I really became intrigued by the topic of gun control, especially in South Carolina, after stumbling upon an article by Walter Kirn. In this article, Kirn discusses his personal experience of being raised around guns and how that positively influenced his life. Kirn begins with a personal reflection of his first experience with a gun as a young teenager and how this positive experience allowed his family to feel safer in a time of terror. What really caught my attention was his next point, which reflected on the tragedy of the Colorado movie theatre shooting, but under a different light then most reports were shining. He states, "But I could still shoot -- with pleasure, without guilt, and with no evident post-traumatic pangs. When the time to lay blame for the massacre arrived, it wasn't Americans' easy access to firearms that I found myself deploring, but a depraved, unbalanced culture of splatter-fest games and other dark entertainments. I blamed the potential for gruesome fame nurtured by the Internet, as well as a mental health system that's not a system" (Kirn). Kirn, working as a journalist at the time, offers up many other possible causes of these mass shootings and by doing so, allowed me as a researcher to delve into one of the main points of my argument.

My personal opinion on guns has changed significantly since I began my research. At first I just wanted to become more aware of a topic that is so relevant to our nation and since has become more and more apparent to me since I have lived down south. Looking back, I almost feel that my initial view on national gun control, caused by my lack of personal experience with firearms, was directly based on the stories I was hearing through the media. I would watch reports on these shootings as they occurred weekly and being so naive on the subject, I would look at the simple solution to this problem: Get rid of guns. Next thing I know I was living across the east coast in South Carolina, listening to my in state friends display their broad knowledge of firearms through their personal collections. My friend's experiences as well as a little bit of research through the Thomas Cooper Library were all it took for me to initially question and later completely adjust the argument I wanted to make regarding gun control in my home of Carolina. In the past few months I have been able to feel the power that comes with firing off a rifle for the first time, I have learned the firearm laws of South Carolina and compared them to my hometown and I have heard from many people, much more experienced than I, their personal opinions and encounters with firearms. All of my recent exposure to these aspects of gun control finally allowed me to form my argument. I truly believe that citizens of South Carolina, through proper background checks, should be allowed to purchase guns legally because firearms are a basic constitutional right and the majority of guns owned legally are used for safety and self-defense, as opposed to violence as portrayed by the media.

One of the first things that I noticed when I began my research was how differently firearms are viewed in South Carolina compared to my hometown of Massachusetts. Since gun laws vary from state to state, my first step was to look in further to the regulations that South Carolina holds for purchasing, owning and carrying firearms. The main point that I took away from beginning my research this way was that the little knowledge I had of gun laws in Massachusetts would not be very relevant to the work I would be doing for this research paper. This piece of legislation taught me what it takes for a gun to be legal, what weapons can be concealed in which places and also what it takes to be eligible for the purchase of firearms (South Carolina Law Enforcement Division). This source serves as the base for the entire topic of gun control in South Carolina and it allowed me to become more knowledgeable of the legislation that I would be looking into before I chose an argument and began my research. The looser regulations on firearms in South Carolina compared to Massachusetts is what first got me to stray away from my initial opinion of gun control and after further research, created my argument.

My next step was to take my knowledge of the legislation and search for statistics that could help me prove that the availability of firearms is not our nation's problem. I first learned that there is a ton of debate over this topic, and the topic is composed of so many unique factors that it becomes difficult to prove my argument with clear cut statistics. After a lot of research, I kept getting stuck on the two-sided argument that increasing gun availability could result in an increased homicide rate, while at the same time it could help a lot of citizens feel more safe and own firearms to use for self-defense (Wodarz). The main reason that the statistics I found could vary significantly among sources is because there are so many components that go into these studies and every study is composed using different factors. For example, when you are looking into the relationship between gun availability and homicide rate, you need to account for several other factors. You need to be aware that not all homicides that occur are done so with legal guns, and not all legal guns are still in the hands of their licensed owners. You also need to take into account that someone could use a legal gun to kill a shooter and prevent an attack, and that would still be considered a homicide in the statistics (Stolzenberg). In short, these statistics have been very effective to my research and understanding of gun control, but they are not clear cut enough to prove either side of this argument.

