In 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary, the lives of twenty children were taken from this world, nearly seventy years too early. For the past twenty years, there has been a massive influx in these kinds of tragedies. Mass shootings such as this have become more prominent in the last decade than it has in the entire last century. Because of this, there have been many calls to restrict firearms to the public, and some people have wanted to ban guns outright. At first glance, this seems to be a good idea. Clearly, these criminals are taking an incredible number of innocent lives with the help of guns, so by restricting access to or the banning of these firearms will prevent these horrible crimes, right? If this happens, those who are not only anti-gun, but citizens in general will feel safer from the dangers of being threatened or killed through the use of these firearms. However, those who are pro-gun and argue against their total outlaw in America, believe that it goes against their rights clearly stated in the second amendment of the United States Constitution. They also feel that they should have the right to defend themselves and their homes, and the restriction of firearms will prevent them from doing so. However, which side has the most justification? Will the outlaw of firearms in America really reduce the number of gun-related crimes? Not by any major difference that would justify it. Firearms should not be banned in America because it is a large part of our culture and economy, will not prevent criminals from committing gun-related crimes by any significant means, and prevents law-abiding citizens from defending themselves, their family, or their property.

First off, firearms has been a major part of America's culture and economy ever since the birth of the nation. One of the most popular arguments pro-gun advocates use is that they are given the right to own firearms in the Constitution. In the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment in the document 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." On the other hand, anti-gun supporters argue that the Second Amendment gives the right to own guns to "A well regulated Militia," not the citizens. However, the amendment is actually worded in a way that says the people are part of the militia and therefore, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Guns have been an important part of America's foundation and history and continues to be to this day, so much so that it became the second amendment the founding fathers drafted into the Constitution. Firearms have always been part of sport, game hunting, and the time and dedication of enthusiasts since the beginning and has continued to be to this day. Not only have firearms been a part of American culture, they have also been a major part of America's economy. According to a report from CNBC News: "$13.5 billion Annual revenue of gun and ammunition manufacturing industry, with a $1.5 billion profit." The Federal Reserve Bank claims that "There is about $1.2 trillion dollars of U.S. currency in circulation." Using these numbers, approximately 1.2 percent of money circulating in America's economy comes from the gun industry. In addition to this, the same CNBC News article reports "263,223: Number of full-time jobs related to the firearm industry, up from 209,750 in 2012." The gun industry has kept hundreds of thousands of Americans employed, and this number is only increasing along with the revenue resulting from the industry. It is safe to assume that because of this, the gun industry will continue to provide more jobs and more money to circulate in the economy. If there is a restriction or total ban on firearms in America, the economy as well as the unemployment rate will take a massive hit. When fifteen billion dollars are no longer circulating in the economy, and over two hundred thousand citizens no longer have jobs, there will most certainly be negative impacts in more ways than one. However, let's say for instance, America's economy is not majorly affected by gun restrictions. Will they stop criminals for committing gun-related crimes?

