For many years, the debate over whether or not stricter gun laws should be enforced has been an on-going issue. This problem causes extreme amounts of controversy for the anti-gun control and pro-gun control sides of the debate. Each side having valid reasons for their view, the main focus of this essay is the anti-gun control point of view. Along with having many personal issues with adding more gun laws, I have issues that anti-gun law activists share all around the United States. The debate between changing the United States gun laws and keeping the gun laws the same has brought many ideas to my attention. The research question above affects my values because my family has multiple guns that are used for hunting, as well as putting food on the table. Getting rid of gun laws will take away a major part of my life for my family and a sport that is loved. Not only would they be taking away a sport but a source of defense. Owning a big piece of farm land requires having guns and other hunting weapons to rid of animals, such as coyotes, that could harm the livestock. Guns are also a means of defense against theft. Having tractors, four wheelers and other ATVs puts the family of having them stolen. Sadly, theft was experienced at my farm and there were four wheelers and chickens stolen. Now, the family knows that there are people who have an eye on the machinery at the farm so we keep guns and bullets just in case someone tries to steal again. Of course, we would not shoot them, just scare them off. I feel qualified to write about gun control laws because I have a lot of experience and knowledge about guns considering I grew up around them and need them to maintain my family's current way of life. Guns are seen as a weapon or a way to kill for some. They are not used for just one purpose; guns are a way of life for many people across the United Sates. Banning guns as a whole or enforcing stricter gun laws will not make the American society any better or safer. 

After spending ample time researching both sides of the debate I have yet to change my mind or views. In the time I spent researching, I came across many pros and cons of the addition of more gun laws. The article "Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?" from ProCon.org, provided many arguments from both sides. The first con I would like to focus on is "the Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership." The Second Amendment clearly 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." Gun ownership is a right not a privilege. Just because the Second Amendment, along with many others, weren't ratified until the late 1700s, doesn't mean they should be changed or altered in any way. Bob Owens, the author of "A Crushing New Argument Against Gun Control," explains the rights of the Second Amendment. He quotes "when push comes to shove, the Second Amendment is the right of rebellion and revolution." After reading this article, it brought another argument that had yet to think of to my attention. Owens shares that after the Founding Fathers had won their liberty from the British Empire, they formed a federal government. " ... they made sure to include the Second Amendment to ensure that American citizens would always retain weapons capable of overthrowing the federal government when it became tyrannical." This argument means that the right was given to us for when the government was being unreasonable and not doing what was best for the citizens of the United States. Amber Phillips, author of "The Gun Control Debate, Explained in 5 Questions," wrote about if prohibiting gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment. She quoted Nelson Lund, a law professor from George Mason University whom argues for the conservative Heritage Foundation. Lund wrote that the Second Amendment clearly "recognizes he inalienable natural right to self-defense. Lawmakers may outlaw certain types of weapons, but they may not disarm citizenry." Phillips added this to her argument to prove to the opposing side that the right of self-defense and the ownership of guns is illogical to take away. Furthermore, the opposing side says that the amendment only protects the states rights to a well regulated militia, not individual gun rights. I disagree because the amendment also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The citizens of the United States are "the people" that this right is referring to. If it was meant for just the state, would it not have said "the right of the state to keep and bear arms?"

The second argument I would like to address from ProCon.org is "gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime." This specific issue is extremely important because the safety of guns all depends on who's hands the gun is in. Obviously, if a gun is in the hands of the wrong person damage could and more than likely will be done. The National Conference of State Legislature summarizes President Obama's gun proposals in an article on their website. One of the proposals "directs the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to require any business that engages in the sale of guns to obtain a federal license to do so and conduct background checks." President Obama's proposals consist of common sense laws. They do not take the rights of American citizens away; they just enforce the more common sense things about gun control. Any gun store, sellers of guns over the internet or sellers of guns at auctions should have a license to sell guns to help prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. Another proposal "instructs the FBI to overhaul the background check system to make it more efficient and accurate." This proposal could easily help prevent criminals or potential criminals from getting a hold of guns. Creating stricter background checks will eliminate so many future deaths. I am not completely against adding more gun laws as long as they are not taking away the American right to own them. President Obama "proposes a $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care by increasing service capacity and the behavioral workforce." Granting mental health care a great amount of money will finalize a rule that will remove a legal barrier that keep states from reporting certain information about individuals with mental health issues. This information will be reported to the NICS for further protection against people with serious mental issues who obtain guns. With this proposal, mental heath patients will not be able to have access to buying guns. The last proposal I want to focus on "calls upon state attorneys general to focus resources on eliminating the most dangerous and impactful cases in illegal gun trafficking, and violent offenders who bypass the background check system and purchase guns illegally." Black markets are where the most dangerous people are getting firearms. If the black markets get eliminated this could also greatly prevent criminals from buying guns. It is the common sense things that need to be enforced in the United States, not banning guns as a whole.

