your Academic Performance to the Next Level?

Say goodbye to stress, endless research, and sleepless nights - and hello to a brighter academic future. Place your order now and watch your grades soar!

Related Articles

Gun Control Essay: Goals, Topics, And How to Write

13 October, 2020

14 minutes read

Author:  Mathieu Johnson

The issue of gun control is yet one of the top topics for heated debates. Some people have rather a negative opinion regarding gun control; others support it and believe that loose gun control rules lead to violence and devastation. And since the topic of gun control is represented by a multitude of contrasting opinions, it might be the topic for your next college paper.

The subject of gun control is an ongoing question, that is why many students either get assigned  a gun control essay or do so for personal motives. What to include in your gun control essay and how to outline your ideas? You can find the answers to your questions in this guide.

Gun Control Essay: Definitions, Goals & Topics

Once you get assigned a gun control essay, you first need to make sure that you fully understand what a paper’s main idea is. As you can tell from the name ‘gun control essay’, such an essay asks you to indicate your opinion regarding restrictive regulations of gun use and production. While most countries have been limiting gun possession to minimize the risk of innocent people dying, the USA hasn’t. On the contrary, the US has persuasive gun control, meaning that almost anyone can buy and hold a gun. Many people share an idea that gun possession should be limited and permitted only to particular categories of people, that is why the question is very ongoing.  So the most critical goal of a gun control essay is to present reasonable ideas about why people need or don’t need gun control. 

Some of the compelling and relevant topics for a gun control essay may be:

• Gun ownership promotes violence among young people
• Gun ownership is unlikely to prevent some people from murdering 
• Gun possession as the only way to protect oneself
• The wide accessibility of guns is the reason for suicides in the US

Gun Control Essay Titles

When writing a pro gun control essay, your initial task is to pick an intriguing, catchy title. You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of such a step if your goal is to attract the reader’s attention and make them aware of a topic. The thing to keep in mind is intriguing the audience and making them willing to take a deep dive into the subject. If you have no precise vision of which title to choose, take a look at a few tips we prepared for you.

First and foremost, you need to have a precise position regarding gun control in America. Are you a supporter, or are you firmly against gun control? Since there is yet a heated debate on this issue in the USA, you can decide to write either a for or against essay on gun control. 

Titles supporting gun control: 

• Violence has never solved any problem
• Guns out of control: why should innocent people die?
• Youth violence as the result of no gun control

Titles opposing gun control:

• Gun control won’t prevent people from killing 
• Gun control: why should we sacrifice our lives just because we can’t defend ourselves?
• Illegal weapons trade as the only guaranteed outcome of gun control.

Gun Control Essay Structure

Most likely, you already know that a good structure largely predicts the success of a gun control argumentative essay. Whenever you are willing to present your opinion on a specific issue and want to convince the audience that your arguments are valid, you should sound logical. The ultimate way to make your gun control essay structure coherent and comprehensive is to draw an outline and plan the essay thoroughly. To assure that your argumentative essay on gun control communicates your idea to the reader, make sure to follow the structure that includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.

Introduction 

It would help if you organized your gun control essay introduction in a way that serves as an attention grabber. Namely, you can feel free to include some rhetorical question at the beginning or literally any good essay hook. To grab the reader’s attention, you may also outline some background information so that a reader grasps the idea of your gun control persuasive essay. And last but not least, don’t forget to introduce the most important part of a gun control essay outline – a thesis statement. A sound thesis statement gives a reader a general understanding of what you will cover in your essay.

Main body paragraphs’ role is to reveal what you mentioned in the thesis statement. Since your gun control essay will most likely be argumentative, you need to devote one paragraph to one argument. In each and every body paragraph, your main task is to build on some solid evidence and refer to numbers or facts to protect your position. It is better to include 3-5 body paragraphs so that the gun control essay doesn’t look messy. 

When writing a gun control essay conclusion, you should avoid adding any extra information. Try to be very precise and make sure you restate the arguments you have indicated before. All in all, your gun control essay should logically end up with a summary of all the points. The reader has to be 100% sure that he or she fully comprehended your idea. 

Best Tips For Writing Gun Control Essay

An outline is everything.

Create an outline even if you think that this step isn’t indeed necessary. Even when you have all those sparkling ideas and structure in your mind, it requires no effort to confuse them. And if we talk about an argumentative essay, it is fundamental for you as a writer to sound convincing and confident. An outline helps you to sound so. Hence, don’t neglect dedicating a few minutes to creating a helpful essay plan.  

Find some convincing evidence 

The goal of any gun control essay is to communicate an idea of why strict gun control is necessary or should be abandoned. After reading your essay, the audience will form an exact opinion: gun control is either good or bad. Try to search for some substantial evidence, numbers, particular cases that you find helpful while supporting your arguments. Otherwise, you undermine the chances of being heard. 

Write about the topic that bothers you 

Don’t try to figure up titles and topics that aren’t interesting for you. The point of a gun control essay is to make your voice heard and to be sincere while presenting your ideas. Try to give some ideas the way you see them, discuss only those topics that cannot let you stay indifferent. Only in this way will you end up with an excellent essay. 

Edit and proofread

Once your essay is ready, don’t forget to proofread it and check it at least twice. So many excellent essays get a terrible score just because some minor mistakes spoiled the general impression! You can use a wide array of means to make sure your paper is polished: ask your friends to check it, use online tools, or ask a professional essay writing and editing service to get your paper checked by an expert.

Gun Control Essay Examples

If you feel like you need to refer to an example to get a profound insight into an idea of a gun control essay, here is one for you.  

Strict gun control deprives people of their legal rights

The US is the country in which the share of people who own a gun is impressively high. Besides, there is no single country in the world that can be compared to the US by the number of firearms in the citizen’s hands. According to the official statistics, 80 percent of adults own a gun, meaning that the likelihood of  a stranger you come across in the street possessing one are unbelievably significant. Recently, several regulations attempted to restrict gun possession to impose gun control. However, gun control is not only unjustifiable, but it also deprives people of their right for self-defence and peaceful life.