It is not a simple question to answer, but gun-related crimes will be drastically affected by the stricter gun regulations. It is true that states with strict gun control have seen reductions in gun-related crimes, but at the same time, other states with similar or stricter gun laws have seen little to no reduction in those same crimes. However, whether or not a state has had strict firearm regulations, the majority of mass shootings have been committed with firearms purchased obtained through legal means. For instance, three years ago, Andrew John Engeldinger went on a shooting rampage after being fired in Minneapolis. This was from an article in response to a call to perform background checks on private firearm transactions. The article then reports that "Engeldinger used a Glock 19 handgun that he had bought legally from a licensed dealer. He passed the background check that is mandatory for all commercial sales." The article also says "Goh walked into Oikos University [in Oakland, Calfornia] and murdered seven people...He passed a background check and abided by California's ten-day waiting period." Also, "Ian Lee Stawicki murdered five people at the Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, Washington...Stawicki not only passed background checks on all six occasions, but he had a concealed-carry permit too." In 2012 at the time this article was written, out of the twelve shootings that had happened that year, all of the guns that were used to commit the crimes were purchased legally. There was only one case in which the criminal stole the firearm they used, and for all the other crimes the shooter was able to pass all background checks and abided by all the laws within their state in order to obtain the guns. It is clear that someone who has the mental capacity and desire to plan out and commit a mass shooting are capable of fooling all background checks and regulations that are currently in place. This can be a clear indication that the current gun laws need to be stricter in order to keep people from obtaining the tools needed to commit these crimes, but this is not a guarantee that no one will be able to get around them. There is always the possibility that one person will be able to trick any new background checks or psychological evaluation conducted on them. Because of this possibility, stricter gun regulations are not a concrete solution to prevent any more mass shootings to occur. On the other hand, anti-gun advocates call for these strict gun regulations in order to lower the suicide rate in America. In fact, people use firearms to commit suicide more than they are used in homicides. According to an online video exploring the statistics behind firearms, sixty-two percent of gun deaths in America are suicides while thirty-five percent are homicides. Therefore, it would seem that tightening regulations on guns would reduce the number of both suicides and gun deaths in general. However, this theory is falsified when compared to the suicide methods of other nations. For example, the United Kingdom has a strict ban on firearms for civilian ownership. Despite this, the UK has a similar suicide rate to the United States. According to the same video, fifty-one percent of the suicide methods in the US are by a gun and twenty-four percent are by hanging or suffocation. However, two percent of the suicide methods in the UK are by a gun while sixty percent are by hanging or suffocation. Despite the United Kingdom's strict gun regulations, it has a suicide rate that is on par with the United States' suicide rate. Those who commit suicide in the UK simply use a different method to commit the act. By tightening gun laws, it is simply taking away a method of suicide rather than addressing the underlying issues of the depressed and troubled individuals related to the topic.

Lastly, the restriction of the availability of firearms prevents law-abiding citizens from defending themselves, their family, and their property. The shootings that have occurred over the past several years have been nothing less than tragic beyond words, but several situations have arose in which a shooter has been halted by a citizen in the nearby area. In an article exploring the same topic of gun control, the writer explores several events in which a citizen had intervened in a shooting, such as one instance in which a shooter attempted to fire on a crowd at the screening of "The Hobbit". Luckily, his gun jammed when he attempted to open fire; and "Even more luckily, there was an off-duty police officer who stopped that man with one bullet." Around the same time, a shooting that resulted in six death in Tuscon, Arizona was halted by a bystander that wrestled the gunman to the ground before he could continue his rampage. Afterwards, the bystander "acknowledged that being armed gave him the confidence to tackle shooter Jared Lee Loughner, 'I was ready to end his life.'" The intervention of bystanders in these kinds of situations have not been a result of the mass shootings over the past few years. For decades, people have attempted to stop shooters in their tracks, such as when "A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck." People have always attempted to intervene in these crimes when the situation permits it. That is why they keep them in there homes, that is why they keep them in their vehicles or even on their person. To have the ability to defend themselves in these situations are of the up most importance. If there is a strict regulation of firearms, it will prevent Americans from doing so and will be vulnerable to the criminals who do not wish to abide by the same rules.

To review, America should not restrict gun access to the public. It is a big part of American culture and provides a large portion of money and job opportunities to circulate in the economy. It will not reduce the number of gun deaths and gun-related crimes by any drastic means. And lastly, it will prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. Firearms have been a scape goat for tragic events for years now. While it is true that guns have been used in these shootings for years now, the main focus should not be the tools used in these crimes but the criminals themselves. It is an overused saying but it is most certainty true: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Rather than spend the time trying to ban firearms, America should spend time and effort to explore the mental illnesses or issues as well as the traumatic backgrounds these criminals had. If there is a better understanding of these things, there can be a more refined action to take to reduce the amount of lives taken through the use of firearms.
