Has the solution to something seen as a "problem" been to increase the amount of "problem causers"?  Many Americans see guns as instruments of harm and destruction and believe that the sale of guns needs to be restricted heavily, or even banned, in order to keep the public safe and reduce gun violence.  As James Q. Wilson states in Gun Control Isn't the Answer, "There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls." (Wilson, 1). However, guns in America are not the problem many citizens try to make them out to be.  These guns, in fact, are the exact tools that people need in order to prevent them from being abused.  Guns are the greatest possible tool for self defense, which is why we have the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Instead of restricting gun accessibility, implementing them as mandatory would be the best deterrent of gun crime.  Another reason banning or restricting guns will not reduce gun crime is because the people that commit such crimes are lawbreakers, and would just illegally come into possession of a firearm instead of abiding the law and going through whatever legal hoops there are to jump through in order to obtain a firearm like the everyday citizen would.  Thus, instead of trying to make it difficult for criminals to obtain guns, America should adopt a system requiring gun safety training, ownership of a firearm for every citizen over 18 years old, and federal concealed carry permits.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that criminals do not care if they break the law, which is extremely relevant.  No matter how many restrictions are put on the American public, it will not affect the gun crime rate significantly.  James Q. Wilson hits on this in his article Gun Control Isn't the Answer when discussing the use of firearms illegally and the federal background checks that one must obtain in order to purchase a firearm, stating "many [guns] would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow." (1).  Wilson has another article, titled Just Take Away Their Guns as a satirical take on the American citizens pushing for stiffer gun control.  In Just Take Away Their Guns, James Q. Wilson uses numbers and data to confirm the lack of difference in gun crime rate we would see with stiffer gun control laws, declaring "There are some 200 million guns in private ownership, about one-third of them handguns. Only about 2 percent of the latter are employed to commit crimes. It would take a Draconian, and politically impossible, confiscation of legally purchased guns to make much of a difference in the number used by criminals. Moreover, only about one-sixth of the handguns used by serious criminals are purchased from a gun shop or pawnshop. Most of these handguns are stolen, borrowed or obtained through private purchases that wouldn't be affected by gun laws." (1).  This deficiency of gun laws impacting criminal behavior can also be observed in the study composed by Stuart Jay Deutsch and Francis B. Alt, The Effect of Massachusetts' Gun Control Law on Gun Related Crimes in the City of Boston.  Massachusetts instituted a law upping the penalty for anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm and over the course of 9 years and "no statistically significant changes in the homicide rate were observed" (Deutsch and Alt, 566).  Furthermore, from these statements and the evidence which alluded to them, it is seen how criminals will break the law, therefore meaning that stiffer gun control laws will fail in hindering gun crime.  

Another issue people have with these stiffening gun control policies is that they wont be able to defend themselves.  The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (US Const. Amend. II).  This was enacted to ensure the safety and self defense of any red-blooded American in case of foreign or threatening invasion.  To take away Americans' right to guns is to take away the safety of law abiding citizens of the United States.  Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, conducted a study in 1997 to attempt to determine the amount of times a firearm is used for self defense annually.  The study concluded it was in excess of one million.  In a recent article titled Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth, Kleck spoke of the study and its relevance today, saying "The claim that there are huge numbers of defensive uses of guns in the United States has been repeatedly confirmed, and remains one of the most consistently supported assertions in the guns-violence research era." (1).  James Q. Wilson also cites this study composed by Kleck in his article Just Take Away Their Guns.  Wilson says "Based on a household survey, Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, has estimated that every year, guns are used - that is, displayed or fired - for defensive purposes more than a million times, not counting their use by the police." (1) and goes on to infer "If his estimate is correct, this means that the number of people who defend themselves with a gun exceeds the number of arrests for violent crimes and burglaries." (1) which makes the argument for self defense completely reasonable. Suppose a delinquent enters a bank with the intention of robbing it, but, when he walks through the door there are two customers among the crowd inside with handguns in holsters on their belts.  The would-be-robber is going to think twice about his next move because he knows his life is on the line now, and will most likely walk out of the bank and leave the area. "The available evidence supports the claim that self-defense is a legitimate form of deterrence. People who report to the National Crime Survey that they defended themselves with a weapon were less likely to lose property in a robbery or be injured in an assault than those who did not defend themselves. Statistics have shown that would-be burglars are threatened by gun-wielding victims about as many times a year as they are arrested" (Wilson, 1). This evidence and the arguments presented provide excellent insight into why restricting or banning guns in the United States would be detrimental to society and ideal for the expansion of crime. If the people get to keep their guns they get to keep their piece of mind, and can combat any type of crime done upon them.

To further ascertain the argument for guns, a look around the rest of the world should be taken to see what works well.  The prevention of putting firearms into the hands of American citizens will never stop gun violence, nor even hinder it meaningfully.  On this side of the spectrum in the worldview sits the United Kingdom.  The UK banned civilians from the possession, ownership, purchase, or sale of almost all handguns.  However, this has not solved gun crime.  In fact, after the ban was enacted, the murder rate per capita rose from 1.12 per 100,000 people the year before to the law to 1.43 per 100,000 the year after the law.  On the opposite side of the spectrum, what will work to prevent gun crime however, is more guns.  Switzerland has the one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world, "government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010" (Bachmann, 1).  Despite having such little crime, Switzerland has a lot of guns, which may seem shocking.  Switzerland requires every male, age 18 or up, have military training and keep a Sig SG 550 (assault rifle) and a Sig Sauer p229 (handgun) in their homes.  The only time in recent history a mass shooting has occurred in Switzerland was in 2001, and anti gun groups immediately started to protest.  Although "The subsequent opposition to widespread gun ownership spearheaded a push for stricter arms legislation. The government and pro-gun groups argued, however, that the country's existing laws regulating the sale, ownership and licensing of private guns, which includes a ban on carrying concealed weapons, are stringent enough. The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer" (Bachmann, 1).  The people of Switzerland love their guns, and "the Swiss equivalent of the NRA, ProTell, rejects any new restrictions. Named after Swiss folk hero William Tell, who used a crossbow to target his enemies, the group argues that there are plenty already, including a crackdown in the past 18 months on the purchase and transport of ammunition." (Nelson, 1). The majority of Switzerland's population in pro-gun for the idea of self defense, and in 2011 they voted against storing the military issued firearms in government armory's because "they saw it as undermining trust in Swiss soldiers." (Nelson, 1).   The reason this Swiss strategy works is the same reason why countries with nuclear bombs do not launch them at each other, because they are both capable of destroying each other.  Every male in Switzerland has firearm training, so the idea of causing a violent crime is virtually not there, because every Swiss citizen is mindful of these skills the next person has.  

It is proven time after time, no matter how you slice it, that guns, in fact, are the exact tools that people need in order to prevent gun crime. People that commit such crimes are lawbreakers, they are not going to accept defeat because of elaborate background checks.  In order to prevent crimes in America, all citizens, over the age of 18, with no criminal history, or mental illness should have firearm safety training and a firearm.  If everyone had a gun, society would rely on an unfaltering system of checks and balances among citizens, thus instilling intimidation into the hearts of those who dare to cause harm to others.  The police carry around firearms in order to protect themselves, and citizens should be required to as well, because sometimes the police force is not around or is unable to respond fast enough to hinder the majority of the damage which may be done.  The ability to protect oneself and others from danger that comes with the possession of a firearm could very literally be life saving.  The restriction of gun sales and the increase of background checks and regulations upon firearms needs to be stopped immediately.  An armed America is a safe America.  