First and foremost, gun control, unfortunately, does not reduce the murder and crime rates in the US. Although it should generally hold true, the statistics contradict the misbelief that limiting gun possession minimizes the number of crimes committed. The research on weapon ban which was carried out during the past twenty years demonstrates that there is no correlation between reducing gun ownership and a falling number of murder cases. The research also indicated that the states that imposed strict gun control have witnessed a larger number of crimes.

This all leads to the conclusion that imposing a ban on gun possession is not a way to fight crime. Also, as the evidence shows, the number of guns in the US had been steadily growing in the last century, and this coincided with a decrease in the number of crimes committed. Essentially, gun control is unlikely to resolve the issue of crimes, since some people are likely to commit crimes even when they have no gun at their disposal.

Another argument against gun control is that the first inevitably infringe the citizen’s rights, Namely, banning weapons contradicts the right that the constitution of the US guarantees. According to the second amendment, under no circumstances should the citizen’s rights to possess a gun  be infringed. The right to own a gun had already existed long before many countries appeared on the map. That is why many people deem gun control as a crime against humanity. Even though there is yet some logical explanation to an attempt to control gun usage and manufacturing, it still deprives US citizens of their inviolable right.

What is even more, the supreme court together with the constitution considers gun ownership as one of the liberties that all the US citizens have. Just like the freedom of speech, the space to protect oneself is crucial, and it should remain untouchable. Introducing gun control, therefore, leads to violating people’s freedom and liberties since people become incapable of even defending themselves in their property.

Gun control robs people of the right for safety and self-defence. Imposing strict gun regulations will inevitably make millions of people incapable of defending themselves if something threatens their and their close ones’ lives. According to the data represented by the National Rifle Association, the number of cases of gun usage solely for self-defence purposes equals 2.5 million times annually. People use guns to protect their families and property, but, apparently, the states find the self-defence motive weak enough. If they impose strict gun control, it means that these 2.5 million people may literally sacrifice their lives and die just because they couldn’t hold a gun legally.

The truth is, the Police are physically incapable of protecting all the people who need protection, so these people are bound to defend themselves on their own. But how to protect yourself  if you cannot even possess a gun? So far, using a weapon for self-defence has proved to be the most effective way . Therefore, depriving people of the right for self-defence or for saving other people in trouble is inhumane and unjustified.

Overall, gun control has lately become a hot topic that has both its advocates and opponents. So far, the evidence against gun control is very reasonable and convincing. Gun control robs the citizens of their exceptional right – the right to protect themselves and those in danger. Besides, gun control contradicts the second amendment, which guarantees the right to possess a gun for adult US citizens. Finally, it is unlikely to reduce the crime rate as the science hasn’t yet found any valid proof for that.

Write a Gun Control Essay with HandmadeWriting

Composing a brilliant essay about gun control is somewhat challenging due to the peculiarity of this topic. But this is not something above your capacity. Keeping all the tips in mind as well as following a precise gun control essay structure will significantly facilitate the writing process. And if you need help with writing or editing – HandmadeWriting will have you covered! At any time of day and night, essay writers at HandmadeWriting work hard to deliver top-quality papers and support students from all over the world. So if you’re struggling with your essay, feel free to get in touch with us. 

A life lesson in Romeo and Juliet taught by death

Due to human nature, we draw conclusions only when life gives us a lesson since the experience of others is not so effective and powerful. Therefore, when analyzing and sorting out common problems we face, we may trace a parallel with well-known book characters or real historical figures. Moreover, we often compare our situations with […]

Ethical Research Paper Topics

Writing a research paper on ethics is not an easy task, especially if you do not possess excellent writing skills and do not like to contemplate controversial questions. But an ethics course is obligatory in all higher education institutions, and students have to look for a way out and be creative. When you find an […]

Art Research Paper Topics

Students obtaining degrees in fine art and art & design programs most commonly need to write a paper on art topics. However, this subject is becoming more popular in educational institutions for expanding students’ horizons. Thus, both groups of receivers of education: those who are into arts and those who only get acquainted with art […]

Gun Control Argumentative Essay: The Definitive Guide

What Is Gun Control?

Gun control refers to the regulation and management of firearms within a given jurisdiction. It involves the creation and enforcement of laws, policies, and measures aimed at restricting the possession, use, and distribution of firearms. The objectives of gun control vary, but they often include enhancing public safety, preventing gun-related crimes, reducing the likelihood of mass shootings, and addressing concerns about domestic violence.

Gun control measures can encompass a range of policies, such as background checks for gun buyers, restrictions on the types of firearms and accessories available for civilian use, waiting periods before obtaining a firearm, and limitations on the number of firearms an individual can own. Additionally, some jurisdictions may implement licensing requirements, mandatory firearm registration, and regulations regarding the storage and carrying of firearms.

Debates surrounding gun control often involve discussions about individual rights, constitutional interpretations (such as the Second Amendment in the United States), and the balance between personal freedoms and public safety. Advocates for gun control argue that it is necessary to curb gun violence and prevent tragedies, while opponents may emphasize the importance of individual liberties and the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Overall, gun control is a complex and contentious issue that involves finding a balance between protecting public safety and respecting the rights of individuals to own firearms.

How to Choose a Topic for Argumentative Essay on Gun Control?

Choosing an argumentative essay on gun regulation involves considering various factors to ensure that your topic is relevant and engaging, allowing for a thorough exploration of the issue. Here are some tips to help you choose a compelling argumentative essay topic on gun control:

1. Define Your Position

• Consider your stance on the issue. Are you in favor of stricter gun control measures, or do you argue for more permissive policies? Understanding your position will guide your topic selection.

