The United Stated government is responsible for an array of issues that influence the daily American lifestyle. With the recent gun violence in mass shootings, Sandy Hook, Colorado Springs, Columbine, and Charleston, the gun control debate has resurfaced in conversations of political leaders. Since 2015, there have been 12,000 gun-related deaths and 25,000 gun related injuries (Berkowitz). These statistics prove that there is a rising problem in gun violence, however, firearms cannot be removed from the public. The nation has seen many acts of legislation that has altered who can purchase firearms and has implemented new restrictions. Political perspectives and affiliations often influence the views on the gun control debate and easily split the population's views into two groups: conservative and liberals. Studies have also been conducted on attitudes towards gun control that are influenced by gender, racial backgrounds, religious beliefs, and regions of residence (JoEllen Pederson 273). This topic is relevant in today's society because the legislation will affect the nation as a whole; the government will have to consider safety measures and constitutional rights in order to attempt to please both sides.  As the debate continues, many questions are raised that hope to solve the growing problem; what will ultimately decrease gun violence? With increased background checks, creating a moderate gun control, gun violence will decrease due to education, safety precautions, and the licensing individuals would have to obtain when purchasing a firearm.  

There are two defined sides of the debate that can be labeled as political perspectives: conservatives and liberals; these two groups differ in views that are based on political and moral values, which are deeply rooted and are strongly influenced by self interest, instead of logistics. Conservatives tend to view the second amendment with a broader interpretation while the liberals view the amendment more narrowly; this ultimately results in continuous argument that does little but settle the dispute. The second amendment, the right to bear arms, is the base of this argument that then turns to a debate of morals. McGovern, the author of "The Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance and Novel Textual Questions About the Second Amendment," interprets the second amendment from both sides mentioned earlier and specifically pulls interpretations and rulings from the two court cases, Heller and McDonald. In Heller, it is determined that the second amendment, "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (McGovern). Firearms serve many purposes other than the negative connotations that pro-gun control believers voice; if individuals are trained and educated on how to use a gun, safety measures are then increased. The phrase, "to bear" means to carry which does not restrict military weapons, as well; this results in mass shootings having a greater chance of being prevented if those in the surrounding area had a concealed weapon. McGovern also uses the court cases, mentioned earlier, to demonstrate that owning firearms is a constitutional right that the government cannot take away from the general public. 

While there have been many studies that analyze the relationship between gun control and political backgrounds, it would also be beneficial to analyze how racial beliefs, gender, and age contribute to the gun control debate. The study conducted from the American Journal of Social Science Research states that age greatly affects who purchases a firearm; the older and individual is, the more likely they are going to own a weapon because it provides personal protection, self defense, and a sense of independence (JoEllen Pederson 275). Not only does age influence the debate, but gender does, as well; men tend to strongly believe that gun control is a constitutional right and are often more active in obtaining concealment licenses. Women, on the other hand, disagree and favor pro-gun control because of their relativeness to mass shootings. The final perspective that affects the gun control debate is racial attitudes; according to Celinska (2007) on average, the most likely individual to own a firearm would be a white middle-aged man who was married; contrasting that would be an African American middle-aged woman that would be considered least likely to own a firearm (JoEllen Pederson 276).  All of these statistics and information greatly influencing the understanding of the gun control debate. 

Through out history, there have been many acts of legislation that have brought the nation to where it stands today on gun control. In 1934, Roosevelt cracked down on criminal gangsters that were creating bloody violence by implementing "regulations and taxes, on the machine guns and sawed-off shotguns preferred by the era's most notorious gangsters" (Krieg). Just 24 years later, President Lyndon Johnson signed a law in response to "three high profile deaths" that banned the sales of fire arms to those that were felons and mentally unstable (Krieg). This then led to the legislation that Reagan passed in 1985 that was famously labeled the "Firearm Owner's Protection Act" which outlawed the sale of "fully automatic weapons, or machine guns, to private purchasers." (Krieg). Later, Bill Clinton implemented background checks and signed the Assault Weapons Ban. As the legislation continued to be reformed, the current president passed laws that made firearm purchases stricter. President Obama, however, seems to only address the situation and offer condolences to the family then, fails to pass bills that could potentially fix gun violence; this leaves individuals unhappy with the current state of gun laws and awaiting new legislation. 

