Category: Gun Control

Gun control means a law that has control over gun usage and sales production. Gun control has the authority over who is allowed to own guns. Gun control has been beneficial ever since the gun control law had passed. Gun control had a huge hand in reducing the crime and violence rate, death mass from shootings, etc. Using guns as a defense method could go wrong, though the gun is rarely used for inconvenient reasons. People who are armed with guns are more likely to use them wrongly which could lead to accidental death or might cause bigger problems. Gun control has been found effective by many schoolers which proclaims us why we should have laws against gun violence.

“Jake” the publication author of (11 Unbiased Gun Violence Statistics – Tier Three Tactical) this article believes that the vast majority of what we read about gun violence is deliberately wrong. It’s often run by someone arguing for a right or left-wing position. He assures that he has no such leanings towards it. Jake showed data statistics of gun violence that had a higher death rate, including suicide, homicide, unintentional, etc. He claims that they are nonetheless a tragedy. Often, firearms were chosen because it was one of the effective methods to commit suicide and other things. Gun violence prevention law would be an effective way in reducing gun violence. If a state does not have an obligation to fight against threats, then gun violence would lead to a greater violation that could harm individuals’ lives. However, if actions are taken immediately against gun violence and reduced the rate of it then there would be significantly fewer crimes and human life would be protected.

Laws against gun violence are necessary to prevent gun violence and to protect people from committing felonies since it would be impossible to carry guns if these laws were in place. Deaths caused by guns are the largest concern. Owning a gun from a dealer may have a range of consequences because people with mental illness who are suicidal often end up debating whether to harm themselves or not, which is why gun control laws were enacted since if they didn’t exist, people would’ve started debating whether they should end their lives or not. In my opinion, those people would’ve armed themselves within a matter of time just so they could satisfy the inner mind that’s influencing them to take a path beyond their means.

Meanwhile, John J. Donohue III is a professor of law at Stanford University and has been researching gun violence and gun control for about 25 years. He has written on topics such as whether widespread gun ownership makes people safer and how US gun control compares to other countries. “In the U.S., people have conflicting opinions about guns, with some considering them to be valuable products and well-protected against criminals and a cruel government. Approximately one-third of American households own guns, so this is likely the most pro-gun section of society.”- stated John J.

In conclusion, many people might have different opinions regarding gun control, as it is a controversial issue; however, I believe that gun control laws could be improved to ensure the safety and security of future generations. And so, if gun control continues to be implemented in the future, we will be protected from being shot and will be strictly limited from owning guns, so we can lead a mentally stable, and healthy life after all.

Introduction

Gun control is a contentious topic that elicits strong emotions and passionate debates. While it is essential to approach serious matters with sensitivity, sometimes a lighthearted satirical perspective can provide a fresh lens to examine the subject. In this satirical essay, we will explore gun control through the lens of absurdity, highlighting the flaws and contradictions in various arguments.

The Power of Bubbles

Imagine a world where bubbles were considered dangerous weapons. Yes, those translucent, iridescent spheres that bring joy to children and adults alike. To ensure public safety, stringent bubble control laws are implemented. Bubble registration, background checks, and waiting periods become the norm. The absurdity lies in the fact that bubbles pose no real threat, just like many of the firearms that are subject to excessive regulation.

The Efficacy of Pencil Control

Let’s address the elephant in the room: pencils. These seemingly innocuous writing instruments have caused more accidental punctures and injuries than we care to admit. Therefore, it’s only logical that we require extensive pencil control measures. We can implement background checks to ensure pencils do not fall into the wrong hands, and perhaps limit the number of pencil purchases one can make in a month. After all, pencils have been responsible for countless misspelled words and illegible handwriting, causing frustration and distress. It’s time we take this threat seriously!

The Wonders of Spoon Licensing

In a world where spoons are responsible for excessive calorie consumption, obesity, and related health issues, it’s high time we introduce spoon control. A comprehensive licensing system can ensure that only responsible individuals possess spoons. We can also mandate spoon safes to prevent unauthorized spoon usage. By controlling the utensil, we control the eating habits of the population. It’s the perfect recipe for a healthier society.

The Tactical Threat of Rubber Ducks

Rubber ducks may seem like innocent bathtub companions, but they harbor a menacing secret. In the wrong hands, they can become tactical weapons capable of causing havoc. We must restrict access to rubber ducks, limiting their purchase to licensed individuals who have undergone extensive rubber duck safety training. Only then can we sleep soundly knowing that our bathtubs are secure.

The Mirage of Water Bottle Control

Water bottles, those seemingly harmless containers of hydration, can pose a serious threat when placed in the wrong hands. Imagine a world where we regulate the capacity of water bottles, limiting the amount of liquid one can carry at a time. We could even introduce background checks to determine if individuals have a history of excessive thirst. By tightly controlling water bottle access, we can effectively quench the potential danger.

Conclusion

Satire allows us to step back and view contentious issues from a different angle. While gun control is an important topic, this satirical essay aimed to highlight the absurdity and contradictions present in some of the arguments surrounding it. By exaggerating everyday objects and their perceived dangers, we shed light on the inconsistencies in the debate. However, it is crucial to remember that the underlying issue of gun control requires thoughtful and respectful discussion to find practical solutions that prioritize public safety while respecting individual rights.

It is December, cold as ever, and the guns are as loud as ever. A few days ago, several shootings took place one by one in Chicago, Baltimore, and Minnesota. Across these states, at least 28 people were shot. Some of them are dead, some are wounded. However, those gunmen are still at large…

The United States has the largest number of privately-owned guns in the world, and the number is continuously increasing.

In 2000, there were 259 million guns in private hands in the United States. By now, the number of privately-owned guns has already exceeded the number of residents. According to a Gallup survey conducted in 2011, 47 percent of US adults reported that they had guns, and in the southern United States, 54 percent of adults had guns. On the one hand, concerns about the threat of violence have led many people to buy guns for self-protection. On the other hand, the proliferation of guns has increasingly been an important reason for violent crime. Since a large number of guns are privately held across the country, the United States has seen frequent shooting cases and an alarming number of shooting casualties. According to the 2014 report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), because of the widespread school bullying phenomena, around 200,000 to 250,000 middle school students in the United States carried weapons to school, and according to statistics, 8.6 percent of the students who had been bullied before took weapons to school, and 4.6 percent of the students who had never been bullied also took weapons to school.

