

Since the beginning of this country's formation, the right to bear arms has been deemed a constitutional right. Guns started out as a necessary means of survival for things such as hunting, and are now used mainly for sport. In short, guns throughout time have been a way of life for Americans. Due to the rise in prevalence of mass shootings and gun crimes in the United States, people and politicians around the country believe that weapons need to be harder to obtain or even banned all together. A shift in the current policies could cause a big change in the way of life that Americans have come accustomed to throughout the years. These policies already vary from state to state but politicians are trying to instill these changes on a federal level. If they Americans do not resist and allow legislators to begin making small changes to gun laws, the leaders in government will take advantage of that and increase how strict these laws become. In summary, banning guns in the United States is not the solution to the problem of gun violence. In many cases, the weapons used in these crimes are obtained legally or stolen from people who legally purchased them. People of the United States need to fight the movements to ban weapon in the United States or the government will make them impossible to purchase.

The current gun laws in the United States have flaws; I am not arguing that they are perfect. However, they are not as imperfect as pro-gun control lobbyists believe to think they. Laws vary from state to state but current country-wide gun laws require anyone purchasing a firearm to be at least eighteen years of age and pass a background check, and in some cases a psychological screening as well. Federal gun law also restricts anyone from carrying a weapon in schools or government buildings (Armstrong Jr.). There are loopholes in current gun laws with the "gun show loophole" being one of the most commonly referenced ones. The gun show loophole refers to someone being able to buy a weapon at a gun show by just simply showing proof of being over the age of eighteen without actually going through the background check phase (Grayson). However this widely referenced loophole is not as serious as pro-gun control advocates make it out to be. The ATF, the main law enforcement body of gun related crimes in the U.S., has reported that these guns bought without background account for less than one percent of all gun crimes in the country. There are changes that need to be made to the gun laws in the United States but banning them is not the change that needs to be made. There is no perfect solution to gun violence in America but the prohibition of weapons is not one that would be in the best interest of this country.

Barack Obama has made tightening gun laws a big part of what he wanted to do during his time in office. However, every effort he has made has hit a wall in congress and has been unsuccessful in passing (Graham). This consistent lack of success is largely due to the increased presence of conservatives in legislation. Many conservatives reject any ideas of tightening gun laws because they know that liberals will not keep the changes modest. Others just do not believe that the proposed changes, such as enhanced background checks, will make a difference or stay the way that the liberals in government have proposed them. Even Joe Manchin, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, knows the reason that Republicans are worries about the changes is that they believe it will eventually lead to confiscation (Graham). Owning these guns is a way of life in the United States and Americans have said that they favor these stricter background checks but have shown no interest in actually getting these laws put into place. These things show that making drastic changes to the country's gun laws are not in the best interest of the population or the country itself.

The issue of gun control has only grown in recent years due to the amount of mass shootings. The emotions created by these tragedies have drawn people to believe that taking weapons away is the solution to the problem. The situation of gun violence in the United States is a serious matter but it is not as big of a problem as it is made out to be. Despite the sale of guns increasing by about ten million every year since the 1990s, there has actually been a substantial decrease in fatal and non-fatal gun deaths over the same period of time (Davidson). These statistics show that there is no clear correlation between the number of weapons sold and the amount of gun violence in the U.S. Davidson also addresses the point that suicides also account for nearly two-thirds of all gun related deaths each year. This evidence shows that when the issue of gun related deaths are brought up, it is not addressed that a large portion of those deaths are actually suicides and are not caused by the violent homicides that are reference when arguing in favor of tightening gun laws.

The primary worry of anti-gun control lobbyists is the threat of liberals gradually increasing the difficulty of obtaining weapons. These guns are necessary for protection in today's society and are a constitutional right that should not be allowed to be taken away. In his article, David T. Hardy, an Arizona attorney, discusses that the anti-gun crowd does not want compromise, they want confiscation and control. He references a speech from the chairman of the Brady Campaign, a non-profit organization that promotes the prevention of gun violence, who says that the government needs to slow down the sale handguns, get them all registered, and then make them illegal for everyone except people in the military, police force, and other occupations along those lines. The hope for this ban on handguns never fell into place so the organization started going after other classifications of guns. This showed gun owners that their opposition would go after any opportunity to make purchasing and owning a gun as difficult as possible (Hardy). Gun laws in states around the U.S. show how modest laws have gradually grown stricter. California gun law started off as requiring only a permit to carry a concealed weapon and a one-day waiting period for purchasing a gun. The waiting period gradually increased in length to three days in 1955, five days in 1965, and to ten days in 1975. The weapons portion of the California law is over 1,000 pages and still has 68 other regulations pending approval by the state's government. Other states like New York and New Jersey have very low magazine round limits, which essentially restrict the ability to buy weapons that have never had magazines of that size made for them. These things show that anti gun advocates are willing to take any measure they can to get weapons banned in the U.S. and in essence violate the constitutional rights of Americans. New York's Attorney General considered this to be a modest step in the state's gun laws (Hardy). The right to bear arms has been deemed a basic American right since the formation of this country and should not be taken away due to skewed arguments and statistics by the pro-gun control crowd.