There is no statistical evidence that stricter gun control laws result in a decrease in gun violence and crimes. The far left political leaders believe that "bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns" (Sowell). Thomas Sowell, a graduate from Harvard University and Columbia University, wrote an article that attacks the generalization of individuals owning firearms; many of the liberals ignore the fact that "gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time" (Sowell). This piece of evidence is crucial to the debate because it provides convincing statistics that contradict what most of the general public assumes. It is also stated that guns provide self defense and save a countless number of lives by "just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant" which usually deters violence (Sowell). Mass shootings have a greater potential to decrease if individuals in the surrounding area have a weapon to stop the shooter. The government can not punish the nation's society for individuals that fail to follow the law, rather, there should be more strenuous background checks and higher permit prices in order to sift out individuals who are not fit to own firearms. 

Staggering evidence has been found that severely disarms the pro-gun control arguments and beliefs. The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy produced a study and evaluation of the banning of firearms and the effects it would have on murder and suicide rates. Finland, Norway, France, and Germany's gun ownership rates were analyzed in regards to the nation's murder rate which was then compared to the United State's statistics. It was determined that as the gun ownership was restricted, in Luxembourg for example, the murder rate was much higher than other countries, for example Germany. England also struggled with gun control legislation, so in the 1990's there was a complete ban of handguns. "With out suggesting this caused violence, the bans ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crimes had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States" (Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser 655). This resulted in England becoming one of the most violent, yet well developed, nation. The article then addressed what most pro-gun control supports refuse to admit, "There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates" which further solidifies the claim made earlier by Thomas Sowell (Don. B Kates and Gary Mauser).

Other Nations, excluding the United States have strengthened gun control laws and have seen improvements and a decrease in violent crimes. However, the Keating Center, states the argument does not take into consideration the, "cultural, political, reporting practices, and historical differences," meaning there is much more to evaluate than just legislation. (Keating Center Guest Author: Eric Peterson). The article further states that it is more effective to alter the justice system to decrease crime rates. Criminals force the government to consider legislations that take away the rights of law abiding citizens; unlike other laws that ensure the safety of the public by creating limits and restrictions on specific poor behavior, the gun control law would only take away ownership of firearms and decrease the ability for self defense (Keating Center: Eric Peterson). This would take the constitutional right to bear arms away from all individuals, even law abiding citizens, instead of only punishing those who deem unfit. Instead of restricting the nation as a whole to purchase firearms, the government should be "enforcing those always already in effect and reducing the elements of motivated suspects, opportune targets, or lack of guardians that promote crime at their juncture" (Eric Peterson).

Mass shootings have increased in the recent decades and have caused many individuals to view firearms negatively. It must be understood that guns are not what kill people, but people kill people. Krauthammer, author of "What Gun-Control Advocates Mean but Dare Not Say," wrote an article in the National Review which grouped a large percentage of people together, specifically those unstable to own firearms, and blamed society for not passing legislation to prevent all individuals from owning a firearm. The Roseburg shooter was used as an example, "the young man had no criminal history, no psychiatric diagnosis beyond Asperger's, [and] no involvement in public disturbances" (Krauthammer). The author later questioned how the government could find potential threats to society like this while the individuals flew under the radar, undetected. A New York Times article, "End the Gun Epidemic in America", thoroughly agrees with the statements presented in Kraithammer's article. New York Time's Editorial Board argues that all individuals should give up the right to bear specific arms in order to protect the nation from gun violence (Editorial Board). While this article specifically states "it is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency," it is unconstitutional to take away an individual's right to bear arms (Editorial Board). Referring back to the court cases mentioned earlier on the interpretation of the second amendment, individuals have to the constitutional right to carry a weapon in the case of confrontation; this article also states that there are no limitations to what gun is considered "an arm" (McGovern). This discredits the claims made by the New York Times Editorial Board. 

The disappointing realization that mass shootings have increased in the Nation should be addressed with proper education on the topic, which is given above, and with explanations on how relevant it is in citizen's everyday lives. Often times, information and facts tend to only allow the reader to imagine the situation, however, with the real life experiences that many individuals face in society, this topic becomes more bearing and personal; those that lives were altered by Sandy Hook, Roseburg, and many others can relate and agree. This past Christmas Eve, Charlotte, North Carolina experienced a mall shooting. An armed man had a long lasting feud with another male and the altercation resulted in the firing of both weapons. Stores immediately started closing their entrances and civilians fled to exits, but one individual had the courage to attempt to stop the shooting before it became more detrimental. Officer Thomas Ferguson, an off duty police officer, fired his "service weapons" and medics then responded to the fallen shooters aid. (Fox News) This shooting resulted in minor deaths because of the actions of an off duty police officer that was educated on assault weapons and had the right to carry a concealed weapon. What would have been the outcome, if the mall shoppers could not have protected themselves?  