The United States is the country with the most gun violence in the world. In 2018, a total of 57,103 gun cases occurred in the United States, resulting in 14,717 deaths and 28,172 injuries, including 3,502 deaths and injuries of minors. The Huffington Post website reported on December 6, 2018, that an analysis of official data on gun deaths from 2000 to 2016 in the United States found that gun violence caused the average life expectancy of people in the US to drop nearly 2.5 years, with African-Americans decreasing by 4.14 years. Recurrent shooting cases have caused a large number of casualties in the United States, and deadly mass shootings have already become a major threat to public safety. Gun violence has severely violated human rights, especially the people’s right to life.

The road to stop gun violence is quite hard, but it still needs to be persevered.

‘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.’ —An ‘outdated’ manner, which origins from the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Now is the 21st century, a relatively peace and stable century. There is no need for the US people to launch a military campaign against British colonial rule at any time. Besides, with the increasing power of guns and the increase in population density caused by urbanization, the negative effects of privately-owned guns are becoming increasingly apparent. It is widely acknowledged by different countries in the world that privately owned guns are not conducive to public safety. Just as the data listed above, it’s obvious that the right to hold guns under the US Constitution does not accord with the needs of modern society. Because the proliferation of guns in private hands is directly related to gun violence, which has caused even will still cause a large number of casualties and an increase in violent crime.

Except for institutional reasons, the intense opposition between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, as well as interest groups, are the biggest resistance to gun control efforts in the United States. NRA, apparently, is a nonprofit organization that promotes firearm competency, safety, and ownership, as well as police training, marksmanship, hunting, and self-defense training in the United States. However, in fact, it is an absolute “arms dealer” who just cares about extravagant profits and political power, including 5 million members. And in order to strive for its political donations and voters during election years, the Republican Party keeps supporting gun rights.

Although there are still facing many difficulties to solve the gun issue in the United States, some existing efforts can bring hope. For instance, the opposite of the NRA—Brady Campaign， is one of the leaders of the American gun control movement. Although its power is weaker than NRA, it also has nearly 600,000 members, and its influence cannot be underestimated. A lot of influential gun control legislation and massive demonstrations against gun violence all thanks to the Brady campaign.

‘No matter how many guns we remove from the streets, people are still at risk of death’, RuQuan Brown, a high school football captain and advocate against gun violence from Washington, said in CNN. According to his words, his stepfather and his closest football teammate both died from a fatal gunshot in the last two years. And those painful memories turned into the impetus for him to take action to fight against gun violence. He launched Love1, a merchandising business that advocates against guns and aims to raise public awareness to end such violence. Afterward, his company donates 20% of proceeds to One Gun Gone, an anti-gun violence art project in Rhode Island. From proceeds raised, One Gun Gone offers a gun buyback program and makes art from them.

As John Whitley said, ‘Guns have one intended purpose: to kill. Sanctuary is intended to afford protection, especially from gun violence, and not to afford safe haven to protect these instruments of death. ‘What we really need to worry about now is not how to resist the government tyranny that we don’t know the specific time, but the individuals who hold guns at all times. As we always have such a ‘lucky’ chance to meet each other at any time and anywhere. Just hoping that in the following tomorrow, an exploding balloon will be neither a cause of panic for our citizens nor a tool to test their shooting skills.

Have you ever wondered what the president has to do when they are in the process of preparing to give a speech? Well back in 2015 former President Obama was delivering a eulogy for Reverend Clementa C. Pinckney, who was a former member of the South Carolina Senate and he was a pastor of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church, but he was most notable because he was one of the nine people that were killed in the Charleston shooting in South Carolina, where gunman Dylann Roof opened fire and killed nine African Americans during a church service. Throughout his speech President Obama’s language in his speech was very appealing as the sense of his religious audience, he also uses ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his speech The ethos that was used in President Obama’s eulogy speech for Rev. Pinckney was the importance of racial equality in the United States is that he was president it makes his credibility more accurate because is his opinion on political issues is somewhat automatically placed at a higher level. In his speech, Obama defends his credibility by discussing various policies and statistics that point to significant racial inequity over gun safety and voter requirements, in his speech, Obama was very persuasive in these areas because of his position in government and how government and how he demonstrated his extensive knowledge on the issue.

Another example that Obama used for ethos in his eulogy speech was by discussing the religious acceptance of black churches and their importance in American history. Obama whose a devoted Christian and him being African American which gives the audience an immediate sense of his credibility because he is in a church setting and by discussing the history of black churches by saying “have been and continue to be, community centers where organize for jobs and justice; place of scholarship and network; place where children are loved and fed and kept out of harm’s way, that what happens in the church”(Obama). Obama demonstrates his credibility in an emotional sense to his audience so that they know what to him is a black church and what really means to the people of Charleston and how because of this shooting that has taken place has affected them because nine innocent African Americans had their life taken by a white supremacist.

President Obama uses pathos in his eulogy speech for Rev. Pinckney was emotional because when he started singing “Amazing Grace” also he ended his speech by reciting the nine victims names and by him doing that to me that means that each victim has found grace, in his speech he also discusses that we as a society must think about conscious and unconscious racial discrimination in our everyday lives, he also discusses in his speech that the controversy of the confederate flag and how the community of Charleston, South Carolina is in pain from it because that flag symbolizes systematic oppression for African Americans and how everyone is blind to it but now I personally feel that we as a society is now starting to see when it comes to racial injustices in our school systems, gun violence, and the laws that are set in place nationwide in systematic racism. The logos that were used in President Obama’s speech was how he was making points regarding Rev. Pinckney and his solutions to the tense race relations present at the time of his speech, he also discusses the history of black churches and the critical importance during the underground railroad led by Harriet Tubman but most importantly he further discusses why after this shooting this should be a turning point in race relations and gun violence by Obama doing this he is allowing the audience to reflect on the horror that has just taken place in this black church because this isn’t the first time this has happened where people were killed during a church service because many years ago in 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama four African American girls were killed when a Ku-Klux-Klan member bombed a church while they were in service. Obama also wants his audience to understand that this was a senseless act that happened and now it is time for a change. To me when it comes to this society regarding gun violence because that is something that Americans have been fighting about for a long time when it comes to trying to get gun control laws and to this day we are still fighting for laws and there still isn’t some kind of solution like how many people have to die before we get gun control laws and where still fighting racism.

