In 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary, the lives of twenty children were taken from this world, nearly seventy years too early. Over the past twenty years, there has been a massive influx in these kinds of tragedies and the number of lives that are ended as a result of them: mass shootings. While these kinds of crimes have been occurring ever since firearms have been in the hands of the public, the number of mass shooting in America have increased exponentially over the past several years. Because of this, there have been many calls to restrict firearms to the public, and some people have wanted to ban guns outright. On paper, this motion to restrict gun ownership makes sense. Clearly, thousands of people are being murdered by a criminal using a firearm, so by taking away access to those weapons, people will no longer be shot and killed. 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. Both sides of the argument have valid and justifiable arguments. However, by analyzing all of the different arguments surrounding the topic, it is clear that American citizens should continue to have the right to own firearms. America should not have stricter gun regulation because it is a large part of our culture and economy, will not prevent criminals from committing mass shootings, 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 (act. 2, sec. 1)." 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. The foundation of the American government was based on the idea of being run by the people, and the idea that if that same government is no longer ran by the people or if it gains too much power, the people should have the means and the right to rise up and change that. In addition, 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" (Popken). The Federal Reserve Bank claims that "There is about $1.2 trillion dollars of U.S. currency in circulation" (Federal Reserve Bank). Using these numbers, approximately 1.2 percent of money circulating in America's economy comes from the gun industry. In addition to this, a Washington Times article reports "263,223: Number of full-time jobs related to the firearm industry, up from 209,750 in 2012" (Dinan). 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 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. While it is certainly true that stricter gun laws will not completely eliminate the gun industry from the economy, the amount of money and jobs that would be effected as a result of those restrictions still need to be taken into account. Even if the problems surrounding the economical damage resulting from stricter gun laws can be solved, they will not drastically reduce the number of gun-related crimes.

Stricter firearm regulations will not prevent mass shootings and similar gun-related crimes from occurring. 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" (Cooke). 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" (Cooke). 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" (Wilson). 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 (Molyneux). 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. While strict gun regulations would theoretically lower the suicide rate in America on paper, it is simply taking away a method of committing suicide. As seen by the statistic on the UK's suicide rate, this will not prevent the crimes since those who wish to commit the acts can simply use a different method. Stricter gun laws do not solve the depression these people have that make them wish to take their own lives.

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 occurred 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" (Hunter). 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" (McCarthy). 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. People do not buy car insurance because they want to get into a wreck; they buy insurance so that when they do, their repair expenses will be covered. This is similar to gun ownership. A normal, law-abiding person does not buy a gun because they want to shoot somebody; they buy a firearm so that when they unfortunately find themselves in a dangerous situation, they will have the means to defend themselves, their property, and their family. 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 laws.

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. Time and effort should be spent into researching the emotional, mental, and environmental factors that influenced these damaged individuals to commit these kinds of crimes. In a study on the relationship between shooters and mental illness, it was found that "up to 60% of perpetrators of mass shootings in the United States since 1970 displayed symptoms including acute paranoia, delusions, and depression before committing their crimes (MacLeish, Metzl)." By having a better understanding of the mental illnesses that afflict these damaged individuals, proper measures can be taken to treat or even cure them in the individuals they inflict. Time and time again, the government has tried to ban and restrict commodities to the people, such as Prohibition and the ban on Marijuana, that have failed to keep those items out of the public's hands. If the focus is not shifted towards the research on mental illness and the government decides to restrict firearm ownership, not only will gun-related crimes not decrease, but the victims in these situations could possibly end up dead since they will have no way of defending themselves. It is an old and over used saying, but it is true none the less: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." 

