Does the government have the right to regulate, control or even ban guns from citizens within the United States? Having the right to own guns is a basic right upon which this country was founded on. Now much discussion is taking place on whether or not an individual should have this basic right. Debate over this issue of gun control has been very prevalent as of recent. Over the last five or so years, there have been several mass shootings, several cop shootings and numerous gun related deaths in general. Society needs an answer to stop these horrific acts of violence, but nobody knows what can be done. Controlling guns is definitely not the answer, however. There are hundreds of millions of registered firearms across the whole United States, so it is almost impossible to remove each and every one of those guns from their rightful owners. It does not seem as it would be a possible feat to accomplish. Also, guns would still be present in the public through all of the firearms that are obtained illegally. Tons of these gun related deaths occur from guns obtained under the table by criminals. Most of these criminals would still have access to guns in the underground market, while the average law-abiding citizen would not.  Banning guns would simply leave these law- abiding citizens vulnerable to attack. The big picture is that controlling guns would be ineffective. It would also take away the Second Amendment right in which the United States was founded on.  Guns should not be regulated or banned because it would be an unnecessary and an ineffective action, and it would take away an American citizens Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Banning guns seems as it would most likely not be an effective action on decreasing gun violence. The first thing to consider is that people are the real ones responsible for firing a gun, so any death occurring by a gun is by fault of the people, not the weapon. It is not like it is the cars fault for an accident, it is the drivers fault. The blame should never be placed on the object but instead the user. People are so quick to act when it is time to make an assumption, and sometimes they act out in the wrong manner. They ignore the facts and the possibilities of carrying out their solutions. A solution of gun control would not work. Just look at the city of Chicago. They have the closet law to banning guns without actually banning them. Yet, they have had over 500 gun related homicides in 2012, and they had 40 within the month of January of 2013 (Davey). This just screams that controlling guns is not effective. Richard Peterson, an executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association said, "The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they've essentially made the citizens prey" (Davey). People still find ways to obtain guns, no matter what the laws are or no matter what the consequences are for getting caught. The law-abiding citizen, in return, has no means of protection from gangsters and street criminals. Banning guns would be plain useless.

The country of France can also relate to this issue. They are a country who has placed bans and restrictions on certain guns, but there are still gun related deaths occurring. There were 129 people killed and 352 injured in the November 13th attacks in France. The weapons responsible for all these deaths were in fact illegal (Hoar). It does not seem as if banning guns would be an effective strategy in combatting gun violence. If there are nearly 500 civilians that were killed or injured from an illegal gun, it does not seem that it would make sense for an individual to believe that banning guns would work. The people who believe in banning guns would have a tough time figuring out where to start. Ideas such as increasing background checks and banning certain weapons seems plausible and realistic. However, it would just be too difficult to carry these ideas out at this point in time. There are so many guns already owned in the public. It seems as it is almost too late to do anything. Even if assault rifles are banned in the future, there will still be numerous amounts of people with access to those banned weapons. Overall, it will be a difficult feat to establish.

There are over 300 million registered guns in the United States (Cooper), and there is no way in hell all of those can be confiscated or taken away. There is no logical way to rid over 300 million guns. Think about this though. If there are over 300 million registered guns in the United States, and more guns that are not even registered, how come there has not been more gun related deaths than the United States has already had? Yes, the United States has had many tragic, mass shootings over the years. But with all of those guns out there, one would expect there to be more mass shootings or more shootings in general. If the gun really is at fault for a gun related death, the number of these deaths should be higher. It sounds so foolish, yes it does, but it is just about as foolish as banning guns. Believing that taking somebody's weapon away would lead to less gun violence seems very farfetched. There is no proving that it would turn out effective in the United States.

Despite all of the recent and demoralizing gun deaths, gun deaths have actually decreased nearly 31 percent since 1993 (Cooper). Even as gun sales have increased, gun related deaths have still decreased. There is not a correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. Since Obama has been the president, there has been more than 100 million guns bought by Americans nationwide. The per-capita murder rate has been the lowest it has ever been since it has been a stat kept by the FBI (Hoar). This clearly proves that controlling guns is not an effective solution to stop these deaths. So many people are buying guns nowadays. There was a single day record of firearms sold the day after Thanksgiving, yet all gun deaths are decreasing (Hoar). Taking away people's guns would make no sense at all according to all of this information. Some people have suggested that increasing background checks would benefit society and lead to fewer gun related deaths. 

The FBI had issued a record number of background checks in 2015. The National Instant Background Check System had issued 23 million background checks. Out of all of those background checks, only about 1-2 percent came back negative. So out of the 23 million checks, at least some 20 million citizens were still able to obtain guns and bring them out to the public (Cooper). Increasing background checks would be more cost ineffective than effective. Making background checks more extensive would still leave millions and millions of guns out there in the public. Not much would be accomplished with that. More money, however, would be spent trying to pull this off. Not much positives would come out of it.