In conclusion, the reason I chose to analyze this speech is because to me I felt this speech was good because Obama was able to relate to his audience because he was in a church and it was an appeal to the religious side of things and he also uses ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his speech. Another reason I felt this was a good speech was that since Obama knew Rev. Pinckney it made me feel his speech came from the heart compared to if it was someone speaking at his funeral and they didn’t know him.

Gun control has been a topic of discussion in the United States since the day we became a nation. The founding fathers made it known in the Second Amendment, that citizens of the United States should have the right to bear arms. This discussion in allowing Americans the right to own guns has proven to be both horrific and lifesaving. With great power comes great responsibility, and many times in America people have proven to themselves and others that they do not have the level of responsibility to own a weapon. Because of these people, gun restrictions have been made to try and keep guns out of the hands of these heinous individuals. Just a few of the gun control laws include Gun Free School Zone Act (1990), Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (1993), etc. Gun control is very important and will always be a touchy topic; knowing what laws to activate, knowing the history of gun grabbers and gun nuts, and putting yourself into a position to see what you would do are all ideas that will help us get a better understanding o what is going on with firearms in America.

After the shootings of Sandy Hooks Elementary School, and Aurora, Colorado, President Obama wanted to require criminal background checks anytime someone bought a firearm, ban assault weapons, limit magazine clips to 10 rounds, and ban any firearm that can shoot through armor. I agree with President Obama that there needs to be a criminal background check anytime someone purchases a firearm to make sure that they are responsible enough to carry a gun. The reason these massive shootings have happened is that the people that sold the guns to the buyer did not do a good enough job making sure they are mentally stable and that they are not a criminal. If we were to thoroughly check everyone’s background before they bought a weapon, maybe there wouldn’t be so many tragic shootings. At the same time, I believe that if you are in the right mindset, you should be able to purchase any type of firearm you want whether it be a handgun or an assault rifle. There is no reason not to let someone who has been a great citizen not be able to have that weapon. Many Americans were unhappy with Obama’s ideas, Ted Cruz even put, “up a webpage with a menacing, altered picture of the president in a commando outfit. A caption read “Obama Wants Your Guns” next to a fundraising appeal, “(Lichtblau and Shear). At the same time, President Obama had many people back him up saying his speech was, “One of the most moving things I’ve ever seen,” (Lichtblau and Shear).

The issues between gun grabbers and gun nuts have been going on since guns have been invented. Gun grabbers do not like the idea of people having guns and rightfully so, “In 1974 alone, there were 325,000 reported incidents of firearms being used illegally to assault or threaten citizens,” (Winkler 16). Because of this crazy statistic, Washington D.C. put a ban on handguns and instead made people use shotguns and rifles, but these weapons were to not be used for self-defense, only for recreational use. In United States v. Miller, a case in 1939, the court ruled that Congress can ban sawed shotguns because they “bore no relationship to service in state militias.” After that case, the court said they would not rule in any cases that dealt with the Second Amendment; they ended up doing this for seventy years (Winkler 25). IN 2008 after the New York Giants won the Super Bowl, Plaxico Burress, a stud wide receiver for the New York Giants, was out partying one night; while walking up some steps, his gun slipped from his waist, and he ended up shooting himself in the leg causing him to rush to the hospital. John Feinstein said that “owners and players should agree that players can’t own handguns” and was also very high on abolishing the Second Amendment (Winkler 33). Any time something crazy happens with guns, antigun enthusiasts make a statement saying that wouldn’t happen if we didn’t have guns. Gun grabbers will always have something to say when something bad happens; when someone uses a gun to protect themselves and their family, this is where the gun nuts come in to praise the Second Amendment.

Gun nuts love being able to have their guns and proudly support the Second Amendment. In United States v. Emerson, there was a man who had charges for illegal possession of a firearm. Emerson’s wife filed a restraining order on him which then causes him not to be able to carry a gun, but Emerson did not give up the gun. Eventually, this problem was taken to court, but the court did not want to hear the meeting because they don’t like talking about the Second Amendment. Emerson got to keep his gun and returned to his life (Winkler 47). In the 2000 election, Al Gore was very anti-gun, and George W. Bush loved the individual rights theory. Bob Levy had a great point in saying,” You don’t want a bank robber or a crackhead up there as a poster boy for the Second Amendment,” (Winkler 59) he was saying that the case would probably be someone who fits his saying. He wanted to make sure that the court heard from people that feared criminals breaking into their houses or coming up to them on the street. If he could get a good person on the court, then he thought it would change the way some Americans feel about the Second Amendment. One case that helped the gun nuts accomplish this was Shelly Parker et al. V. District of Columbia. Shelley was an elderly woman who lived in a neighborhood where there were a lot of thugs and she fought them out of her neighborhood. This story is exactly what the gun nuts wanted; a sympathetic story that shows how guns can be used for good deeds. So now what must we do to ensure that guns do not get into the hands of the wrong person?

In almost every major shooting, the person who is shooting usually has something wrong mentally with themselves. After leading a rally Donald Trump, talking about people who shoot large crowds of people, said” These people are mentally ill and no one talks about that,” (McDonald). We need to be more open to people who have mental illnesses and get them to places where they can learn how to deal with the things they are going through. It is proven that “mental illness alone approximately triples the risk of some form of violence,” (McDonald). Being able to understand why someone wants to do a certain thing is a big part of how we make our country a better place to live. We need to be more aware of people around us and be able to know if they are mentally stable and talk to them to see if they are okay. In doing this I believe that we would cut down the number of shootings that took place. The House members had to vote on something of this matter in 2013.