2. Consider Current Events

• Look at recent news and developments related to gun control. Timely and relevant topics often generate more interest and provide an opportunity to engage with current debates.

3. Narrow Down the Focus

• Gun control is a broad topic. Narrow it down to a specific aspect or angle that interests you. For example, you could focus on the impact of gun control on reducing crime, the effectiveness of background checks, or the constitutional implications.

4. Research Available Data

• Ensure that there is enough research material available on your chosen topic. Access to credible sources and data will strengthen your argument and provide evidence to support your claims.

5. Consider the Audience

• Consider your target audience and choose a topic that resonates with their interests and concerns. Tailoring your argument to your audience can make your argumentative essay more persuasive.

6. Explore Both Sides

• Choose a topic that allows for a balanced discussion. Exploring both sides of the argument demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue and can make your argumentative essay more nuanced and convincing.

7. Avoid Extreme Positions

• While it's important to have a clear stance, avoid overly extreme positions that may alienate readers. Aim for a topic that allows for a reasonable and well-supported argument.

8. Address Local or Global Perspectives

• Consider whether you want to focus on gun control at a local, national, or global level. Different regions may have unique challenges and perspectives on the issue.

9. Check Assignment Guidelines

• Ensure that your chosen topic aligns with the guidelines and requirements of your assignment. Check for any specific instructions provided by your instructor.

10. Personal Connection

• If you have a personal connection or experience related to gun control, it can add depth and authenticity to your argumentative essay. However, be mindful of maintaining a balanced and evidence-based argument.

By carefully considering these factors, you can choose a great argumentative essay topic on gun control that allows for a thorough exploration of the issue and engages your readers.

How to Write a Gun Control Argumentative Essay?

Writing a gun control argumentative essay involves presenting a clear and persuasive argument on the topic. Here's a step-by-step guide to help you structure and write your argumentative essay:

1. Understand the Assignment

• Before you start writing, make sure you understand the requirements and guidelines of your assignment. Know the purpose of your argumentative essay and any specific instructions from your instructor.

2. Choose a Strong Thesis Statement

• Develop a concise and specific thesis statement that outlines your main argument or position on gun control. This statement should clearly convey your stance on the issue.

3. Research Thoroughly

• Gather information from credible sources to support your argument. Look for data, statistics, expert opinions, and case studies related to gun control. Ensure that your research is balanced and addresses both sides of the issue.

4. Outline Your Argumentative Essay

• Create a well-organized outline to structure your argumentative essay. Divide it into an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each section should have a clear purpose and contribute to the overall coherence of your argument.

5. Write a Compelling Introduction

• Start your argumentative essay with an engaging introduction that introduces the topic, provides background information, and ends with your thesis statement. Capture the reader's attention and set the tone for your argument.

6. Develop Strong Body Paragraphs

• Each body paragraph should focus on a specific point or aspect of your argument. Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence and provide evidence to support your claims. Use examples, statistics, and quotations to reinforce your points.

7. Address Counterarguments

• Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints. Anticipate counterarguments and refute them with strong evidence and reasoning. Demonstrating awareness of alternative perspectives adds credibility to your argumentative essay.

8. Use Clear and Convincing Language

• Write in a clear, concise, and persuasive manner. Avoid vague language and ensure that your arguments are logically presented. Use transition words to create a smooth flow between paragraphs.

9. Provide Real-Life Examples

• Support your arguments with real-life examples or case studies. Personal stories, historical events, or current news stories can add depth to your argumentative essay and make your points more relatable.

10. Conclude Effectively

• Summarize your main points in the conclusion and restate your thesis. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion. End with a strong closing statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

11. Revise and Edit

• Review your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammar. Check for any inconsistencies or gaps in your argument. Consider seeking feedback from peers or instructors to improve the overall quality of your argumentative essay.

12. Format According to Guidelines

• Ensure your argumentative essay follows the required formatting guidelines, including citation style (APA, MLA, etc.). Properly cite all sources used in your research.

By following these steps, you can craft a well-structured and persuasive gun control argumentative essay that effectively communicates your position on the topic.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Here’s a list of excellent argumentative essay topics on gun control to use in writing your argumentative paper. If you like any of the topics but have no time to develop them properly in a written form, please consult our argumentative essay writing service .

• Stricter laws could help reduce gun violence.
• Background checks may prevent crimes involving guns.
• The Second Amendment's role in individual rights and public safety is unclear.
• Checking mental health might improve gun control efforts.
• Countries with fewer guns tend to have lower homicide rates.
• Gun lobbyists have a significant impact on making laws.
• Arming teachers may not be the best idea for school safety.
• Gun shows contribute to unregulated gun sales.
• Gun buyback programs aim to make communities safer.
• Community policing could be better for public safety than strict gun control.
• Access to firearms affects domestic violence rates.
• Preventing mass shootings may require more than just gun control.
• Gun control may affect racial groups differently.
• Concealed carry laws may impact personal protection and public safety.
• Smart guns and new technology aim to make firearms safer.
• America's love for guns impacts gun control discussions.
• Deciding on gun laws raises questions about federal vs. state control.
• Gun violence has significant economic costs to society.
• Learning from other countries may inform better gun control approaches.
• Media plays a role in shaping public perception of gun control issues.

Pro-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Stricter gun control regulations get all the hype nowadays, given the recent events in the United States. It may be a smart choice to examine pro-gun control topics if you want to draw readers’ attention.