Owning guns has been a way of life since the formation of the United States. Over the last several decades the country has been concerned with removing that part of American culture. Multiple recent Supreme Court cases have reiterated the fact that owning a gun is a constitutional right. The ruling in the case of District of Columbia v Heller in 2008 protected an individuals right to own a firearm. The case of District of Columbia v McDonald in 2010 applied to the ruling on the state level (Gray). Hunter Gray, a writer and civil rights veteran who has over 40 years of experience, says these people that are fighting for this change have nearly no knowledge of firearms. They do not know about their uses such as hunting and self-defense and focus only on the death rates caused by these firearms. These lobbyists in favor of gun control are taking the current liberal approach to the subject, which is to ban anything that bothers them (Gray). Liberals will not be satisfied with just a tightening of the gun laws in the U.S., they are attempting to ban them completely. The fact that these issues have been brought to trial and on two separate occasions been upheld that firearm ownership is a basic American right shows that it should not be taken. The liberal opposition to this right needs to be fought rigorously in order to protect one of the oldest liberties that was outlined at the creation this country.

Social media has changed the way the American public views the issue of gun violence in this country. Many news stations now run around the clock and murders and mass shootings have become something they love to broadcast. Social media has a way of glorifying the shooters in these mass shootings and high profile shootings. As David Susman, a police office with a bachelor's in criminal justice says, the majority of these people that commit mass shootings are mentally disturbed and reclusive. These people that keep to themselves are destined to live a life of anonymity but the way news stations broadcast these murders gives them a cop out. The massive amounts of coverage they receive allow these people to relinquish their anonymity and allow the country to know their names (Susman). When looking at the shootings of Sandy Hook, Columbine, and the Aurora movie theatre, all four were proven to be mentally disturbed individuals, and three out of the four committed suicide upon conclusion of their shootings. These killers more likely than not contemplated suicide but knew that a mass shooting would allow them to die with the world knowing their names (Susman). Not only does social media supply large scale murderers a medium to get their names out, but it also exaggerates the seriousness of gun related murders that have been a part of society for hundreds of years. The way these killings are blown out of proportion provides a backing for the liberal opposition in favor of banning weapons in the U.S. These things show how much of a role that media plays in gun violence in the country and that in many cases it is media and its glorification of gun violence that is the issue, not guns themselves. If news broadcasts and other forms of journalism kept the names of the killers anonymous, and glorified only those who confront the shooter, the issue could be resolved (Susman).

To add to his already long list of things that Obama wants to do in relation to pro-gun control, in just the past year he has expressed an interest in essentially banning the country's most popular assault rifle. He plans to outlaw the caliber of bullet used by this rifle, stopping its production, and driving the price of it so high that big outdoor sports stores no longer make a profit off sales of rounds still in circulation (Bedard). However, this imposed ban has already met resistance by the House of Representatives and a letter to stop the ban has been circulated throughout congress and been co-signed by over thirty members. Obama was unable to ban the AR-15's ammunition through legislative means so he is now trying ban it through regulation by the ATF. The only reason given for the imposed prohibition was that the caliber of round can be used in handguns, further endangering the lives of police. In refutation, Brent Ball, a gun store owner and 17-year police veteran, stated that "criminals aren't going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol" (Bedard). He expressed that the only handguns sold that can carry these round and actually rather large, unwieldy, and easy to see; the real threat to police lives are the small ones you cannot see. President Obama is stepping over his presidential bounds by attempting to impose this ban on the AR-15's ammunition without congressional consent.

The immediate resistance against this proposed ban shows that it is not in the best interest of not only government officials, but also people involved in the gun community like Brent Ball. 

When it comes down to it, no gun law is going to impede crimes of passion. There are already laws in place that require waiting periods after purchasing to attempt to stop these types of crimes, but they do not work. People who wish to harm to the well being of others "will find weapons through any means necessary"(O'Brien). This is backed up by several interviews with teen killers in which all of them said "nothing could have prevented them from getting a weapon, regardless of what kinds of laws were imposed" (O'Brien). Within this argument arises the argument from the opposition that an all out prohibition of weapons would prevent these people from obtaining weapons. A complete ban of firearms would in no way get all gun in the U.S. out of circulation and would instead only expand on illegal gun sales in the country, which is the main method criminals use to obtain weapons. This situation would cause an expansion of crime similarly to the expansion caused by the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. A ban of weapons would be the irrational thing to do in this instance. There are holes and problems in the current gun law in the United States but a ban would also create even further problems than the ones that we already face. Any change of gun law needs a balance of protection from gun violence and the right to bear arms.

The prohibition of firearms in the United States is not the solution to gun violence. There are nearly ninety guns per every one hundred people in the United States and despite this drastic increase in gun ownership since the 1990s, the amount of gun related deaths have actually decreased over the same period of time. Pro-gun control lobbyists exaggerate the seriousness of many the evidence that is brought up in articles in favor of banning guns. Things like the gun show loophole and the actual amount of gun violence in this country are exaggerated. Not only are they exaggerated by gun control advocates, the media does as well making situations more serious than they are. Taking away these weapons would drastically alter the way Americans lived for hundreds of years. Although it has been reported than a very small percentage of shooting deaths are a result of self-defense, owning these weapons is a necessity for self-defense. In most of the cases just the presence of a gun alone, without having to actually fire it, was enough to ward of an attacker (Hunter). In conclusion, American gun laws are not perfect but the complete prohibition of firearms is not the answer and ultimately would violate a constitutional right established at the formation of this country.