If I was a member of the House of Representatives, I would vote against President Obama’s proposed gun control legislation. I would vote against it because no one would be able to protect themselves from being robbed or someone pressing them in the streets. I believe that saying I agree with some of the ideas that the President has would be good enough for me to keep a healthy relationship with the rest of my colleagues. If I were to just completely disagree with everything the President and the other house representatives said, then I would be looked at as if I didn’t know what I was talking about. Hopefully, most of us in the House of Representatives would be able to work together to find a better way to have less gun violence in America. Even though I do like the idea of checking everyone’s background before purchasing a firearm, it is mainly mental illness that causes these massive shootings. Instead of just taking away big assault rifles, I would propose an idea that involves checking the buyer’s mental state of mind and criminal background to see if they can own a firearm. Taking away everyone’s guns would be a major threat to the United States. Criminals would just be able to run around with no fear of someone putting them in their place.

In conclusion, gun rights will always be an issue people will debate about, I don’t know if there will ever be a set gun regulation or if they will be taken away completely. Since the time guns were made, they have been so fondly looked upon. As long as we don’t let the guns get into the wrong hands the country will be safe. Also guiding more people to mental health care if they seem out of the ordinary that way, they can learn how to deal with whatever is going on with them. When they do get into the wrong hands, we need to have someone who is going to stand up for themselves and the country to say we will not put up with this; if we were to abolish guns there would not be someone to put an end to it.

Gun violence it’s one of the biggest problems not only in America but in the whole world. At least 1.7 million children live with unlocked and loaded firearms, which means that 1 out of 3 homes with children own a gun. Firearms are the second leading cause of death in adolescents, after car crashes. There have been multiple incidents that involved firearms that have impacted the world. The United States has been trying to fix these issues.

Firearms are a big problem when it comes to the streets and gang-related issues.

But now, guns are starting to become a problem in schools across the United States and many teens go to school with the fear that a possible incident with a gun could happen at any time. “…school shootings have lasting ramifications for each family and also impact relationships among community members, including parents, the school law enforcement, and local government.” School shootings have impacted many families, and have left a big impact on some of them, for example, those who’ve lost a family member. Many students feared that an incident could happen at any time during school. Firearms are a huge problem when they’re around children. “Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.” Looking at the percentage of unintentional deaths of children that are caused by shootings, it’s clearly visible that 89% of shootings that happen at home are because the parents or someone else from the family own a firearm, and leaves it loaded where children can easily reach for it could bring multiple problems. Lastly, gun violence can be seen anywhere around the world. “44% of all homicides globally involve gun violence” There could be firearms everywhere, and by this, the 44% of homicides that involve guns are most likely to be gang-related or some other cause. But there is always a solution to a problem.

There could be multiple solutions to this problem, but these two solutions seem to work out for this most for the most part. Having a strong and better background check on the buyer when it comes to buying a firearm will likely help reduce gun violence. “One thing that can lessen the effectiveness of expanded background checks in screening out more people who aren’t allowed to have guns is under-enforcement. ” So by adding a background check to those states that don’t count with one would most likely help decrease the percentage of homicides in the state. Also, this could make it harder for the person to get a firearm. “Eliminating ways for them to get guns without going through a background check can make it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons.” By checking the background of the buyer, the seller would have to see if the person who is buying the gun doesn’t have any high crimes on his or her record. But this doesn’t mean that the person that wants to buy the gun is going to be completely stopped from obtaining it. “…you can buy a gun from a private seller without getting screened to see if you have a record that bans you from owning a firearm.” This is still a common problem because the buyer can just buy a gun illegally. The buyer would just obtain the firearm without having a background check.

The second solution to gun violence is owning a permit in order to buy/own a gun. “They require residents to secure a permit from local law enforcement before they can own a gun.” Having a permit in order to own a gun is the same thing as owning a permit in order to drive. This would make the buyer get a permit before buying a gun. Citizens from areas where this rule is applied tend to believe that this has made a small change in those areas. “Research has shown that such “permit to purchase” laws are associated with significantly fewer guns used in crimes than in states that do not have licensing laws.” By adding this law, not everyone would be able to buy a gun, only those who count with a permit. But this would also have a negative impact. In some states, training on how to use a gun properly is not even required. “States like Maryland and Georgia do not require individuals to have any firearm training completed before they apply for and receive a concealed carry permit.” There wouldn’t be a point in owning a permit if training is not required. It would still be the same problem.

In the end, the best solution to gun violence would be the first solution, which is having a strong and better background check before buying a firearm. This will help decrease gun violence in states and even countries. “One thing that can lessen the effectiveness of expanded background checks in screening out more people who aren’t allowed to have guns is under-enforcement.” This would prevent people who have committed crimes in the past to get a gun. But this does not mean that they won’t be able to get a firearm. There are always other ways of obtaining a firearm illegally. But this would be the solution that would fit more into the problem.

As United States citizens, do we have the right to bear arms? America’s growing gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, and the Second Amendment, which 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 under severe scrutiny in the past decade as a result of mass murders with a gun involved. It is a heavily debated topic with two very polarizing viewpoints. On one side of the spectrum, it is believed that more gun control laws would cause less gun-related violence. On the other side, it is believed that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens isn’t the answer to controlling gun-related crime. This can be seen as an argument between protecting individual rights and fulfilling the needs and interests of the larger community. Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens not only leaves many people without protection, but it also won’t have the dramatic effect of controlling gun violence that everyone hoped for. It is easy to conclude that fewer guns in the possession of the public would result in less gun-related violence, but is that true? The fact is criminals will find a way to obtain a gun if they want. If a criminal was already planning to hurt someone with a gun, they don’t care if it is legally obtained or not. The problem with this issue is that many focus only on reducing gun violence/murders. The general murder rate is also an important statistic because you must think about all the instances in which American citizens used guns to protect themselves. America has approximately 1.45 guns per American, or about 393,347,000 which is the highest total and per capita in the world. In 1993 there was less than one gun per American. What may be surprising to hear is that the murder rate has gone down as gun ownership has increased. The idea that more gun ownership equals more crime or even more guns equals more mass shootings has very little evidence.

