 The second amendment of the United States Constitution reserves the right for all citizens to bear arms.  However, in modern day America, the sale, ownership, and usage of guns has become a topic of controversy due to the violent crimes involving guns that are appearing to become more and more frequent.  In the midst of a struggle to ensure the safety and welfare of the American people, it is important to remember not to dismantle the values that the United States was built on within the Constitution.  While the easy solution would seem to be to limit the use of guns, this would obstruct the right to bear arms listed in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  Looking at data, statistics show that, in many different areas, the crime rate drops when more people own guns in a given area.  Therefore, increasing gun ownership by limiting restrictions and allowing greater access and increasing gun use knowledge, creating resources for the mentally ill to improve their mental stability, and heightened punishment for those who do commit gun-related crimes, will help to allow citizens to feel safer while still allowing for the second amendment to be exercised.  This is important because people who live in the United states need to feel safe and at peace while living under the documents this nation was founded and built upon.  

The reasoning for the large push for gun control is, of course, safety.  With a high percentage of people in America owning guns, it would seem that there are more people likely to get shot or placed in an unsafe situation involving a firearm.  However, "If you have a gun in the home, that gun is far more likely to prevent murder than it is to be used in an accidental shooting or to kill a loved one" (Lott, 2014). The article "Why Most Americans Oppose Gun Control" by John Lott shows that in most cases, the guns owned by people are owned as a precautionary measure and, for the most part, just sit in a closet somewhere, instead of the rare cases where they would be used to do inflict harm to others.  With that being said, in a survey from the same article, Americans answered "'Yes' by a margin of 63 to 30 percent when asked if they thought residents are safer with a gun in the home."  As seen through other statistics and data, the numbers for gun-related violence and issues are not as high as the media portrays it to be.  The ultimate goal is the safety of American citizens.  With this survey, it shows people feel safer then guns are present and not restricted by gun control regulations.  In Kleck and Patterson's research on the "Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence," the idea of Americans feeling safer with gun control is based off of  "the rationale for gun control including the assumption that the availability of guns having a significant net positive effect on violence rates" (Kleck and Patterson, 1993).  Therefore, the reasoning for gun control cannot be that it will make people safer because that is not proven at all as seen from the two sources.

Guns have received negative attention recently, however guns can have an importance in the lives of others.  In a TED Talk from Peter van Uhm, the Netherlands' Chief of Defense, Uhm explains how he choose the gun "not to shoot, not to kill, not to destroy, but to stop those who would do evil, to protect the vulnerable, to defend democratic values, to stand up for the freedom we have to talk here today" (Uhm, 2012).  This shows how the negative views of guns are all based on how people decide to view them.  Peter van Uhm is able to look past what the media decides to inform the people on and look at what is another, more positive outlook on the symbolism of a gun.  Peter van Uhm exemplifies this by stating that "violence has dramatically declined over the last 500 years. Despite the pictures we are shown in the daily news, wars between developed countries are no longer common place.  The murder rate in Europe has dropped by a factor of 30 since the middle ages."  The media, van Uhm suggests, is able to choose what to highlight and get out to the public.  This gives the media the ability to sway public opinion based on what side they want to try to get across by showing only certain parts of the story and facts.  Peter van Uhm, being the Chief of Defense, holds a high level of ethos and therefore is a reliable source of information, especially with this issue of the use of guns.  With the increase of access to media outlets for everyone, the strength of the media's influence is also increasing and it is important for people to understand that the media can create biased information and people need to create their own opinions.

The media continues to swag public opinion with their ability to regulate breaking news.  In an interview with James Jacobs, the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University, he touches on the idea in that "most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders" (Davidson, 2015).  This is something the media outlets do not normally share as murders are more interesting to viewers than suicides would be.  With this knowledge, it shows how guns are not as destructive to others as it is made out to be.  Another misconception about gun regulation is that the "assault weapons available to civilians are like semi-automatics and fire one bullet with one pull of the trigger.  What makes them different are cosmetic military-like features."  While many people argue that assault weapons should not be allowed, this shows that they are really not that much more than a regular gun.  They just have an extra part "such as a bayonet mount or pistol grip, non of which have any functional significance."  Therefore, this shows how education on the issue is necessary as what many people thought was a very dangerous thing, is really not that significant.  Also, Australia and England have proved as successful countries in their implementation of the outlaw of guns to citizens.  However, according to Jacobs, "the United Kingdom's policy cold not work in the United States because we have a constitution."  With our constitution, it is important not to hinder the right expressed in the document, therefore, guns will always be a part of our nation and is important for issues with them to be fixed.  One way to regulate gun sales would be to implement background checks and registration of firearms.  The issue is, Jacobs states, "there is no way to verify who the seller was or when the sale took place" and also, it is very easy for sellers to not log all gun sales.  This would also bring a lot more traffic to the purchase of guns on the black market.  It is important to consider the negatives and the positives in created gun control provisions as to not create an even larger and or a more unsafe issue on the usage of guns. 

School and mass public shootings have been a large reason for the recent increase in the popularity of gun control.  The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were one of the most recent and one of the most well known of recent shootings.  After this, it seemed that there would be strict gun laws, however, "on December 21, 2012, more guns were purchased than on any other preceding day, as peopled worried it might be their last chance to buy whatever firearms they wanted" (Zornick, 2014).  This shows how even though it seemed like everyone despised gun sales and usage, there was still a large number of people who went out to buy guns so they would be able to have them to defend themselves before the predicted strict laws would come into play.  