While informative articles and direct statistics may not solely prove my argument, they definitely provide a stronger understanding of the topic and the main points I should consider with researching such a controversial topic. I think that one article from the New York Times that I read did the best job of providing these studies to back up my argument because the author provides facts that directly back up my side of the argument through such a credible source. As long as the audience is aware that there are other factors involved and the author is biased, this source can be essential for backing up my argument with factual evidence. This article provides key evidence such as, "The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half" and "the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime, nor a spike in killings." This article also helped the expansion of my argument that firearms should be allowed through detailed background by stating, "New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. Why empower criminals to arm themselves" (Kristof). That point of the article really got me thinking about how many guns are floating around in the hands of the wrong people and what percentage of our country's gun violence is being caused by this group of people alone. When I first began my research I was only looking at the details of the current news tragedy and that is why I gained sympathy for the victims and initially was against firearm availability. After reading countless sources, I now know that these cases are made up of so much more than just a shooter, a weapon and a group of victims. You have to look at the background behind the story. You need to look at how and why the shooter obtained the gun and if the shooter is in the mental state to be making their own decisions. Lastly, you must investigate whether the man behind the gun is even allowed to carry a firearm legally (Steverman). I discovered that the majority of cases in the news would happen whether or not guns could be purchased because the killers often obtain the weapons illegally and there are so many firearms currently carried around South Carolina that shutting down gun stores would just open up room for underground gun purchases and more theft.

An important thought to keep in mind when looking at firearm statistics and violence is that the type of gun is very important, and that is not always reflected in all statistics. Most of the shootings that take the most victims are executed with automatic weapons that are not legal in our country. Many other people own illegal guns and end up using them for violence as well. The selection of firearms that can be legally purchased through detailed background checks is composed of many different rifles. In a recent study done for homicides in 2012, rifles only accounted for 3.6% of homicides, and that is without knowing if the rifle was even registered to that shooter on not (Lindgren). While I feel legal firearms as a whole should be able to be purchased, I especially feel there should be no restrictions against purchasing rifles if you have a clean record. I believe that rifles are commonly used for hunting and would not be an effective weapon to use for shootings due to the smaller bullet capacity and the time it takes in between shots. With that being said, it would still be an effective weapon to have in a time of self-defense because it would allow you to at least fire off one shot in a timely manner. Although I am dedicated to the side of firearms being sold legally, I do not see the need for automatic weapons or any other overpowered weaponry to be legal because I feel that these type of weapons are rarely used positively. 

A big concern when discussing gun control is the policies carried within the second amendment. Many people feel that their rights as United States citizens would be violated if they were not allowed to purchase firearms. I agree with this viewpoint because our country was built on these core ideals from the Constitution and a lot of controversy among our own nation could occur if these ideals are altered. The main argument that opposes this point is that the Constitution was written during a time when our nation was very different and the policies of the second amendment are outdated now with all the advancements that have come to guns and weapons (Barrett). While I agree that times have changed and firearms have become significantly more powerful, I think that the words of the second amendment will always remain sacred and important to our nation. Personally, I know many people who would be angered by a change to an amendment that is so historical to American culture and this debate could spark a lot of protests, riots and violence, the last things our country needs right now.

Similar to every debate, there are many arguments that can be made for both sides of gun control. I understand that guns are weapons and they can be used very negatively if they end up in the wrong hands. I also am aware that guns are powerful and can cause violence and even a person with a clean record could have criminal intentions. While guns can be used for self-defense, it is rare that a bystander with a concealed and legal firearm is in the right time and place to prevent a tragedy. After in depth research, I truly feel that these counterarguments are outweighed tenfold by the arguments presented to keep firearm sales legal (Lindeen). Although guns can be used negatively, most people that use them for violence did not get their weapon from a gun store. With the amount of weapons already floating around our nation, a ban on gun sales would not change these criminals' abilities to obtain a weapon. I think that the people with a clean record and violent intentions are all people with either mental illnesses or corrupted minds and are not a good representation of the type of people that legally purchase firearms. They make up such a small percent of firearm purchasers, but draw all the attention because they are the ones who make the headlines through tragedy. Lastly, even though it is rare that a bystander would have a firearm on their person at the right time and place to stop an incident, I have heard many stories of times where this does occur. In all of those cases, the person who prevented the criminal from killing was wielding a legal weapon. The majority of shooters use illegal weapons or weapons that they obtained illegally, which makes a ban on firearms once again unhelpful to the situation.

Just like technology, firearms are continuing to improve and become more powerful. Gun control has stirred up quite the debate in our country and with the spotlight shining bad light on shooters; it is hard to see both sides of the argument first hand. It took a lot of research for me, a person previously unexperienced with firearms, to side with pro guns. I truly believe that continuing to sell certain firearms legally, only to those that are approved to purchase them through a detailed background check, is the best step for our nation. Stricter background checks and closer watch of private gun sales could help our nation to make sure that these weapons always end up in the right hands and timely checkups could ensure that they stay there (Sen). Continuing the sale of firearms would allow our country to carry on the ideals of the prestigious Constitution as the technology around us continues to advance. There is no telling what is in store for the future of firearms, but I think that banning them and not finding out would be a huge mistake. Guns bring a lot of power to individuals and as long as the individuals that carry these firearms are responsible and well minded, only positive things can come from the sale of firearms. The next challenge our country faces is creating a precise way of making sure guns only end up in the hands that they should.