When people watch the news and see a mass-murder who used a gun it may spark anger. One may ask, “How do we keep letting things like this happen?”. Many people automatically think that with all this violence we need stricter gun control laws. The reason they believe this way is because the current gun-control laws aren’t as effective as hoped. The main thing to understand is that you can put a law into legislation for stronger gun control, but the criminals do not care. They are criminals, if they want a gun, they will get a gun illegally. It doesn’t matter if the gun is legal or not if a criminal is using it on someone else. The act in which they choose to use the gun on someone is illegal anyways so why would they care about some gun-control law? “Every mass shooting that has occurred has been carried out against current laws that did nothing to stop it. This is not because the laws aren’t tough enough, it is because you can’t legislate behavior.” Basically, criminal activity including guns can’t be stopped by a gun-control law because “you can’t legislate behavior” as explained by Ryan Cleckner. Here is another stat to show how current gun control laws are proven ineffective. Texas’s gun control has an ‘F’ rating from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Texas yet has seen only 6.6 percent of total mass public shootings since 2000 which was lower than expected given that it holds 8.6 percent of the national population. On the other hand, Washington state has a ‘B’ rating and accounts for 2.2 percent of the population but 8 percent of mass public shootings since 2000. This is just another example of how gun control has failed to do its job and certain legislators believe that more gun control is the answer which is absurd.

I understand that when people fight for the argument of pro-gun control they are looking for ways to combat the amount of gun-related murders and violence across America. However, what defense does a law-abiding citizen have against a criminal with an illegally obtained gun? Passing strict gun control will only create more victims who are left defenseless against an armed attacker. Would it surprise you if I told you “gun-free zones” are the most popular locations for mass shootings? Probably not. What happens when all guns are outlawed, and the only ones left are illegal guns in the hands of criminals? How might one defend themselves? Adams (1996) identifies two theoretical explanations of defensive gun ownership: acute fear of crime and past victimization experiences. This is the reason many like to have a gun at home for protection. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people. People think of guns and automatically think about murder. But the truth is guns save lives and without them, many more would be lost. “Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminals) is shed.” “Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.” According to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. It is plausible to suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry, the number of instances of defensive gun use would be even higher. The number of defensive guns used doesn’t matter much to the anti-gun supporters. Whether the number is 67,000 or 2.5 million or anywhere in between, they’ll do whatever they can to dismiss defensive gun uses as insignificant. They want to focus only on the dead people lying in the street rather than those folks who use a firearm to remain standing. While trying to limit the number of guns in the criminal’s hands, you are taking them away from law-abiding citizens who help the world immensely.

The idea that gun violence is the sole problem is absurd when violence in general is the problem. “Anti-gunners often point to countries where guns are effectively banned to show how safe we would be. This is absurd. This logic seems to think that only gun violence should be stopped.” I’m not sure why gun-involved homicide is any worse than homicide where a firearm isn’t involved. Most arguments I hear for banning guns involve decreasing gun violence and they completely ignore other types of violence that may very well increase when guns are banned. “This invites the question, was the world a peaceful place before guns? Of course, it wasn’t. However, I bet the rate of sword-involved homicide decreased when people stopped using swords. I’m not sure why the tool is the focus.” Whether it’s a “pressure cooker, a box-cutter, a fertilizer bomb, a rented Home Depot truck, or a firearm”, murders and terrorists are the problem. Not their weapon of choice. Especially when that weapon is the best defense against such murderers. As it has been stated before, “you can’t legislate behavior”.

Many will speak out on their opinion to have an assault rifles ban. The only thing unique about assault rifles is their menacing name and look. The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren’t really weapons of war. Many people mistake these firearms for machine guns capable of shooting multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger. The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. All these are only cosmetic changes and have no effect on the way the gun fires. What people don’t understand is that you can’t walk into a gun store and walk out with a military-style assault weapon (one that can fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull). That’s because most gun dealers don’t carry the military version of the gun, you have to jump through a crazy number of hoops with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to even obtain a tax stamp that says you may purchase such a weapon (a process that takes months, if not years), and the actual versions of rifles used by the military are really expensive and unaffordable for the vast majority of prospective gun owners. They’re “semiautomatic” which is a technical term that applies to the way rounds are chambered, not to the way the guns shoot. Many handguns are semiautomatic too. Military-style rifles fire only one round for each pull of the trigger, just like a revolver, a shotgun, a hunting rifle, or any other of the 300 million legal guns in America. It can be understood that making an assault weapons ban will have very little to no effect on gun violence.

In the article ‘A List of the Reasons Cited against Gun Control and an Effort to Think Them Through’ by Tanushree Ghosh, the idea that creating stricter gun laws is the solution to the problem is assessed. A multitude of reasons are given behind this statement. However, it is mentioned that criminals will find a way to get ahold of their weapon of choice no matter what laws are in place because they are criminals and that is what they do. I believe that stricter gun laws will not stop crimes violent crimes from happening. The problem is not guns, the problem is people. Putting stricter gun laws in place will not prevent these violent crimes from occurring.

Criminals kill people, not their guns. Making guns harder to get will not stop criminals from getting guns if they want them. This is because, as Ghosh noted, criminals will break laws in any way. The fact is that gun regulation laws are already in place. Not just anyone can walk into any store and simply purchase a gun. In order to buy a gun, a person must have a valid driver’s license, fill out paperwork and be above a certain age. However, many violent crimes involving a gun are committed by teens who are not even old enough to purchase these guns on their own. This can be related to the topic of underage drinking. Although high schoolers are not at an appropriate age to purchase or consume alcohol, a multitude of teens still find a way to get their hands on alcohol. The same pertains to guns. Just because the person purchasing the guns fits the regulations does not mean that is the same person who will be in possession of the gun. Just as young adults buy alcohol for teens or their underage friends, guns can be purchased for minors or people who do not fit the qualifications.

Mental illness is exactly what needs to be targeted more than guns do. There is a multitude of complexities associated with mental illness that many people fail to understand. Although mental illness can be the cause of vicious thoughts that make people commit violent crimes, not all mental illnesses make people feel that way. In the military, if a person admits that they need help, they will be put on a watch list and have many privileges taken away. If they seek help, their right to hold a gun is immediately taken away regardless of the situation. This stops people in the military from getting the help they really need. The taboo around getting help needs to be corrected. More help for such diseases should be more easily accessible to not only teens but adults as well.