• Making background checks universal can help control guns.
• Waiting periods before buying guns may prevent impulsive violence.
• Strict licensing for guns is necessary for public safety.
• Banning high-capacity magazines can reduce the severity of mass shootings.
• Smart gun technology enhances safety and limits unauthorized use.
• Mental health screening should be a part of gun purchases.
• Red flag laws can prevent individuals at risk from accessing guns.
• Understanding public opinion is crucial for effective gun control.
• Gun control is vital in addressing domestic violence and protecting victims.
• Examining the impact of gun-free zones on public safety is important.
• Community policing can help collaboratively address gun violence.
• Reducing accidental shootings involves looking at gun ownership.
• Addressing gun trafficking requires better cooperation between federal and state authorities.
• Gun control is crucial for reducing injuries and promoting public health.
• Connecting gun control with suicide prevention is essential.
• Examining the influence of corporate interests in the firearms industry is important.
• Gun control can be a deterrent, learning from international success stories.
• Banning assault weapons mitigates the impact of military-style firearms.
• Stricter regulations are needed to reduce the economic cost of gun violence.
• Promoting responsible gun ownership laws through education enhances safety and awareness.

Anti-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Always weigh in on the pros and cons of a certain topic. Although it may seem contradictory, anti-gun control topics can allow the classroom to explore an opposing point of view to understand the counterparts better and maybe come up with interesting conclusions on the matter.

• Individual rights should prevail over stricter gun control measures.
• The Second Amendment protects an inviolable right to resist further regulations.
• Background checks are doubted for their efficacy in preventing crimes.
• Waiting periods for gun purchases are seen as an infringement on personal freedom.
• High-capacity magazines' direct link to mass shootings is challenged.
• Pushback against smart gun technology raises concerns and critiques.
• Mental health screening is criticized for potential stigmatization and privacy issues.
• Red flag laws need to balance safety and individual liberties.
• Skepticism surrounds public opinion on the need for more gun control.
• Gun-free zones are questioned for their role in attracting criminal activity.
• Community policing is favored over strict gun control for addressing root causes.
• Accidental shootings raise questions about individual responsibility versus legislation.
• Gun trafficking solutions should focus on local rather than federal measures.
• Unintended consequences of gun control on law-abiding citizens are highlighted.
• Doubts persist about the effectiveness of gun control in improving public health.
• Corporate influence on gun control legislation deserves a closer examination.
• Skepticism exists about the applicability of international approaches to local contexts.
• The impact of an assault weapons ban on personal defense is scrutinized.
• The economic consequences of stricter gun control are considered unintended.
• Educational initiatives are suggested as an alternative approach to gun safety.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Example

As we studied what gun control is, why it stirs so much controversy, and what are some great topics to write about, it’s time we analyzed one of the argumentative essay examples regarding gun control. Keep in mind – it’s for your inspirational needs only!

The Gun Control Debate: Constitutional Rights vs. Public and Personal Safety

The issue of gun control has been a contentious topic that has sparked intense debates across the United States. On the one hand, proponents argue for stricter regulations to curb the rising gun violence. On the other hand, opponents emphasize the importance of protecting individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Striking a balance between these two perspectives is essential to ensure public safety without infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment has been at the center of the gun control debate, with advocates arguing that it guarantees an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense and protection against tyranny. Any attempt to restrict this right must be carefully examined to avoid violating the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The alarming increase in gun violence in recent years has raised concerns about public safety. Mass shootings, homicides, and suicides involving firearms have become all too common, necessitating a reevaluation of existing gun control measures. Stricter regulations on the purchase, possession, and use of firearms are essential to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and to mitigate the devastating consequences of gun-related incidents.

Implementing effective gun control measures requires finding a middle ground that respects individual rights while promoting public safety. Background checks, waiting periods, and mandatory firearm training are potential measures that can help ensure responsible gun ownership. By focusing on these aspects, the government can maintain a balance that protects both individual liberties and the collective safety of the community.

Addressing mental health issues is a crucial aspect of the gun control debate. Many incidents involving firearms are linked to individuals with untreated mental health conditions. By investing in mental health resources and integrating mental health evaluations into the gun purchase process, society can strive to prevent individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms.

Comparing the gun control policies of other developed nations can provide valuable insights. Countries with stricter gun control measures often experience lower rates of gun violence. Analyzing these models can help the United States identify effective strategies that balance individual rights and public safety.

In conclusion, the gun control debate is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of individual rights and public safety. Striking a balance between the two is crucial to addressing the escalating gun violence while respecting the constitutional rights of citizens. By implementing sensible regulations, focusing on responsible ownership, and addressing mental health concerns, society can work towards a safer future without compromising fundamental freedoms.

Final Remark

Gun control regulation sparks considerable controversy in the United States due to deeply entrenched cultural and political factors. The country has a long-standing tradition of gun ownership dating back to its founding, with the Second Amendment enshrining the right to bear arms in the Constitution. Additionally, the historical significance of firearms in shaping American identity and the perceived importance of self-defense contribute to staunch opposition to any perceived infringement on gun rights. 

Moreover, the issue is heavily politicized, with political parties and interest groups taking firm stances on either side of the debate. Given its complexity and relevance to contemporary society, students should explore this topic through argumentative essays to gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted factors at play, ranging from constitutional interpretation and public policy to social and cultural dynamics.

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

You Might Also Like

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

by Tony Scott

Top gun essay questions.

What makes Maverick such an exceptional pilot?

Maverick is incredibly competent and good at flying, as is established from the start of the film. The quality that makes him so exceptional, however, is also connected to one of his flaws as a naval aviator: that he is so reckless and confident. This confidence and ability to take risks helps him in particularly difficult missions, and he is willing to go above and beyond. Sometimes this is an asset, and sometimes it is a liability.

How does director Tony Scott heighten the tension in the film's action sequences?

The primary directorial tactic Scott uses to heighten the tension in the action sequences, such as when the men are flying, is by doing swift cuts between shots. For instance, in the fateful mission in which Goose dies, Scott jumps around between the different aircraft and the base at Top Gun. All of the different characters respond to the conflicts in different ways, and the camera jumps around, showing all of their responses. The action sequences are markedly realistic, and the viewer sees events from many different perspectives.

