A national controversial topic in the United States has been the opinion on gun control. Major reason is because there are many great arguments made from both sides and it is difficult to make changes to the laws. However, looking into what guns have caused should make people concern whether owning a gun is the right choice. People who are going for the guns, says they are using them for protection, but guns can be used for murder. Guns allow a person to kill multiple people easily because they can be also used in long or short ranges. For a knife, it is difficult to kill or injure multiples of people because knife is a short-range. There are dozens of people have been complaining about difficulties of owning a gun. However, they should consider that those laws are for the safety of the people and themselves from criminals obtaining a gun. If everyone knew that nobody owned a gun, the stress they usually receive from not knowing whether a certain person owned a gun would be gone. People should be able to freely walk around neighbors, colleges, streets, or anywhere without the fear of getting shot. There are also terrorist or extreme groups around the world that attacks using firearms. People in United States are afraid they could be attacked too so they have a strong will that they need to keep a gun for protection against them. Based on the past arguments, the process to obtain guns should be stricter or illegal in the United States because the number of death in the nation will drop and people will feel safer. 

The gun control debate is one of the longest debate that has not concluded. Many people said the word "gun control" came out in the 1934, when National Firearms Act of 1934 was announced. Some says it was when Second Amendment was published (Washington Post). However after Second Amendment, for centuries there were peace until 1934. Starting in the 1990s, many politicians have used this debate to their advantages. For an example, there was a discussion about gun control in 1996 presidential debate. This debate included a survey that reported two thirds of Americans indicated that their important vote for president will determine by the candidate's position on gun control. In this presidential debate, the people who are against guns wanted a candidate who would toughen gun control laws, especially handguns. As the opposition, people who were against gun control wanted to repeal the Brady Act. However, twenty years later the favors went toward the gun control supporters because Brady Act is still active and stricter for the safety of people (Blendon).

Statistics that was researched by BBC, British Broadcast Center, shows that guns are dangerous weapon, capable of killing multiple people at one shooting. According to the research, there were 372 mass shootings, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. A mass shooting is when four or more people get killed or injured in a shooting. There are hundreds of mass shooting occurrence because guns allow so much power, that anyone are capable of killing or injuring at least 4 people. Another shocking data was that there were sixty-four school shootings. In total, excluding suicides, there were 13,286 people were killed and 26,819 people were injured. Comparing to three other countries: Australia, Canada, and United Kingdom, United States holds the first place homicide rate that occurred by guns in 2012. In the United States, over half of homicide rate were committed by a firearm. Sixty percent were by guns while the next highest was Canada with thirty-one percent. BBC predicts this result because in 2012, the number of gun murders per capita in the United States was nearly thirty times more than United Kingdom. Also, the number of guns in the United State were estimated around three-hundred million. This amount is enough for every man, woman, and child in United States to own a gun. There are too many incidents occurring due to enormous amount of guns that could easily obtained by unknown criminals (BBC News).

William Vizzard writes about how gun control laws became official and the actions that are currently taking in "The Current and Future State of Gun Policy in the United States" posted on the Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons on October 30, 2015. Over the past century, there have been only few changes that occurred in firearms policy. When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, John Kennedy, and Martin Luther King were assassinated, Gun Control Act of 1968 was produced. This law is currently the primary federal law. Clinton manages to pass the Brady Act, purchasing from licensed firearms dealers required to do background checks. For the next two decades, there were no significant changes made but Second Amendment began to be recognized and spoken very often. The discussion flared up again when tragedy of mass shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut occurred. State legislatures have become extremely active to liberate concealed carry laws. Especially, after Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, few states have stated restrictions on semiautomatic firearms. 

Few years ago, Antonio Andres and Katherine Hempstead published an article, "Gun Control and Suicide: the Impact of Firearm Regulation on Male Suicides in the United States from 1995-2004." This article includes a research that took nine years. The research was to see if firearm regulation would have an impact on male suicides. The research included 500 men, ages 15 and higher all over the country. After nine years, the research concluded that the firearm regulations have a significant effect on male suicide. The average rate of suicide has dropped from 21.05 to 16.76. Firearm regulations are function to reduce overall gun availability. The result was that male suicide dramatically decreased when firearms regulations were acted upon them. Having restrictions were a great method to suicide prevention and according to this article, firearms regulations were one effective approach to reduce gun availability. This article shows that stricter laws or firearms regulations prevent people from possessing guns could bring down homicide rates, including suicides, by firearms.

Supporters of the gun control thinks totally differently. People that support gun control say that by owning guns, there could be a stop to the regime control and protect themselves from criminals. If there are no guns, governments have a greater chance for despotism. In America, people look down upon this form of strict government control because they believe despotism would never occur on them, "[n]othing suits power so well as extreme individualism." Without guns, it is easily to be controlled and much harder to protect the people they care about in case of emergencies, such as terrorist attack, robbery, or gun threat. Another popular argument was that if gun ownership became a crime, then the only people who will have guns are criminals. This means that the good people will be disadvantaged because they are unarmed while criminals have a huge advantage with guns. Without guns, the chance of fighting back reduces significantly (Moosa).

Hugh Gusterson, an anthropologist at George Washington University, writes an article, "Gun Control: A response to Niklas Hultin," about American anthropologists have wrote nearly nothing about United States gun culture or the gun control debate. He argues that the lack of anthropologists writing about gun control changes the "native point of view" of gun ownership. Anthropologists are people who studies humans, past and present. They should be the closest people who can answer why people want or don't want guns excluding the reasons stated by others. Anthropologists have to make a bigger picture by studying the political economy of the gun industry and the victims of gun violence. Hugh is not criticizing about the work of individual anthropologists but all anthological work on guns with several huge holes. The research should not be focused on gun owners because the effect of ethos about gun control reduces. In order to enrich the missing holes, not only writing on gun owners but examining other cultures in different communities to get different perspectives.