While stricter gun control laws have the potential to cease gun violence, like Israel and Switzerland, the right to own a firearm increases safety in an occasion of self defense and preventing crime and violence (Rosenbaum). The Keating Center questions, "how many lives will be lost because someone didn't have the ability to defend themselves or other due to banning or limiting access to weapons, magazines, or ammunition?" Consider the horrific school shootings, Sandy Hook which left 26 dead, that could have been prevented if one of the authority figures in the school had a concealed weapon. How many more lives could have been saved if individuals were able to protect themselves? The benefits of anti-gun control laws outweigh the alternate benefits of the pro-gun control because of the multiple mass shootings that could have been prevented by simply pointing a gun at the shooter and only threatening to pull the trigger. The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy referred to the statutes of allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons for protection and stated, "based on 25 years of correlated statistics from all of the more than 3,000 American countries, Lott and Mustard conclude that adoption of these statues has deterred criminals from confrontation crime and caused murder and violent crime to fall faster in states that adopted this policy than in states that did not." (John R. Lott Jr and David B. Mustard 658). Both sides of the debate need to consider what would be best for that nation instead of arguing based on their personal morals and, clearly, restricting citizens from purchasing firearms will not be beneficial. 

There are questions that arise in the debate that specifically ask how the government can solve the issue of gun violence. One 18-year-old from the Colorado has proposed a revolutionary piece of technology that would drastically alter the way individuals use firearms. Initially setting out to prevent mass shootings as a response to the shooting in Aurora, the inventor then realized from more research that with the rise in mass shootings, there was a larger rise in the misuse of firearms (UPROXX).  It was his mission to create a "smart gun" that would only activate with the finger print of the owner. This new invention would eliminate gun theft and accidental shootings that many adults worry about with young children around the house; this would also eliminate black market sales, which seem to be a growing reason that criminals obtain guns that are not registered in their name. This piece of technology would greatly alter the upcoming gun legislation in the United States. 

David DeGrazia has also set forth to solve the issue of growing gun violence. The current gun legislation that the United States has issued is minimal. David DeGrazia, the author of The Case for Moderate Gun Control, believes that although the government should not eliminate the production, storage, sales, purchase, and possession of firearms, there should, however, be some sort of limitation of who can obtain a firearm. "In particular, I will defend the following as additions to the minimal regulations that constitute the legal status quo: (1) universal background checks; (2) a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips; (3) the requirement of a license for all new gun owners, contingent upon passing a rigorous safety course; (4) safe storage requirements and required safety features on all guns; (5) tracing mechanisms on all guns and a national database of gun sales and gun owners" ( DeGrazia 3). In order to please both sides of this never-ending debate, "moderate gun control" should become the new legislation. Educating society on how firearms operate would be beneficial and could potentially decrease gun violence (Shooting School). This would encompass many of the values from the two political perspectives; the pro gun control advocates would be satisfied with the ban of high capacity assault weapons and increased universal background checks. The anti-gun control advocates would be satisfied, as well, by the increased safety requirements. Grazia address the criticisms of moderate gun control, specifically how it violates the second amendment; he states that from court cases, stated earlier, on the second amendment, there are no unlimited rights and in fact, there are restrictions and limits that can be passed constitutionally, within reason. The moderate gun control would be the most beneficial piece of legislation for today's society. 

The gun control debate has been resurfacing for many decades due to the changes in legislations and the recent mass shootings that have been occurring. The government needs to analyze the statements of Daniel DeGrazia in order to produce a piece of legislation that will get passed and be effective in society, like the moderate gun control proposed earlier. It would also be beneficial to society if gun education was increased so more individuals were aware of the benefits and dangers of firearms; having increased education will allow citizens to properly handle firearms and lock them away which would then decrease black-market sales. With increased background checks and costlier licenses, those who are unfit to own firearms will have a much harder time obtaining them which will ultimately decrease gun violence without taking away citizens' second amendment right. 