Moreover, taking away guns takes away the rights of US citizens. The right to own a gun is protected under the Constitution in the 2nd Amendment. Taking away guns from the citizens who follow the law is not the answer. This takes their ability to defend themselves against criminals. Citizens who obey the laws will not get their hands on guns if they are made illegal, but criminals will still find a way to get them. This puts innocent people at more risk of danger. If guns are legal, at least people will have a method of defense against violent criminals.

When violent crimes happen, people immediately think the solution is stricter gun laws. Stricter gun laws are not the answer. If people want guns, they will find a way to get them. Taking away guns strips people of their rights and puts innocent people in danger. More resources should be available for people with mental illnesses. Changes need to be made, but taking away guns is not the appropriate one.

Since the independence of America, the United States Bill of Rights in 1791 stated that “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”. So, the concept of owning guns is very old, but it evolved since the last century because of the increase in crime with laws like the National Firearms Act (‘NFA’) or the Gun Control Act (‘GCA’). However, gun control is one of the most controversial and divisive issues in American politics. On that tone, I think guns should be banned in the US.

Since the legalization of guns in the US, we keep hearing of mass shootings happening around the country and the violence that emerged is hugely critical, so it’s time to make a move about the situation and revise the restrictions around gun laws. During 2017, the rate of crime increased, there were 427 mass shootings and more than 15,000 people were killed in firearm-related incidents, while over 30,000 people were injured, according to Gun Violence Archive (2019). These numbers are insane and show the seriousness of this situation. Let’s also recall the mass shooting that happened on February 14, 2018, in Florida during which someone murdered 17 people in class in a few minutes. This is evidence that the rate of crime due to using guns is increasing and that people don’t feel safe anymore to go to school or walk the street knowing that anyone around them could have a gun. Killing and owning guns became so easy and insignificant that lives keep getting taken away, condolences to families are not enough, and the situation keeps getting worse, but there is still no action from the authorities.

Not only the rate of crime is constantly increasing, but America stands first in the circulation of firearms in the world, and they are actually encouraging the diffusion of guns, as we can see in National Observer (2018): “According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the vast majority of guns seized and traced in Mexico are of American origin”. Other statistics of the same website show that more than two-thirds of all the victims in the US were killed by guns and that Americans are forty times more likely to encounter a gun than most other human beings in the world, and that is explained by the huge amount of guns circulating. “In 2011, 270 million firearms were circulated in the U.S., almost 90 guns for every 100 people”, and nowadays “There are an estimated 393 million civilian-owned guns in the United States. That translates to 1.2 guns for every man, woman, child, and baby in America”, according to Brian Klaas, an assistant professor of global politics at University College London. These numbers show that America is at the center of the production of firearms and proves the danger they are creating to society when approximately half of the population own a gun.

Let’s now talk about how much America needs gun control because the laws and restrictions are not enough, but we will first briefly introduce the procedure followed by American to own a gun. Generally, when someone wants to buy a firearm from a gun store, they have to go through a quick background check. The seller will call the FBI, which will eventually use a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to go through their customer’s records, and then, if he has a clear record, the purchaser can get his gun, but if he’s convicted of a felony or any type of crime, he won’t pass the background check (Euronews, 2017). However, a lot of mistakes and clerical errors can pass because the records of criminals are not always updated in the database of the FBI. For example, according to Euronews (2017), the shooter Devin Patrick Kelley was able to legally purchase a gun from a gun store and so was able to slip through the cracks of the system because of their mistake. Moreover, background checks are only made when you buy a gun from stores, but if a person wants to sell their gun, they could easily sell it to someone who has a criminal record, and so guns are circulating between people without knowing who is using it for a bad or good intention. In fact, 37,5% of the offenders obtained their guns from the streets (Daniel W. Webster, John S. Vernick, 2013). Additionally, each state has its own gun laws, and “out of 50 states, 35 do not require that gun owners hold a license, obtain a purchase permit, or register their weapons” (Euronews, 2017), which represents a big threat and danger to society. Therefore, these statistics show that the American government needs more strict laws about firearms and guns.

Although we know that guns can prevent accidents like home invasions and terrorist incidents, it’s very rare to see a mass shooting stop thanks to the intervention of a gun holder, but instead, he is more likely to scare people even more and get them confused, and by that shoot someone innocent rather than the intruder. In fact, 11,4% of the offenders detained in prison were licensed gun holders (Daniel W. Webster, John S. Vernick, 2013). This shows that even people with licenses are not able to take the situation in control and protect people during an incident. Moreover, more than 2000 unintentional shootings were registered in 2017 (Gun Violence Archive, 2019), and this number takes into consideration domestic violence, but also if someone who is angry or drunk could easily make an accident by shooting an innocent person without noticing because they are not in their stable state of mind. We also can’t deny the fact that the circulation of guns increases the rate of suicide because teenagers or even adults could have access to guns without necessarily having a bad record, and this creates a big danger since it’s hard to survive a gun blast: “In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides”(Matthew Miller, M.D., Sc.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D.).

In conclusion, even if people have the right of defending and protecting themselves, the right of possessing guns has been abused and used to commit so many crimes that we can no longer neglect it. The crime rate is increasing rapidly and laws are not strict enough. People are losing families and friends because of barbaric behaviors and all they receive are some condolences, but it’s time for the authorities to make a move and stop this epidemic disease of killing.

For many years, gun control has always been a heated topic, especially in the U.S. After all, there have been many massive shootings that can result in this debate. Especially, during the last 3-5 years. There has been a shooting in a school, workplaces, churches, etc. every time we turn around. Should we get rid of guns altogether? Or should we just make gun laws stricter? There are many questions we all have, and many opinions we have about this certain topic. In reality, we just want to live in a world that is safe, with no tragedies, and live in happiness. Yet, even though we would all love that, it is impossible. If we got rid of guns altogether, it would fight against the 2nd amendment in the U.S constitution. Which is, the right to bear arms. However, if we don’t act on this issue, there will continue to be more massive shootings, and just not across the United States. Though this is why Gun Control should not be legalized because it would become the worst crime rate, it can be an advantage for the country, and why the gun control movement fails altogether because it is seen as crime control instead of gun control.