Controlling guns would not be a possible or correct way to go about reducing gun violence in the United States, but there are people who have some good points to back this stance up. Throughout the world, many different countries have passed some type of legislation that bans or restricts guns in some way. It certainly does not work for all of the countries, but it has proved effective for some. Since 2000, South Africa has seen a 13.6 percent decrease of gun homicides, resulting from their Firearm Control Act. A similar law in Australia passed in 1996 led to a 14 percent decrease in gun deaths the following year. Japan has great success also when it comes to gun laws and gun related deaths. In 2011 they had only 271,000 registered firearms out of a whopping 127 million citizens. Only 6 people were killed by a gun in 2014 in Japan. The only thing about Japan was that the framework of that nation was based upon people not having guns. In 1958, they passed a law stating "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords" (Jowit). This would be impossible to enact in the United States at this point in time. Way too many firearms are already out in the public. It is not reasonable to restrict the purchase of guns while so many civilians already have them. Also, the United States was founded on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. This amendment has not been changed for over 200 years, why would one go against a right given to United States citizens by the founding fathers at this point in time? Germany is another country with gun control success. They have one of the highest numbers of guns per person in the world. Yet, they have one of the lowest gun death rates of .05 per 1000 people. "Experts put this trend down to a number of tweaks to gun law in the wake of high-profile shootings" (Jowit). These numbers from these countries prove the control of guns to be effective, but it is only positive data from a few countries that one can definitely make a correlation between fewer gun deaths and more gun control. There have been others with some success of low gun deaths, but there is no strong indication as to why there has been success. 

There have been proposals to ban assault style weapons. It makes sense and seems as it would be a reasonable solution because of the great power possessed by these guns. However, it would prove ineffective as well. Across the country only 3.6% of gun related deaths occurred because of an assault rifle. Also, these guns have been available to buy for over 30 years, and there has been a downward trend of gun related death. This shows how banning assault style weapons would not have an effect on gun related deaths. Gun related deaths in America aren't all homicides either.

People always forget that gun deaths in the United States are highly related to suicide as well. Almost two-thirds of American gun death is caused by suicide, and since 2010, gun suicides have actually increased. There is no telling that this number will decrease given a control on owning guns, but it proves that gun related deaths are not all violent, public shootings, as many pro gun control advocates claim.

Possibly the biggest claim to defend why the United States should not control guns is that they technically cannot. This is because of 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." The founding fathers of this great nation have clearly stated that an individual has the right to bear arms. There is no argument that can be made to justify the banning and restriction of guns. The framers of the constitution knew that they had to create a nation that was free and had no signs of tyranny like Great Britain had. Great Britain had the ability to place restrictions on guns and the Second Amendment was proposed to prevent the same thing from happening in the United States. President Obama has tried several times to work with congress in order to place some sort of restrictions on guns, but congress would not pass any proposed bill. Many proponents of gun control fault congress for failure to take action to reduce gun violence. In a white house release about Obama's executive actions, they wrote how "congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand background checks and reduce gun violence" (Wolverton II). Congress is not at fault whatsoever. They believe in what is best for the country and the fact that they did not pass any bill about the stricter control on guns shows just that. They know that the United States was founded on the ability for an individual to own guns, so there is no way they are going to act in a way that would go against that. President Obama wants to act out and put matters into his own hands now.

He has put forth executive orders, without the consent of congress, to make it harder for an individual to obtain a firearm. Although he believes this is what is best for the country, this is something the founding fathers of this constitution were afraid of. They made the Second Amendment to ensure that the American citizens' right to own a gun is not infringed upon. The executive orders that Obama has issued are going against the history of the United States. All amendments are subject to change but usually if it's an agreement between the president and congress. It would be more comforting and plausible if congress and the president were at agreement regarding this issue, but they are not, so as of now banning and restricting guns is something that does not seem like it will happen. Obama is trying to single handedly fight this issue. It is clearly stated in the Second Amendment, an amendment that has been around for over 220 years that the American citizen, in fact, can own a gun. It does not seem as if Obama can change and amend this alone.

Joe Wolverton II clearly explains the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment in his article Obama's Right to Control Guns?  "The Second Amendment to the Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from infringing in any way on the God-given right of the people to defend themselves by use of arms. Any attempt, whether by a president, a court, or a Congress, to abridge that right is ultimately an attempt to prevent people from protecting themselves from tyranny" (Wolverton II). This statement could not be more head on. So many people are calling for guns to be regulated in some sort of fashion, but they just do not realize the impossibility of their ideas. Any action infringing upon the right to own a gun is not possible. There should not be a discussion nor an argument at all discussing the ban for guns.

The United States has seen and experienced a fair share of gun related deaths and mass shootings over the last few years. The media is so universal and easily accessible in this day and age. They make it seem as gun violence has skyrocketed across the country and has constantly been increasing. This has caused a major uproar in the government and citizens across the country are voicing out there opinions. There are a fair share civilians that believe taking guns away would stop gun violence from occurring. This solution does not appear to be the right one and even if it is the right one, it would not be possible. There is no way to pass any laws that would ban, restrict or control guns, so it does not make any sense why people believe something can be done. It would not be feasible, realistic or fair to the average law-abiding citizen of the United States to take away their guns. Nothing would result other than hundreds of millions of innocent citizens losing their basic right given since the founding of our country. Gun control is something that will never happen in the history of the United States.

