The recent shootings at San Bernardino, California and Sandy Hook, Connecticut have had many calls for massive gun laws and restrictions. For good reason, fourteen people were killed and twenty two injured at San Bernardino and 26 people adults and children were killed at Sandy Hook. However, more gun restrictions or bans will not end mass shootings, or do much for that matter. They would not have even helped in these two incidents. In San Bernardino the couple legally obtained the semi-automatic or "assault rifles". No gun restrictions or bans would have helped here as there is already a strict California assault weapons restrictions and they had no prior history of concern not to pass background check. Regardless, even if they were not able to pass the checks or legally obtain them, like many criminals could have found a way to get them.  In Sandy Hook, the shooter killed his mother and broke into her gun safe. This too would not have been stopped by background checks or restrictions. Unless the ability to buy weapons would be taken away from those with mentally ill children, which is unlikely. The current gun laws trying to be passed regard assault rifles and high capacity magazines.  There should not be any more gun laws, and specifically the types of laws trying to passed right now because they would be ineffective and dangerous. Bans or more restrictions on assault weapons could be dangerous because it could result in the inability for US citizens to fight against an invasion, in an event when the military could not. Countries have agreed it is pointless to invade the US because everyone has a gun. Another dangerous outcome could be if, this is very unlikely, but the government became tyrannical. Restrictions and bans are also ineffective because they do not actually work, and in some cases are dangerous as they increase crime rates. More gun laws would also impose on the major sport of hunting and call into question the second amendment.

One reason why no more gun laws should be made is that they would prevent the United States from protecting itself against an invader. Especially, with the huge threat of ISIS looming in the Middle East. Threats of invasions like this may not be realized, but the fact there is such large gun ownership in the United States, deters attacks, "A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion" (Gun Control). A population with guns as least stands a chance against invasion, rather than a population without guns, especially if parts, if not all of that population was trained. An invasion or attack in the US is what many fear especially now, "Fully 83 percent of registered voters say they believe a terrorist attack in the United States resulting in large casualties is likely in the near future"(Clement, and Eilpern, 2015). Imagine the numbers if a large part of the US population was not armed and dangerous. This large population of the US is actually according to a study "published in the journal of Injury Prevention  ...  'One-third of Americans reported owning a gun'" (Fox, 2015). This is a deterrent against invasion. Not only are guns in general a deterrent against invasion, but even more so are assault rifles. As assault rifles are better for defense because they have better aim, are reliable with assorted ammunition and can be shoot without much scatter (The AR for Home Defense). 

A second reason why no more gun laws should be made is that guns protect against a tyrannical government. This is seen by the American Revolution, as when the colonists finally had taken enough of King George and his rule, they took arms and fought. This would not be possible, or at least, much less successful if they did not already own firearms. The founding fathers realized this and put it in the constitution as the second amendment, "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" (Amendment II Right to Bear Arms). Although not expressly stated as "to stop a tyrannical state" that is covered by stating "The security of a free State" because a state would not be free if it was tyrannically run. Especially by the strength and intrusiveness of government today the one safeguard against a tyrannical state is needed more than ever. For example, because of the Patriot Act, the National Security Administration has been collecting data on American's, not suspected of any crime, phone records that just recently stopped in 2015 (Kelly, 2015). However, before the Patriot Act's expiration, the collection of this data was a major intrusion that a majority of the US population felt as well, "This sentiment stretches to 59% of Americans now believing the federal government has too much power, up eight percentage points from a year ago" (Saad, 2010). This is why we need guns in case the government gets to powerful, which would be hard in America, but it is possible. It would be better to be safe than sorry. Although phone records is not too much of concern is steps like this, which increase the power of governments that can lead to tyranny.