How does Maverick end up getting over Goose's death and moving on?

For a time, it seems as though the death of Goose will haunt Maverick for the rest of his life and he won't be able to fly ever again. Then, when he embarks on the rescue mission, Maverick carries Goose's dog tags with him and calls on the power of Goose's spirit to help him through the difficulties of the mission. It is the memory of Goose that propels Maverick to save the day and fly heroically. His friend may not be there with him in body, but Maverick is able to connect with the memory of Goose, and remember how Goose made him a better pilot, which helps bring him through the mission.

How does Viper help Maverick?

After Goose's death, Maverick cannot decide whether to stay in the Navy or to retire completely. He goes to Viper's house, looking for some advice. Viper tells Maverick the story of his father's courage in the Navy. For many years, Maverick thought his father had died dishonorably, but Viper proves that this isn't the case. With this information, Maverick feels more comfortable about his own legacy as a pilot, and is able to find some closure with the mystery surrounding his father's death. When it comes to making a decision about whether or not to retire, Viper tells him that he cannot make the decision for him, which empowers Maverick to make his own decision.

What does Maverick's motorcycle symbolize?

Maverick is, true to his name, a maverick, meaning that he likes to play by his own set of rules and he is a true independent thinker. He is also an adrenaline junkie, as represented by the way he flies his planes in the Navy. The motorcycle that he drives around symbolizes his renegade, reckless spirit, and his brazen confidence. Even when he isn't being a fighter pilot, Maverick is a force to be reckoned with, a man who likes danger, and the motorcycle represents this.

Top Gun Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Top Gun is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Study Guide for Top Gun

Top Gun study guide contains a biography of Tony Scott, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Top Gun
• Top Gun Summary
• Character List
• Director's Influence

A gun shop in Dunedin, Florida. Photo by Martin Roemers/Panos Pictures

Why America fell for guns

The us today has extraordinary levels of gun ownership. but to see this as a venerable tradition is to misread history.

by Megan Kang   + BIO

In 1970, amid a national confrontation with the United States’ gun culture following the assassinations of Robert F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, the historian Richard Hofstadter struggled to make sense of how the country had become the ‘only industrial nation in which the possession of rifles, shotguns, and handguns is lawfully prevalent among large numbers of its population.’ Writing for the magazine American Heritage , he expressed grave concern for a country ‘afloat with weapons – perhaps as many as 50 million of them – in civilian hands.’ If the US was afloat then, it’s flooded now.

Half a century later, Americans own approximately 400 million firearms and the country carries the unfortunate distinction of being the only one in the world in which guns are known to be the leading cause of child and adolescent death. Today, Americans live with around 1.2 guns per capita – double that of the next-highest scoring country, Yemen. Despite having less than 5 per cent of the global population, the US possesses nearly half of the world’s civilian-owned guns. Moreover, in recent years Americans have witnessed a surge in gun sales and gun-related deaths, unfolding against a backdrop of increasingly lenient gun laws across states.

In light of these developments, Hofstadter’s question takes on renewed urgency: ‘Why is it that in all other modern democratic societies those endangered ask to have such men disarmed, while in the United States alone they insist on arming themselves?’ How did the US come to be so terribly exceptional with regards to its guns?

F rom the viewpoint of today, it is difficult to imagine a world in which guns were less central to US life. But a gun-filled country was neither innate nor inevitable. The evidence points to a key turning point in US gun culture around the mid- 20th century, shortly before the state of gun politics captured Hofstadter’s attention.

Firearm estimates derived from gun sales and surveys indicate that, in 1945, there were somewhere around 45 million guns in the US at a time when the country had 140 million people. A quarter-century later, by 1970, the number of guns doubled , whereas the population increased by a little less than 50 per cent. By 2020, the number of guns had skyrocketed to nearly tenfold of its 1945 rate, while the population grew less than 2.5 times the 1945 number.

From the mid-20th century to today, guns also changed from playing a relatively minor role in US crime to taking centre-stage. Research by the criminologist Martin Wolfgang on Philadelphia’s homicide patterns from 1948 to 1952 reveals that only 33 per cent of the city’s homicides involved a firearm. Today, 91 per cent of homicides in Philadelphia feature a gun. Similarly, the national firearm homicide rate is 81 per cent . In addition, opinion polls traced the evolution over the second half of the 20th century from Americans buying guns primarily for hunting and recreation to buying them for self-protection against other people. Together, these findings reveal a sea change in US gun culture between the mid- 20th century and the present day.

US law prohibits the federal government from keeping a gun registry

So, how did this change happen? Until recently, it’s been difficult to say. The paucity of historical data on gun availability has left the origins of the country’s exceptional gun culture a mystery.

The US lacks a national gun registry, which is what most other countries use to count their gun supply. Yet, gun registration has been a hotly contested issue among US gun owners, who are concerned that state-mandated registration is a precursor to state-sponsored confiscation. Even though gun registries have been shown to reduce gun deaths, US law – specifically, the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act passed under the then president Ronald Reagan – prohibits the federal government from keeping a registry. As of today, only six US states maintain gun registries.

Without a national gun registry, researchers have had to rely on surveys and gun proxies to investigate trends related to gun availability in the US. Most of our existing data on gun prevalence comes from a few questions on the General Social Survey (GSS), which began asking US households whether they own guns in 1973 and has continued asking them every other year since. Due to its consistency over time and its nationally representative sample, the GSS is considered the gold standard of gun ownership data. It’s also been used to validate proxies for gun ownership that provide better estimates at local and state levels. Some of the most commonly used gun proxies come from hunting licences and Guns & Ammo magazine subscriptions per county, as well as the percentage of suicides with firearms per state.

Annual gun sales give us another indicator of the flow of guns into the country, but since it’s impossible to tell where those guns end up or for how long they’re in use, gun sales provide an imperfect measure of ownership over time. Moreover, gun sales data are consistently available only at the national level, and therefore do not allow researchers to exploit state- or county-level differences to explore how changes in gun ownership are related to other social factors like crime, education and public policy across the country.