Furthermore, another con to banning guns and adding more laws is "gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws." If anything, more gun laws will just make criminals break more laws in order to get ahold of guns for their own use. According to the article FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer, "background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales- particularly online and at gun shows- occur without basic background checks." Like President Obama proposes, making sure any company whether its online, at gun shows or at a store has to conduct a background check to ensure that criminals or potential criminals are not buying guns. Since criminals are the people who the United States pro-gun control activists are worried about, stricter background checks should be applied instead of taking away the rights of non-criminals to own guns as well. More ways to make American communities safer from gun violence would be to ensure smart enforcement of the gun laws that are already in play. Tracking the people down that are selling guns illegally to people who bypass the background check system is an extremely important and effective option for reducing the amount of criminals and deaths in the United States. The article gives another point that could greatly decrease the issue. It states to "ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about theft or loss of their guns." As long as law enforcement knows if guns and weapons are stolen or lost, they can tract them and find them to prevent them from getting in the hands of criminals. Jack Hunter, author of the article "How Gun Control Kills," describes and gives examples of some of the recent mass shootings that have occurred in the United States. For example, the gunman in San Antonio, Texas that attempted to open fire in a movie theater to the crowd while watching "The Hobbit." Hunter says that "Luckily, the man's gun jammed. Even more luckily, there was on off-duty police officer who stopped that man with one bullet." If guns are banned, then there wont be people like the off-duty police officer or other brave people to stop mass shooters. "If the people who prevented these crimes through the use of personal firearms were legally prevented from having them- as many liberals now clamor for- America would very likely be remembering a dozen more national tragedies" (Hunter). Taking away guns will not prevent as much crime as people think. More crime will just take place if they are restricted for good.

Another downfall that goes along with the addition of more gun laws or restriction of them is the cost. In accordance to the article "Gun Control Costing States ...  Literally," states are banning the right to sell gun parts or for manufacturers to hold their companies in those states. This requires these companies to relocate to another state that does not have restrictions. The article states that "the situation has led to an exodus of gun manufacturers to more friendly climes, with anti-gun states losing the significant tax revenue and jobs these companies provide." So not only is the state not making money, but it is also preventing many people from having jobs who work for these companies. A few examples of companies that have had to relocate are Magpaul Industries of Erie, Colorado, Kahr Arms of Rockland County, New York, and PTR Industries of Bristol, Connecticut. "It is not surprising that the radical anti-gun legislatures and governors in these states failed to consider the impact these extreme new laws would have on business and the jobs they support." The government does not consider the fact that they are losing so much money by preventing these gun companies from selling their manufactured parts and guns. 

No matter if the government or President Obama makes a law that bans guns permanently, there will still be an abundance of them out in the United States. Dan Baum, author of "The Price of Gun Control," says that the United States has an estimate of 180 million privately owned guns. Baum says "if tomorrow President Obama signed the ultimate gun law- a total ban on the sale, manufacturing, and import of guns- we would still be awash in firearms for generations to come. Madmen like the murderer in Aurora would find a way to kill." Criminals will always find a loophole or find a way to get guns and weapons if they are banned. If more laws are placed and enforced on the American people, then many lives will be changed for the worse and there could be many more issues that this would lead to. More strikes, murders, mass shootings, criminals, law breakers and even more angry citizens. No matter how messy the gun control debate gets, anti-gun control activists and supporters are going to fight for the people's Second Amendment right to a well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Taking away this right will keep people from enjoying a sport like hunting, and keep people that are knowledgeable about them from enjoying the different uses for guns. Guns are not just used to kill people, like pro-gun control supporters see them, they are used for hunting animals which helps keep the animal population at a steady rate instead of letting the world get over populated. If more laws get enforced, then America will understand that banning guns and enforcing many more laws is not the best option. For example, Australia now has strict gun laws because of a mass shooting where 35 people died. Author of the article "What it's Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control" argues that guns should not be banned or extremely restricted. He explains how these laws have effected his life for the bad and thinks that the laws re illogical. Peter, the author, says "one of the biggest changes is that the government established different types of firearms for different categories of guns and ruled that each would need different licenses." This law pretty much states that only certain guns can be sold to certain people with certain jobs. For example, "Category C is only available to farmers; they can own a semiautomatic shotgun or .22 but the cartridges are limited to five shots for the shotgun and 10 shots for the .22. Having more gun laws added to the list of laws United States citizens already have will just cause more controversy and problems. Why not just enforce the laws that are already made a little better? 