A third reason why no more gun laws should be made is that they do not deter crime, but gun ownership does. Would you not think twice about committing a crime if there was a good chance someone was packing heat? I know I would. Gun laws and restrictions on the types of weapons like concealable weapons or assault weapons are not effective, " assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level"  ,"states with restrictions on carrying concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states"(Quinnipac University, 2014). This is alarming as not only are bans on guns ineffective, but also dangerous as in the case of the ban on concealed weapons. Considering that victims are less protected without a weapon, no wonder there were more attacks. On the other hand, gun ownership deters crime, which is predictable given the increase in murder rates when guns were banned that the opposite decision, more gun ownership, would have an adverse effect. The success of gun ownership is seen in this study as it reports, "The relationship between homicide rates and the supposed measure of gun ownership provided by the Small Arms Survey shows that even with their obviously biased measure of gun ownership, more gun ownership is associated with fewer homicides" (Comparing Murder Rates ... ,2014). Consequently, there should not be more gun laws, but more guns because they are what really reduce murder. As it was put by one journalist about the doubling of gun related crimes in London after their strict gun bans" Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place" (Stossel, 2007). Thus not only would more gun laws be a waste of time and money, but also with lives.

Now I have never been hunting, but I want to. Hunting animals is a human instinct that dates back to our existence. The fourth reason why no more gun laws, specifically assault weapon bans, should be made is that they would impose on hunting and sport. In addition, they would cripple a large industry and hurt the US economy, and stop one of the most enjoyed American pastimes. This would happen because these assault bans would overlap with hunting rifles regardless if the intentions were to leave hunting rifles out of it. There are many modern day hunting rifles that would be viewed as assault weapons and only the older more traditional hunting rifles that come to mind would be spared. This would happen because so many modern day hunting rifles today are used for hunting and sport, "In fact, the Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled "assault weapons," are the rifles most often used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer" (National Shooting Sports Foundation). Hunting weapons and assault weapons account for a surprising amount of the US economy and leisure activity as, "In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, and they spent $7.7 billion on guns, sights, ammunition, and other hunting equipment" (Gun Control). Another major impact of gun laws would be that "the new laws would certainly dent the nation's $32 billion gun industry" (Brown, 2013). These millions of hunters and billions of dollars would best just be left alone, especially since new gun restrictions and bans would not work.

Some claim as one of the major reasons for more gun laws is that the Second Amendment is not unlimited. This was stated by one of the Supreme Court justices that "Like most rights, the right secured by the not unlimited" it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon ...  in any manner whatsoever  ... for whatever purpose" (Gun control). This was said after the Supreme Court overturned a ban on handguns and the Second Amendment is in fact not unlimited, there should be regulations on guns. Pro-gun control supporters also point to that there was gun control dating back to colonial America, "included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned"(Gun Control). There too, is no denying this that they founding fathers clearly meant for regulations and restrictions of some kind to be had as they had them. However, most people are not arguing for the repealing of current gun regulations or restrictions, which they accept. They are arguing against the complete ban of assault rifles or handguns and against more restrictions on either. Those against gun control are not arguing the second amendment is unlimited, they are arguing that it restrictions not be too limiting. Of course there should be some kind of restrictions or regulations on guns. Anti-gun control supporters are arguing against bans and restrictions that would limit so much that a proper militia could not be formed, which is exactly what the Second Amendment says.

Another argument many of the opposing side have is that more gun control would reduce death. These arguments usually just cite that guns are responsible for a large amount of deaths "There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013 ... Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths"(Gun Control). Guns do account for a large amount of deaths in the United States. Another study cited that gun control would reduce death is for children, "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."(Gun Control). That is a horrifying number 9x more likely. However, the fact the guns do account for a large amount of death in the US cannot support that gun control would reduce death. It cannot because many criminals steal weapons, which homicides are the highest percentage, and that suicides from guns may be lowered, if a stress and life background was put in place, but not suicides in general. The facts about the high amount of children accidentally killed is horrifying, but the way they are killed, parents putting guns in the house, is a choice. Why ruin for all what parents already have the choice of doing? A reasonable thing to do would to tell parents that there is a 9x more likely for accidental child death and to think twice about buying a gun. 

I propose that universal background checks be made. However, it must be readily available to the public to perform background checks for private transactions and at low cost, under 20 dollars. This is reasonable as checks do not take that much time, only a couple of minutes. I also propose these checks not go to deep, but do add if they have a child with mental illness, and if they have children- alert them to the risks. Also add a follow up that a random inspection of the weapon at the address under the purchasers name or they would have their ability to buy suspended. This would limit some of the buying and giving to other people. Sorry about the shortness as you can see changed the whole paper.

Another paragraph reason against gun control

Another paragraph of proposal, or long extension of current one

Conclusion 