It’s no wonder that when a National Research Council committee reviewed the state of research on US guns and violence in 2005, it found that ‘answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data.’ The best data available start in 1973 and are ‘limited primarily to a few questions from the General Social Survey.’ As the committee rightly pointed out:

Even the best methods cannot overcome inadequate data … Without improvements in this situation, the substantive questions in the field about the role of guns in suicide, homicide and other crimes, and accidental injury are likely to continue to be debated on the basis of conflicting empirical findings.

In other words, without the right data, even the most basic questions about guns – such as when and how the US came to have so many of them – are untestable and remain susceptible to politicised perspectives and speculative interpretations.

H owever, recent research conducted by Elizabeth Rasich and myself breaks new ground by expanding the data to tackle key questions of gun ownership. Researchers have long used the firearm suicide proxy, regarded as the most reliable indicator of US households with at least one gun, to explore the connection between gun ownership and various issues, including the social costs of firearms, police brutality and mass shootings . Until our newly extended dataset, this proxy was available only from 1973 onward, a time by which the country’s gun culture was already in full swing.

By extending and examining this data for household gun ownership rates – the percentage of suicides with a firearm – we sought to illuminate the enigma of the origins of the distinct gun culture in the US. The key to understanding the inception of this cultural transformation lay in accessing data on gun ownership in earlier decades. While digging in the historical records, we found that the data on firearm suicides go back to 1949, which is the first year the US vital statistics included information about suicides by gun. We hand-digitised the firearm suicide counts for each state and each year from 1949 to 1972, validated the data through a series of statistical tests and, in doing so, created what is now the longest-ranging dataset on state-level gun ownership rates to date.

With the right data in hand, we turned to our next task – making sense of the exceptionally high gun ownership rates among Americans. When trying to figure out when and how the country acquired so many guns, we initially thought the answer may lie in the civil unrest and rising crime rates of the 1960s and ’70s. Instead, we found a trajectory dating back to the mid- 20th century.

Early gun culture was utilitarian, collective and state-directed

Conventional wisdom holds that the ample supply of guns has always been part of the US tradition, with consumer demand steadily meeting it. Hofstadter thought this might have to do with the ‘American historical mythology about the protective value of guns’ as ‘an important counterpoise to tyranny’. Indeed, guns helped Americans secure their independence and expand the western frontier across North America. As many know, the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is, of course, enshrined in the US constitution.

It’s true that guns have been present in the US since its inception, initially serving as tools of necessity in the colonies and on the frontier. They’ve played a key role in American imagination, culture and politics. However, in the past half-century, US gun culture has witnessed an unequivocal transformation. The historian Brian DeLay contends that the idea of a continuous gun culture in the US is a myth. His work shows that early gun culture was utilitarian, collective and state-directed; whereas in the past half-century, the emergence of new gun technologies, such as assault weapons, along with a shift towards self-defensive uses of guns, have come to define contemporary US gun culture. These developments have led gun experts like the sociologist David Yamane to identify the rise of ‘Gun Culture 2.0’ or the ‘culture of armed citizenship’ as a modern phenomenon rather than an endemic national trait.

An alternative explanation for the exceptional gun rates in the US centres on the surge of crime and civil unrest in the late 1960s to ’70s – a period coinciding with Hofstadter’s writing and a national uptick in crime. According to this perspective, the rapid rise in gun ownership rates over the past half-century is a result of escalating crime rates and eroding trust in institutions. This narrative pins the turning point of US gun culture on the spread of urban violence and the fraying of public confidence in government amid the Vietnam War, which encouraged people to put safety in their own hands, or so the story goes.

While an increase in crime and a decline in trust in the US government may have contributed to the surge in gun demand, this can’t be the full story. It’s true that the US gun stock rapidly rose during this period, however historical data from the US Department of Justice indicates that the rate of families reporting gun ownership remained stable or even declined during the 1960s and early ’70s. Moreover, our newly compiled gun ownership data going back to 1949 further challenge this explanation, pointing to an inflection point in earlier decades.

T o understand the real origins of the exceptional gun culture of the US, we needed to look further back in time. Our research reveals a puzzling new trajectory: a remarkable 45 per cent increase in the household gun ownership rate from 1949 to 1990, peaking during 1990. To our surprise, more than half of this rise occurred before 1973, a period previously obscured by the lack of systematic data on gun prevalence. These new data provide a crucial historical perspective, showing that the surge in gun prevalence started before the period marked by rising crime and falling trust. In fact, our measure shows an uptick in gun prevalence beginning in the 1950s, a period defined by low homicide rates and peak trust in government, prompting questions about why and how more households acquired guns during a period of relative calm.

We examined the factors that were most connected to state-level increases in these rates from 1949 to 1990, the decades in which household gun ownership steadily rose and when the exceptional US gun culture took shape. We tested several different variables that could have contributed to this rise – including demographic shifts, rising crime, racial conflicts, changes in education and civil unrest, among others. We controlled for state and year differences within our sample, as is convention in scientific studies on gun ownership over time, to ensure that we weren’t comparing states with other states that have drastically different populations and gun traditions, or that the results weren’t skewed by specific years that were outliers in the data.

They mass-marketed these imported guns to consumers flush with cash

Of all the potential explanations we tested, we discovered that the post-Second World War economic boom and relaxed federal gun regulations most drove the surge in demand for guns. As unemployment rates decreased and incomes increased, firearms – once deemed a luxury or practical necessity – grew within reach for more and more Americans. Simultaneously, cultural attitudes surrounding gun ownership may have shifted, as multiple generations of Americans returning from the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War became accustomed to owning and using guns.

