I am interested in the topic of gun control because I feel that having strict gun laws is a punishment on those who have not done anything wrong.  This research affects me because I grew up around guns, and some of my fondest memories come from spending time at the shooting range with my family.  There is a feeling that comes over you when you can hit a target accurately and although not everyone has the same feelings towards guns, I know I'm not the only one who gets it.  Then there are people who hunt with firearms, and many of them have grown up hunting and its been a family tradition.  To enforce laws that prohibit the kinds of weapons gun owners are allowed to buy can make sense sometimes, like not being able to own automatic weapons, but there are also laws trying to be put into affect like limitations on the size of the magazines for rifles and that really just doesn't make sense.  Thus, I am compelled to make an argument that making firearm laws strict is not the best way to combat gun violence, but rather we could drop the rates of violent crimes if we made guns more accessible.  


 In Wilson's article, he discusses how many people have a misunderstanding of guns and gun laws.  He refers to newspapers that made critical claims of the United States' gun policies, yet the claims some of these papers made were all invalid.  One such claim was that buying a machine gun is "easier than obtaining a driver's license," however no one is permitted to own an automatic weapon.  Wilson also talks of how firearms are sometimes essential in self-defense, and that although estimates vary, there are over 100,000 cases of self-defense every year.  

In "Why Gun Control Can't Eliminate Gun Violence" by Fawn Johnson, she discusses why strict gun control policies will not deter criminals, but only punish law abiding citizens.  She argues that those who commit violent crimes clearly aren't worried about breaking the law, and that employing stiffer gun control laws will not hinder them.  However, it will punish gun enthusiasts and there is a strong connection among the gun owning community which comes from discussing types of guns as well as special attachments for firearms which are now on the verge of being outlawed.


Helena Bachmann composed an article about how Switzerland's lax gun laws and large amount of guns per capita, they are third in the world behind the United States and Serbia, may actually deter gun crime.  The probability of a criminal trying to use a firearm as a weapon and being met with firepower in Switzerland is so astronomically high compared to the United States that it stops people from committing these crimes.  The majority of people being armed may be the perfect self defense and the reason why the Swiss gun crime rate is one tenth of what it is in the U.S.

The question is arguable because we can't know what will truly happen if we adopt newer laws about gun control or which will definitely be the better solution of the two arguments without doing them, but it is the purpose of research like this in order to try and answer which will be better.  Some will agree with me, and say that perhaps standard issuing a sidearm to every adult American with the completion of a firearm safety course is the necessary step of self defense in order to reduce gun crime, and others will argue that the only way to reduce it is to get rid of all guns in America.  

Among both sides of the argument there are a couple agreements.  The most recognizable one is that it is impossible to rid the U.S. of gun violence.  However, we can reduce it a lot.  Another agreement is that guns do increase the death toll in every country, because they have the potential to make violent crimes "easier" for the criminals, per se, and although they have the power to hurt the innocent, they also have the power to protect them if used properly.