Gun Control is the laws that forbid gun ownership and the manufacture of guns to be sold. Is the answer to massive shootings legalizing this law so no shootings or crimes happen? According to John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. said, ‘States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. The effect of ‘shall-issue’ gun laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.’ (Lott) Why do we instantly think if someone ones a gun, they’re going to cause a crime? A journalist John Stossel says that criminals that want to commit a crime will commit them. For example, if guns were to be outlawed, the outlaws would find ways to get ahold of a gun (Stossel).

The legalization of Gun Control would just become worse in crime rates, and more shootings across the United States. According to an article on CNN by L.Z Granderson called “Gun Control is not the answer.” The author talks about how in Chicago that gun shops are illegal. Yet, in the city, they are affected by gunshot wounds, or even death in the streets each week. It also talks about how more people have died from gun violence here from home than during the nine years of warfighting in Iraq. The individuals that are committing mass shootings are coming from both legalized people who can carry a gun and ones who are not. So even though they are not allowed ownership of carrying a gun, they still find ways to commit that crime or even carry a gun (Granderson). According to John Stossel in an article from ABC News called, “Gun Control isn’t crime control.” He talks about instead of gun control legalization if we just invested in stricter gun laws and if that would help. He also gives the information that If a criminal is going to commit a crime, it doesn’t matter if we have strict gun laws or not. They will commit a crime regardless. So, if the gun laws were stricter it gives them another reason to commit the crime and find a way to come out on top. In that statement, there could be a bit of a disagreement among others. Such as, if stricter gun laws were to be that it harder to be able to own a gun, or where background checks legal for all 50 states to purchase a gun sale instead of eleven states. In 1997, there was a shooting in the United Kingdom in England that killed around 16 children. The effect of that crime, England created stricter gun laws for the country. England’s laws for gun control since then have been one of the strictest gun laws in the world. The law is preventing almost all citizens from having the right to own a firearm. Even though this law was set, there was no decrease in gun-related crimes in the U.K. at all. The crimes have actually doubled in England since the ban was established. It is a topic that is very controversial, could it help? Or could it not? The stricter the gun laws seem to become, the more the crime rates will increase.

When people think of guns, they think of them as killing machines. Such as for humans. Liberals believe and support that human lives are valuable and that killing humans is wrong. This is also true but they also believe that guns kill humans so we should limit the access of the use of guns completely. Every time a mass shooting occurs it seems like another opportunity for Liberals to fight against gun control. According to an article by Dustin Murphy called, “4 major problems with gun control arguments.” He states, “Making guns illegal or restricting access to them won’t end gun violence” (Murphy). Much how like there are substances and drugs that are illegal yet according to studies overdose of drugs is the number one death of people across the United States. Liberals are also to be said that they are blaming the mentally ill for the causes of the massive shootings. That because an individual committed a crime, they were mentally ill. This could be true, but it seemed like that was the reply to every shooting that occurred. According to the article written by S.E Smith called, “Don’t blame the mentally ill. Blame the guns.” He talks about how President Trump said that the lack of mental hospitals was to blame for the incident that happened in the Parkland, Florida shooting. President Trump also suggested imprisoning innocent people in mental- health facilities. Then stated, “he hasn’t committed the crime, but he may very well.” According to a 2015 analysis as well of about 235 mass murders including shootings found that only 46 of those people were actually mentally ill. A lot of the reasons identified as rage, hostility, and just being disgruntled were more common to have been the cause of the shootings rather than it being a mental condition. Some evidence that was presented in the article, it says that it suggests that mentally ill people are less likely to kill people with a gun or any other type of firearm. However, overall how sane they are also counterparts, and when that happens, they usually end up killing themselves in the situation (Smith).

Gun control not being legalized cannot be a disadvantage for the country. It can be an advantage, but why? Gun control not being legalized could be another open window for more black marketing to occur. If someone wants to own a gun, they will fight every will in their power to get what they want. There are also going to always be people who steal firearms for their own needs, and if the government gets rid of guns completely, it’ll be a bigger fight to get them, even though now people are still stealing and trying to get their hands on guns if they want them. Many also argue that more people are killed by guns through homicides, but there are more deaths in the U.S. caused by guns in suicide. Approximately 7,000 of them are suicides. Instead of worrying about getting completely rid of guns, there is studies that show there needs to be more dedicated to looking into mental health organizations instead. Most people have a fear of guns just because of the fact of what they can do to other people, not so much of how they function. Such things like gangs for example use the use of guns as a way to show their territory control because they don’t feel valued enough, or they suffer from insecurities. Also, some people look at gun violence to be a heart or a mental illness as well, instead of something else or even feeling valued (Ayres). Many people think if they cause a riot, they can get more people to pay attention to them or even get noticed by the outside world. They could be in a state of rejection or even feel they are not worthy enough to live. Even trying to get back at someone when maybe they treated them wrong. In past shootings, such as the Parkland shooting in Florida the student Nickolas Cruz, was also the shooter. In the article by Matias J. Ocner explains how he was bullied in school and didn’t feel welcomed, or even noticed. Later on, that brought on his mental illness and depression to cause him to get back with revenge for treating him the way the students may have(Ocner). That doesn’t give him an excuse to kill 17 students in a high school, but when talking about this issue it gives a more prominent description of why he could be causing such a huge massacre. A big one that is he wanted to be noticed, and he wanted others to feel the pain that he was going through.