In his book Gun Country (2023), the historian Andrew McKevitt complements these findings with a rich tapestry of archival evidence. By weaving together gun advertisements, congressional hearings and journalistic sources, among others, McKevitt illustrates that US gun culture is unequivocally modern, specifically emerging post-1945, and from the aftermath of the Second World War and the start of Cold War politics.

Following the global demobilisation in 1945, McKevitt shows, surplus war firearms flooded the US market at dirt-cheap prices. This influx was facilitated by the ‘new gun capitalists’, a group of little-known entrepreneurs who imported and sold these guns to US consumers. They reshaped the US gun industry by establishing a mass market for civilian guns that had limited practical use elsewhere and faced stricter regulations in other countries. Capitalising on the surplus of inexpensive imported firearms, the new gun capitalists learned how to stimulate demand through marketing foreign guns as desirable consumer goods for the everyday American. They mass-marketed these imported guns to consumers flush with cash and eager to acquire these one-of-a-kind war arms from across the globe.

Magazine advertisements for mail-in orders of inexpensive guns targeted new buyers who couldn’t afford the high prices of name-brand US firearms. These ads leveraged the appeal of vintage guns as ‘authentic World War II souvenirs’ from Germany, Spain, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Japan and other war-torn countries. Post-Second World War ads can be found touting guns as among the ‘finest made by the Fascists. Carried by the crack Italian Alpine troops.’ The very gun used by Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate the president John F Kennedy was an Italian rifle purchased from a Chicago mail-order store.

Seeking to safeguard retail prices from this new supply of foreign guns, the US gun industry pursued federal action to curb the unregulated flow of imported firearms. However, the administration of the president Dwight Eisenhower decided that redirecting global gun stockpiles into the US was preferable to them arming communist insurgents worldwide. It was the Kennedy assassination, alongside rising crime rates across US cities, that finally prompted Congress to act. The senator Thomas Dodd introduced a bill in 1963 aimed at restricting mail-order firearms. These efforts culminated in the Gun Control Act of 1968, one of the most significant pieces of gun legislation in US history.

W hen considering explanations for Americans’ unique gun culture, Hofstadter thought that perhaps it emerged from the enduring national idea that access to arms counters tyranny. He was partly right. As the new historical evidence shows, it was post-Second World War economic prosperity, abundant supply of cheap guns, along with increased incomes, that made way for the unique gun culture of the US. Once that gun culture took root, it flourished, helped along by public policy. Hofstadter’s theory is consistent with the fact that the steady rise in gun prevalence from 1949 to 1990 was made possible by lenient regulations, upheld by voters who saw gun rights as a symbol of freedom and the right to self-defence.

With the extended data, we can see that Hofstadter wrote at a key moment in the US history of guns. For much of US history, guns were used mainly for recreation and hunting, but during the Cold War the nation turned towards a new era of gun culture. Hofstadter died in 1970, the same year as he wrote his piece on guns. He did not live to see the transformation in the ethos around gun ownership to one of celebration that carries on to the present day.

Hofstadter believed Americans armed themselves against tyranny from above, but today’s reality is different. Guns, primarily used for hunting and sport in the mid- 20th century, became largely owned for protection against fellow civilians – a reflection of a modern fear, the tyranny of uncertainty from each other.

In a country in which tens of millions of people own guns, public safety becomes a personal responsibility, and so individuals often decide that it is in their best interest to protect themselves by buying a gun. This desire to be protected against those who have guns by getting a gun, multiplied across millions of people, has resulted in an arms race that makes everyone less safe. Historical events along with policy choices have shaped this explosion in gun ownership, leading to a society in which many people have grown to associate guns with a sense of personal security. As a result, we hear all the time about guns being used in shared spaces of learning, worship and leisure.

State intervention to restrict gun availability can make a significant difference

In 1970, when thinking about how personal and political conflicts unfold in a nation with so many guns, Hofstadter asked: ‘How far must things go?’ Now, 54 years later, we can answer his question. In 2021, the US witnessed its highest number of gun deaths ever and, in 2023, its deadliest year for mass shootings. Alarming new trends include the rise of ghost guns – homemade guns made from unserialised parts, making them difficult to trace and regulate – and the increasing prevalence of military-grade automatic weapons in civilian hands. Gun ownership is only increasing, with one in five US households having purchased a gun during the COVID-19 pandemic, and new gun owners diversifying to include more women and people of colour. My friend Charles, a street outreach worker in Chicago who works with violence-involved youth, aptly summarised the situation: ‘The answer to more guns is more guns.’

This cycle of guns begetting more guns risks becoming the norm, unless there is concerted state action to reverse the trend. Research shows that state intervention to restrict gun availability can make a significant difference. By the 1990s, unprecedented crime rates prompted many US states to adopt gun restrictions that resulted in a substantial reduction in gun availability and saved tens of thousands of lives. Moreover, mass shootings in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom motivated their governments to implement commonsense gun regulations, including bans on automatic weapons and requirements for licensing and registration. The success of these interventions offers hope that the current situation is not immutable. However, despite this progress, recent years have witnessed a reversal in both state and federal gun-control efforts. Some states have eased or repealed laws, and in 2022 the US Supreme Court limited states’ ability to restrict gun access. This has likely contributed to the recent surge in firearm deaths, particularly among Black Americans .

Examining US history helps provide insights into the present. The recent spike in gun sales and the easing of firearm restrictions across the US warrant our attention, carrying implications that transcend generations and borders. Guns acquired during the 1990s crime surge have remained in communities with consequences for current generations, and account for one-10th of the life-expectancy gap between white and Black males today. Porous state borders enable the movement of guns from lenient jurisdictions to regions with stricter laws and elevated crime rates.

