The recent shootings at San Bernardino, California and Sandy Hook, Connecticut have made many call 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. For example, they would not have helped in these two incidents. In the San Bernardino shooting, the couple legally obtained the semi-automatic or "assault rifles". No gun restrictions or bans would have helped here as there are already strict California assault weapon restrictions. The San Bernardino shooters, also had no prior history of concern that would not allow them to pass a background check. Regardless, even if they were not able to pass the checks or legally obtain them, like many criminals, they 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. The only restriction that may have prevented this would be the prohibition of mothers with mentally ill children to buy guns. 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 be passed now because they would be ineffective and dangerous. Bans or more restrictions on assault weapons could be dangerous because they 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, however unlikely, the government became tyrannical. Restrictions and bans are also ineffective because they do not actually work as is shown in San Bernardino, Sandy Hook and the Quinnipiac study, and in some cases are dangerous as they increase crime rates. More gun laws would also impose and call into question the Second Amendment and make it significantly harder for the weak to defend themselves when in danger.

One reason why no more gun laws should be made is that they would prevent the United States from maximizing its ability to protect itself against an invader. Especially, with the huge threat of ISIS looming in the Middle East. Threats of invasions like this may not be thought about, 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 trained population with guns at least stands a chance against invasion, rather than a population without guns. An invasion or attack in the US is what many fear, especially now. However, not only are guns in general a deterrent against invasion, but even more so are assault rifles.  Assault rifles are better for protection because they have better aim, are reliable with assorted ammunition and can be shot without much scatter (The AR for Home Defense). 

A tyrannical government, one of the many fears of this day and age, but was something so real during the time of our founding fathers. In the time of the American Revolution, when the colonists finally had experienced an ample amount of King George and his rule, they took up 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 "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, this 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 Americans not suspected of any crime, such as  their phone records and has only recently stopped (Kelly, 2015). However, before the Patriot Act's expiration, a majority of the US population felt that this collection of data was a major intrusion, "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 are not too much of concern, it is intrusions like this, which increase the power of governments that can lead to tyranny.

Gun ownership is not only good in the case of a tyrannical government takeover, but also in deterring crime, which gun laws have done ineffectively. 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. An example of finding and inventing loopholes, other than the idea that criminals would obtain guns somehow if they wanted to is the reference to the San Bernardino shooting. Those weapons like many others are "California compliant", which means they are made to get around certain California weapons bans and restrictions (Williams, 2015). This is done in California and could be done for any other state and circumstance with only certain modification restrictions like California.

With a more individual view, the physically weak would not have the ability to easily defend themselves from attackers if guns were banned or became too hard to acquire. Think about a group of attackers, or someone physically dominant, preying on someone weaker than them. This usually would affect older people and women because they tend to be weaker than males. One humorous story that gives an example of someone who might not have much power without a gun, is that of Aqib Talib, who plays for the reigning super bowl champions. He gave a story about how guns helped his mother and grandmother defend themselves and command respect, which without guns they would not have had. According this interview Talib gave when speaking about his grandmother, ""Big Ma? She was like the duke of the neighborhood,"  "If there was a situation or beef  --  Big Ma carried a gun with her all day long. She was in the grocery store with a .38 Special ready for any situation. Everyone around East Cleveland know Big Ma. (Highly Questionable). This instance of "Big Ma" as the "duke of the neighborhood" shows how this elderly woman was able to command respect and practically police her small community. Her ability to carry this weapon allowed for her protection. With extensive gun control, great stories like this of elderly family matriarchs, probably would disappear. This is important in communities at risk. Especially, low income communities, like the one Aqib Talib grew up in, as elderly influences to keep the young kids in line are needed. 

 On the other hand, gun ownership deters crime. Given the increase in murder rates when guns were banned, more gun ownership would probably 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 a maintaining of high gun ownership. 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.

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, "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. The Second Amendment is in fact not unlimited, there should be regulations on guns. There need to be at least some regulations because if not it would be too easy for criminals to buy guns. Measures now are working well enough, but increased laws would barely be effective as stated earlier. Pro-gun control supporters also point to gun control dating back to colonial America, "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). The founding fathers meant for regulations and restrictions of some kind, as they used restrictions. However, most people are not arguing for the repealing of current gun regulations or restrictions. 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 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 a proper militia being able to form, which is exactly what the Second Amendment was made for.

Another argument many of the opposing side have is that more gun control would reduce death. These arguments usually 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 likely reduce death 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, 9 times 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. This would not reduce death because many gun laws and restrictions are bypassed by multiple ways including stealing weapons. These weapons are then used for homicides which make up the highest percentage of gun deaths, thus these numbers would probably not be effected by laws or restrictions. As for suicides, a compromise for more stress and life background checks could be done as these may help prevent guns from falling in suicidal peoples hands. 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 be to tell parents that there is a 9 times more likely chance for accidental child death and to think twice about buying a gun. 

Another argument of pro-gun control supporters is that a tyrannical government should no longer be feared because we do not have a king anymore. These people think that with our current government system with a judicial, legislative and executive branch a tyrannical government could not happen. This is their argument against the Second Amendment. Although we are not under control of a king anymore that does not mean the "security" of our state, cannot be jeopardized by the government. The security of a state, like ours can still be compromised without a king, like the sudden rise of a dictator. America is free now, but however unlikely, there could be a coup and the military used against us. Then only our armed civilian population would be the security of the state.

To make a compromise that would still allow for an armed civilian population, but to try and decrease mass killings, and other crimes. 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 intrude too much, but do search for if they have a child with mental illness, and if they have children- alert them to the risks. These provisions may have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting, and hopefully would decrease the high amount of accidental child deaths.  Also, adding a follow up that a random inspection of a weapon at the address under the purchasers name would need to be presented or they would have their ability to buy guns suspended. This would limit some of the buying and giving to other people of guns.  I believe these are good compromises between the two sides on gun control and hopefully would get results.

Restrictions and the bans of guns, like the assault rifle, are ineffective. This lack of results is shown by that restrictions or bans would not have stopped the killers at San Bernardino or Sandy Hook. Gun control also does not work at the proposed levels because of one main premise, criminals will obtain guns somehow. This premise combined with a high restriction or ban, puts law abiding citizens without guns, at a dangerous disadvantage. More gun control and restrictions also calls into question the Second Amendment, which is for armed citizenry. This leads into why they called for armed citizenry, which is to protect against an, unlikely, tyrannical government. For that matter, an armed population was also to help protect against a foreign invader, although the military would presumably take care of most of it.  It is widely known the United States citizens are the most armed around the world, which is better than being known as the country without armed citizens.  This is why we should maintain the gun laws that we have now. More laws would be a waste of time, money and lives, if they prevented some law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