According to an article by Gary Young called, “Why the Gun Control movement fails.” In the article, he talks about the failures that happened in the gun control movement in the U.S. Through the black American citizens and the low income. Young talks about how he’s talked to the parents of the victims of the children who were killed in a shooting back in 2013, and a police shooting in Ferguson. He then brings his audience to the point where he asked the parents an open-ended question. The question was about why they thought these tragedies kept happening. Young said that not one of their replies had anything to do with the use of guns themselves. Yet, when he asked a more leading question like what they thought of guns, almost all of them agreed and thought that guns being everywhere is a problem. They didn’t reply that getting rid of guns is the solution to all of the issues happening (Young). Judy Williams also talks a little bit about the issue as well. She explains that she doesn’t think the Second Amendment means what they think it means. That some of the issues happening don’t mean that there should be “no control.” Then she replies with, “The reality of it is, they are not going to do away with guns in this country… The fact is that they are so plentiful on the streets and people have them…. It’s ludicrous to think you can take guns out of people’s homes in this country… It ain’t gonna happen.'(Williams). Another solution can seem to be that it is not always the gun in general but the person carrying the firearm, and not blaming the gun itself. Lastly, Gary Young mentions, “None of the family members I spoke with raised the Second Amendment one way or the other. Almost all of them believed that guns were too readily available; none believed there was anything that could be done about it. Only one mother, according to her Facebook posts, had developed any real affinity with the gun-control movement.” (Young) However, when it comes down to it, no one is affiliated with the massacre that happened with guns themselves.

An article from the Washington Post, written by Nicole Lewis, gives us an insight into how congressional leaders acted after the terrible shooting that occurred in Las Vegas in October of 2018. From hundreds being wounded to 58 people dead in this mass shooting. They decided to re-open the debate on the issue of the legislation of gun control. Some politicians come into this debate and argue to the side that the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. As they are issuing more policies, more policies are coming out to not being as effective as they may have wanted. Members of Congress are trying to come up with ways and policies that could somehow prevent shootings from happening and keep the use of guns out of the wrong hands. Scalise made a claim about strict gun control laws are not having little to no effect. Much like Chicago, which is one of the strictest gun policies in the U.S., but still deals with gun violence at least once a week. Out of ranking with the strictest gun laws in the United States, Illinois is ranked number eight. Illinois gun laws and policies, include background checks on gun sales, waiting periods between the purchase and transfer of guns, and gun licensing (Lewis). New Orleans’ rates for homicides were shown to be the highest in 2016 even though their laws are set to be one of the strictest. Which in New Orleans is about 47 per 100,000 people in the state. Chicago had around 16 homicides per 100,000 people in the state. Researchers traced all new guns that were recovered or related to gun violence in Chicago. From crimes between the years 2009 and 2013. Through that, they found that 60 percent of new guns were used for gangs and that the other 32 percent were either purchased from other states or were non-gang-related crimes. There are some states that don’t have strict gun control policies, and the rates of gun death are also very high as well. According to the Law Center, Alaska ranks forty-four for their gun control policies and they have the highest rate of gun deaths in the country. Then Louisiana is ranked forty-third and again has the second-highest rate of gun deaths in the country.

On “State of the Union” on CNN on October 8th, Senator Chris Murphy said that tough gun laws don’t work and pointed at low rates of gun violence with states who have strict gun policies. According to several studies that Murphy’s spokesperson represented, they examined the changes and effects that have happened in the states that have banned assault weapons. Around the 2000s, gun violence had declined a bit, no one can really determine why that is the case. Instead, what has been banned has been semi-automatic weapons with large capacities that appear in military and criminal applications. In October 2016, Kleck gave the statement as, “gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates” (Kleck). Over the years, it has been shown that requiring a license to possess a gun rather than bans completely does help. It also has been seen to reduce the homicide rate and rate of robbery as well. Murphy made his claim of a 10-year ban on assault weapons, but it did not do much for reducing gun violence whatsoever. Some studies that say that gun control reduces gun deaths may not include deaths like suicide. There is a single study that talks and shows about the improvements in gun violence but can’t really be generalized correctly next to other states. After every mass shooting, politicians seem to have a debate over the gun control policy and how they can fix it. They talk about and focus on how to prevent another shooting from happening, and then the other argument is about how we can’t give up on the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. Politicians can also only work with the information they have available at the time. Murphy then exaggerates and gives little evidence as to what he was supporting and on his side of the debate for gun violence. He only gives a hint of the support that he is giving on his side. This also comes back to President Barack Obama’s statement claim back in 2015. He said, “The States with the Most Gun Laws see the Fewest Gun-related deaths.” Which was also a similar claim to what Murphy said. Though, Obama’s statement was from a chart published in the National Journal (Lewis).

Many people believe that the Second Amendment isn’t an unlimited right to own guns. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and since it was so long ago, people believe that it is okay to not follow it completely. According to the 2008 District of Columbia, U.S Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, stated, ‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”(Scalia). Another big argument that people debate about is that they think that more gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. According to Daily Beast and CNN contributor, David Frum states, “American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds” (Frum). The use of gun licensing laws had shown there was a 14% decrease in homicides due to gun deaths. However, there was an increase in homicides shown in places where they were allowed the right to carry and stand your ground laws. Lastly, people make another statement that guns are rarely used when fighting for self-defense. There were 29,618,300 violent crimes that had been committed between the years of 2007 and 2011. Only 0.79% of victims which are about 235,700 protected themselves with the use of a firearm. Then in 2010, there were only said to be 230 justified homicides where a citizen used a gun to kill a felon. Rather than comparing it to 8,275 criminal homicides that year. The only property crimes that were committed in the year 2007 and the year 2011, there was only about 0.12% of victims, or 103,000 that had protected themselves with the use of a firearm in the use of their own home.

In Conclusion, gun control has always been a heated topic in our society. Whether it’s if we should get rid of guns completely, make stricter gun laws, or leave the laws as they are. Many people always have an opinion on what is best. Everyone just wants what is best and to live in a world where we can be protected and secure without the issues of having to worry about a massive shooting occurring, and the certain ways we can help to prevent them in general. All in all, shootings are going to happen because there are criminals in the world that want to have revenge on at least someone, or the fact their mind is not mentally stable. There could be many reasons why someone would choose to go to an area and use gun violence to take the lives of others. Though, increasing gun laws or even legalizing gun control is not a good idea. Because of the fact that criminals will and still do, use any capacity that they can to get a gun if they want it. Rather if it’s through black marketing and buying them illegally, stealing, or even using the use of their own firearm they have in their house. The more laws are prohibited, the more people are going to want to do them. Much like the use of drugs, which is more popular now, and has the highest rate of deaths than it ever has been. When in the main reality of this all, is that no one can control criminals, but they think they can control guns. The main issue in today’s society is crime control and not gun control.