In the article, "Overcoming the Fear of Guns, the Fear of Gun Control, and the Fear of Cultural Politics: Constructing a Better Gun Debate," Donald Braman and Dan Kahan discusses new ways that could make gun control stricter. This article was published in Social Science Research Network on 2006. Both of the authors have studied in the law school so they also write about American law. Their discussion was that this argument should be investigated deeper than statistics and address pathos and social attitudes on guns themselves. Guns can used or be represented many different ways: symbolizing honor, human mastery over nature, and create forbidden social hierarchies. Most of the times, guns represent power. With power, people can get out of control and start controlling others, which can create social hierarchies. Also, Braman and Kahan believe that when people argue about gun control, they ignore what really motivates individuals to favor or oppose gun control. Therefore there should be new ways to make an argument than to suppress or neglect each other.

On January 5th 2016, CNN channel in YouTube has published a speech from President Obama at the White House about gun rights. President Obama discussed how the availability of firearms will be harder to get due to the government applying certain restrictions. Restrictions such as anyone who sells firearms must have a license and conduct background checks on everyone they sell to. This is to ensure that it is more difficult for dangerous criminals to have access to firearms. Supposedly this is to make for a more smooth process for law abiding gun owners and dealers. By doing this, President Obama hopes for criminals to have less access to firearms, domestic abuse rates to decrease, and for the people of America to be better protected.

Jonathan Tobin, senior online editor and principal political blogger of Commentary magazine, published an article, "The Second Amendment Blocks Gun Control Efforts," in The New York Times. President Obama has always tried to make more laws about gun control after a mass shooting occurred. This happened with the incident of Oregon, "President Obama sought to exploit the occasion of the tragedy in Oregon by using it to sound another call for more gun control legislation." President wants to stop people dying by guns. He believes that promoting legislation would prevent gun crimes "[b]ut the president is speaking for many on the left when he argues that 'something' must be done to make guns less available." President wants to stop people getting killed by guns and be easily obtain guns. However, Second Amendment is preventing his will. People who are against gun control says, "long as the Second Amendment to the Constitution remains the law of the land, the right to bear arms will ensure that guns will continue to be freely obtained." This is the reason why President and his allies does not want to meddle in this topic and strongly publish laws or anything to make guns harder to obtain. The Second Amendment clearly says right to bear arms. People who are against gun control are also facing difficulties because of Second Amendment. Few wants to get rid of Second Amendment, but that is near impossible. The real debate about the gun control should done by using and talking about Second Amendment.

With the new technologies in the twenty-first centuries, 3-D guns are created but they have also been drawn into the debate. Josh Blackman published an article, "The 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 3D Printed Guns," in Social Science Research Network on June 14, 2014. In the twenty-first century, a new industrial revolution has occurred. With the innovation of 3-D printers, people can print an infinite number of anything they want. Some people began to print 3-D printed guns, but soon that became a problem when someone used it to kill someone. After that, the 3-D printed guns were questioned with the First and Second Amendment. The argument against the Second Amendment is that the right to bear arms includes both the buyer and seller in the transaction. In order for the transaction to happen, the seller must obtain a manufactured guns. Hence, the Second Amendment protects the right to make arms. This reason guarantees the right to yield and make firearms, even the 3-D printer. Also, sharing and receiving information about 3-D guns were prohibited. However, this violate the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Prohibiting sharing and manufacturing 3-D guns without a proof that they are dangerous are unconstitutional. Additionally, prohibition of individuals manufacturing and possessing 3-D guns shows the unprecedented use of gun control laws, when there are no regulations on homemade firearms. 

Recently, on March 6, 2016, Democratic Presidential Candidates answered questions considering gun control in Flint Michigan. The "wwwMOXNEWScom" channel in YouTube posted an edited version of the debate aired by CNN. The film only contained the part Democratic Presidential Candidates, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, talked about their point of view of gun rights. This part of the debate shows that even in 2016, the gun control debate is still a hot topic. In the debate, the questions about how will they deal with gun controls when they become a President. Both of the candidates stood neutral but they slightly leaned toward against gun rights. Senator Hillary responded that she will limit the number of people and kind of people who are given access to fire arms, close all gun shows, online loophole, and Charleston loophole, and try her best to "end any Second Amendment right you might have." Same idea but differently, Senator Bernie said he will improve and expand the background checks, people who shouldn't have guns in America should not be allowed to purchase guns in America, and never will mess with Second Amendment because this will result to only bad people owning guns. Second Amendment being addressed in this debate clarify the importance of this amendment in this topic. Senator Bernie spoke the same idea as Tauriq. If America creates a new law or eliminate Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, the only people who will own guns are bad people. Then, when bad people confronts with a gun, people are defenseless. 

 United States of America needs to continue making guns harder to obtain so that the number of firearm death can decrease or feel safer. People who oppose guns uses many pathos such as, mass shootings and school shootings, while against gun control people uses ethos but mainly logos, especially the Second Amendment. Second Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791 to become a part of the first ten amendments in Bill of Rights. Ever since then, people were legally able to own a gun. For more than two hundred years, this law has been kept. The right to bear arms is the tradition and culture. People who support guns acknowledges that guns allowed people to commit mass shootings or a tragic school shootings. Nearly every gun owners does not kill other people. They keep it in case of intruders or hunting in the south. In order to change gun to illegal, the whole nation will change and many consequences will follow. 