In an extreme case of using the more guns, less violence technique, defined by van Uhm, Kennesaw, Georgia has seen success.  In Kennesaw every head of household in the city must own and gun and ammunition.  With this law in place, "the crime rate has dropped eighty-nine percent in the city, compared to the modest ten percent drop statewide" (Hamilton and Burch, 2014).  This shows how the mandatory ownership of a gun will discourage those who want to use guns for harm as they know that everyone too will also have a gun.  While this law may seem like it would make gun violence more common, it did not because unlike what the media says, not everyone is out to do harm with their gun, and this is a prime example of that.  This law seemed to prove successful as "Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city out size in the country" as stated in the "Gun Ownership  --  It's the Law in Kennesaw" article.  This reiterates what was said earlier and also shows just how successful it was as the scale is based on the entire country as a whole instead of statewide.  While so many people are worried trying to remove guns completely and outlaw them to make the country safer, Kennesaw, Georgia is an example of how it is possible for it to be safer with more guns throughout the community.

The idea of gun control is not a new concept to recently surface.  There have been issues with guns and ideas suggested in order to help make the use of guns safer.  As early as President Franklin D. Roosevelt, "legislation was drafted and passed in 1934 to impose new criminal penalties, along with regulations and taxes, on the machine guns and sawed-off shotguns preferred by the era's most notorious gangsters" (Krieg, 2016).  Even since before 1934 there have been struggles with guns and the safety of others with the use of them.  However, because these provisions have already been made, the addition of more and more will suffocate the Second Amendment right of gun buying Americans.  There have been attempts at suppressing gun ownership; however, the Constitution and the justice system do not allow for that.  Washington, D. C. enacted one of the strictest firearm laws in the country in 1976 which basically banned the private ownership of handguns and placed restrictions on the possession of and storage of long guns.   However, "in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court invalidated the District of Columbia's virtual ban on handgun possession and held that the Second Amendment coffered an individual the right to possess firearms" (Vizzard, 2015).  This shows how the strength of the founding documents of the United States hold up and other legislations will not be able to get around the rights that the Constitution gives us. 

This is difficult for some Americans to grasp because of recent shootings and issues with the shooters mental health.  While it is important to keep the rights stated in the Constitution for every citizen, those with mental health issues pose a problem when handling and gun and intending to hurt others.  In California, there is a law that allows for "family members to petition the court for a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO)" (Ward, 2015).  This is an "evidence-based policy that seeks to provide law enforcement and families with a tool to temporarily remove firearms from an individual during times are crisis."  With this provision being temporary, it is not completely obstructing the exercise of the second amendment.  Therefore, family members and law enforcement will be able to recognize when someone is not right and may cause harm to others or themselves and have them not able to possess or purchase firearms for a certain amount of time until they are healthy again.  In opposition to this idea, another article states that "this only contributes to the mistaken belief that there is a direct link between mental illness and violence" (Wolf and Rosen, 2015).  Therefore, instead of putting restrictions on those with mental health issues that may or may not have to do with gun violence, "policymakers should be focusing on modifying existing restrictive mental health laws and increasing the funding needed to provide adequate mental health services in the community."  This would therefore solve the problem for those with mental health issues and also solve the problem of restricting the second amendment.

There are, of course, opposing views to the idea of no gun control.  In a speech at the White House, Obama addresses the issue of gun control and the second amendment.  He makes a point that "we all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can't yell 'fire' in a theater.  We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people" (Obama, 2016).  Here Obama raises a good point, of how with changing times, the interpretation of the Constitution can change to best fit the circumstances.  However, the fallacy here is that freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are not exactly equivalent.  Someone may not say something to another person with the thought that it may offend them, but it would be a violation of a right to not own a gun just because it might offend another person.  Especially when the gun has no connection to the other person. Also, Obama has little time left in office, many people think he is trying to make one last attempt to leave his legacy. However, "after the build-up over the holidays, the biggest risk Obama runs is wildly overpromising and under delivering" (Morrissey, 2016).  This shows that Obama will be using his executive power to try and create provisions.  This however, is difficult because of the now Republican dominated Congress.  Obama has announced an executive order to strengthen gun laws.  One of these provisions is for the "FBI to hire more than 230 staffers and complete technical updates to the database" of the background check system (Gore, 2016).  Besides costing a lot of money, as mentioned before, background checks, as of now, are not the most plausible solutions as it is hard to keep track of everything going in and out of a store and who is buying it.  

The topic of gun control is a highly controversial one.  It poses a difficult situation for policymakers in that they need to make their citizens feel safe, yet not obstruct the rights laid out in the Constitution.  However, evidence leads to the idea that increasing gun control and putting more restrictions on purchasing and holding gun, may not result in the desired results of a safer America.  This leads to the idea that more guns would result in less violence as people would be using the guns for protection only when they were threatened.  And if those threatening knew these people were likely to have guns, they would be less likely to commit and attack.  There are people, however, with mental health issues.  Instead of investing money into background checks that would not help, putting that money towards the betterment of mental health patients would then allow them to be eligible to carry a gun, eliminating the hindrance of the second amendment to citizens.  Therefore, eliminating gun control would have a positive outcome on the well being of the American people.