Today, Americans stand at a critical juncture, facing the consequences of a nation armed against outsiders and one another alike. To tackle this issue, individuals must reject the premise that more guns equate to greater safety. Guns, lasting for more than a century, extend their impact beyond individual households, affecting the collective wellbeing of communities. The prioritisation of individual gun rights in the US over community safety has become a danger to innocents. Americans are locked in a self-perpetuating arms race that makes all of us only less safe. The exceptional gun culture of the US demands a critical reassessment of the nation’s priorities and policies to ensure a safer future – one in which it’s known for something other than guns.

Consciousness and altered states

How perforated squares of trippy blotter paper allowed outlaw chemists and wizard-alchemists to dose the world with LSD

The environment

We need to find a way for human societies to prosper while the planet heals. So far we can’t even think clearly about it

Ville Lähde

Archaeology

Why make art in the dark?

New research transports us back to the shadowy firelight of ancient caves, imagining the minds and feelings of the artists

Izzy Wisher

Stories and literature

Do liberal arts liberate?

In Jack London’s novel, Martin Eden personifies debates still raging over the role and purpose of education in American life

Politics and government

India and indigeneity

In a country of such extraordinary diversity, the UN definition of ‘indigenous’ does little more than fuel ethnic violence

Dikshit Sarma Bhagabati

History of ideas

Reimagining balance

In the Middle Ages, a new sense of balance fundamentally altered our understanding of nature and society

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes
• Entertainment

Tom Cruise Celebrates 38 Years Since the Original Top Gun : 'It's Incredible to Look Back'

'Top Gun' producer Jerry Bruckheimer told PEOPLE in March that Tom Cruise has been pitched an idea for a third 'Top Gun' movie that "he liked"

Paramount/Kobal/Shutterstock

Tom Cruise is celebrating nearly four decades of taking to the skies.

On May 13, the actor-producer, 61, shared photos from the set of 1986's original Top Gun on Instagram in honor of the film's 38th anniversary.

The photos show behind-the-scenes pictures of him on set with the movie's director Tony Scott , who died in 2012 at 68, as well as a photo of him sitting with the film's cast in its air-hangar-turned-classroom set.

One throwback photo shows the actor smiling during a conversation with producer Jerry Bruckheimer . Another shows Cruise filming 2022's Top Gun: Maverick as he stares at the famous still of him and costar Val Kilmer shaking hands at the end of the original movie.

"It’s incredible to look back on the thirty-eight years of Top Gun ," he wrote in a caption. "To the fans who have been with us since the start, there wouldn’t be a Top Gun Day without you."

Cruise's original Top Gun movie was an immediate hit when it hit theaters May 16, 1986. The movie follows his character Pete "Maverick" Mitchell as he attends the U.S. Navy's Fighter Weapons School, better known as Top Gun. The movie costarred Anthony Edwards, Kelly McGillis and Kilmer, 64, as Maverick's chief rival and eventual ally Tom "Iceman" Kazansky."

Top Gun was the highest-grossing film at the domestic box office that year. It won one Academy Award , for Best Original Song, at the 59th Oscars in 1987, among four total nominations.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. 

Decades later, Cruise regrouped with producer Bruckheimer, 80, to make a sequel, Top Gun: Maverick , which similarly captured audiences' imaginations as the highest-grossing movie of 2022 domestically and made $1.5 billion worldwide. The sequel sees Maverick return to Top Gun to train a new generation of pilots — including characters portrayed by Miles Teller and Glen Powell , among others — for new missions with the Navy.

Paramount/Courtesy Everett 

Many have speculated about the franchise's future given the smash success of Maverick . The Hollywood Reporter reported in January that a third Top Gun movie was in development . In March, producer Bruckheimer told PEOPLE he is working on putting a new entry together.

" We pitched Tom a story he liked . But he's a very in-demand actor and he's got a lot of movies lined up, so we have to wait and see," he said.

Related Articles

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gun Control — Gun Control Thesis Statement

Gun Control Thesis Statement

• Categories: Gun Control

About this sample

Words: 1300 |

Published: Mar 19, 2024

Words: 1300 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

I. introduction, ii. the second amendment and the right to bear arms, iii. gun violence statistics and the need for stricter regulations, iv. gun control policies and their effectiveness, v. mental health and gun violence, vi. gun control advocacy and opposition, vii. conclusion, a. overview of current gun control laws in the united states, b. analysis of the effectiveness of background checks and waiting periods, c. discussion of the impact of assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine restrictions, a. connection between mental illness and gun violence, b. importance of mental health screenings for gun owners, c. strategies for preventing individuals with mental health issues from obtaining guns, a. overview of gun control advocacy groups, b. analysis of arguments against stricter gun control laws, c. strategies for promoting bipartisan support for gun control legislation, a. recap of key points, b. restate thesis statement, c. call to action for stricter gun control measures to improve public safety.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 619 words

1 pages / 499 words

6 pages / 2615 words

3 pages / 1531 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gun Control

Guns have been a controversial topic in the United States for many years. While some argue that owning a gun is a right and can be used for self-defense, there are several reasons why guns are bad for society. This essay will [...]

In today's society, the issue of gun control has become an increasingly contentious topic. With a plethora of opinions and perspectives, it is crucial to approach this subject with careful analysis and a systematic presentation [...]

One of the key attributes of any hero is their dedication to a noble cause. The Lorax embodies this commitment through his unwavering efforts to protect the Truffula Trees and the surrounding ecosystem from the greedy Once-ler. [...]

Gun control has been a hotly debated topic in today's society, with proponents arguing for stricter regulations to reduce gun violence, while opponents advocate for the protection of Second Amendment rights. In this essay, I [...]

Homicide has been categorized among the leading non-medical causes of death in the United States. Each day, an average of thirteen kids ranging from the age of ten to nineteen years gets killed by gunfire, while the highest [...]

Legal advocacy has a profound impact on gun control legislation in the United States. By employing strategies such as litigation and lobbying, advocacy groups have successfully influenced the discourse surrounding firearms [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free