The topic of gun control has been a thoroughly debated and constantly reviewed subject since the birth of our nation.  The issue has vehemently raged on between two polarized sides, in those who are pro-gun rights and those who are pro-gun control.  Gun rights activists, like the National Rifle Association (NRA), National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America and many others, all believe in protecting and supporting the Second Amendment of the United States.  The Second Amendment states that, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” On the other hand, there are many gun control activist groups such as The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and many other gun control advocacy groups believe that gun ownership should be more regulated and limited.  These two sides frequently clash over present laws and fight over the need for more control.  “In recent years, gun control debates have focused primarily on background checks for buyers, allowing people to carry weapons in public, and whether to allow the possession of assault rifles. (Gun Control Explained.)”

I believe that additional gun control is not necessary and does not prevent gun violence.  In fact, I believe that gun control is negatively effecting gun violence in many areas.  In school zones, if more personnel and faculty were well trained and allowed to carry firearms many mass shootings could have been minimized or stopped.  In addition, regardless of laws, criminals will still find ways to purchase guns and firearms.  Lastly, the simple legality of additional gun control infringes on the right to bear arms, a constitutional amendment.  Gun control creates more problems than it solves.

The gun control activists have a logical and educated thought process in gun control.  The idea of adding more regulations and extreme limitations, and in certain cases it is helpful.  However, in the vast majority of time it is not.  Gun control activists believe that creating gun free zones in large public areas will deter mass shootings.   Gun control activists frequently look at the policies enacted in other countries, like Australia, where it is relatively effective in gun violence.  In addition, gun control activists look to regulate all potential loop holes that people can utilize when they are trying to purchase guns.  Gun control activists favor the argument that, ‘Fewer guns, better records on who has them, and some restrictions on purchase, possession and storage, gun control advocates argue, would still allow law-abiding people to have firearms, while resulting in far fewer deaths. They contend that it is not a question of disarming the public or absolutes – most people agree that individuals should not have bazookas or machine guns – but a matter of where to draw sensible limits.(Gun Control Explained.)”  

Gun control activists arguments for gun control sound rational and reasonable however they are not in the best interest of the United States.  More often than not, gun control activists are misinformed and biased.  The statistics that many gun control activists use to support their claims that the United States is the worst country in relation to gun violence are inflated.  For example, violent crime and gun violence has steadily decreased since the 1990’s, yet a study by Cleveland State has shown that gun ownership has increased by about 10 million every year since then.  This argument completely deters one of the movements lead points.  Another statistic that is inflated and needs clarity is the number of gun related death.  Many people do not recognize that most deaths due to gun violence are in fact suicides. There are almost twice as many suicides by gun then there are homicides by guns in the United States.  The National Vital Statistics Report reported that, in 2013 alone, there were 41,149 intentional suicides in the United States. When these suicides that are gun related are added to the total number of gun related homicides, it causes an intentionally biased statistic.  

The gun control policies of Australia and England have been mentioned as examples set for the United States.  Australia has a gun buyback program where you can resell your guns in exchange for money. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has completely restricted guns for private ownership.  These policies work in theory and in their respective countries however they would fail in the United States.  A gun buyback program has been used multiple times in the United States, but the majority of gun owners either do not want to sell their guns or sell off their old guns in an attempt to purchase new ones.  The policy enacted by Australia would also not be effective in the United States as it infringes on the Second Amendment.  “The U.K.'s policy could not work in the U.S. because we have a Constitution, we have a Second Amendment, and we have a Supreme Court decision that guarantees the right of Americans to keep and bear arms in their home for lawful purposes. So we cannot have a prohibition of private ownership of firearms. (Criminologist Case Against Gun Control.)”  The foreign gun control policies would not be beneficial in the United States, regardless of how effective they are in their domestic countries.

Another big issues that gun control activists fight for is an assault rifle ban.  Every mass shooting and large terror incident brings up the debate of assault rifles.  Gun control activists use these tragic events to paint assault rifles as the bogeymen of gun violence.  However they do not understand that Assault Rifles still have the same functionalities as handguns and other firearms.  “Assault weapons are not more powerful, they do not shoot more bullets, and they do not shoot faster. We would not be a safer society if we could eliminate all of the assault weapons because people could substitute for them non-assault weapons that are exactly the same. (Criminologist Case Against Gun Control.)”

Gun rights activists have more logical and reasonable arguments in favor of their cause.  Gun rights activists approach is much simpler.  We need to enforce the law better and allocate a larger budget in an effort to do so.  “We already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before. That's right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law. (Gun Control Is Not the Answer.)” We need to return to what worked in order to reduce the gun violence problem in our country.  Democrats and left leaning Americans need to understand that prohibition is ineffective and would never work in the case of guns as it has already been tested.  “it is impossible to prevent criminals from procuring weapons. For example, cities with stringent handgun bans— New York, Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C. —suffer from high rates of handgun crimes. Prohibition failed abysmally to prevent people from obtaining alcohol; America’s current War on Drugs is a similar colossal failure; and numerous anti-prostitution laws in numberless nations for countless centuries have failed to extirpate the world’s oldest profession.   Legal prohibition of X does not prevent the procuring of X.(To Protect the Innocent).”

Making guns more difficult to acquire and actively trying to take them away results in guns being taken from law abiding citizens.  Criminals will acquire guns no matter what laws are there to prevent that purchase because they are criminals and do not tend to follow laws.  This just makes creates more bad guys with guns.   A study by the University of Pittsburg Graduate School showed, “ in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else,” and that “More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio's research. But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime (New Evidence Supports Gun Rights).” There will always be a plentiful and never ending source for criminals to obtain guns.  The black market is always open to someone who does not intend on following the law.   This statistics shows that the majority of gun violence and gun related crimes are caused by perpetrators who are not the rightful owners of the weapon.  Adding new regulations and restrictions to stop people from rightfully obtaining guns will have no impact on people who already did not rightfully own their own guns in the first place.

Gun Control activists push for gun free zones and for schools to be gun free however gun rights activists argue that the opposite should be enacted. Similarly to the last point, gun free zones have no meaning to criminals.  Regardless of what the law says, someone who is intent on doing harm to another human will regardless of a gun free zone.  In fact, gun free zones almost put a red flag on areas where people certainly do not have a way to stop a shooting.  There have been many recorded instances where trained school officials were able to stop potential massacres.  For example, in 2007, an armed shooter walked into a church in Colorado Springs killed two girls.  Luckily, a former police officer was on security for the church and was able to shoot the gunman before he could kill anyone else.  At my high school in New Jersey, we had a security guard at the front door.  Although it was not a violent or crime prone area I did feel safer having a guard on campus.  However, without a gun there was not much that he could do if anything were to ever happen.  I would have personally felt much safer knowing that my administrators where professionally trained to handle weapons and could assist in any possible threats.  As William Bennet said in his CNN article entitled, “The Case for Gun Rights is Stronger Than You Think”, “Eliminating or restricting firearms for public self-defense doesn't make our citizens safer; it makes them targets. If we are going to have a national debate about guns, it should be acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety.(The Case for Gun Rights.)” 

The answer to stopping gun violence is in the past.  We have the legislation necessary to prevent ownership and enough laws to stop any one in their tracks already.  However, we are not effectively enforcing these laws.  Recently the enforcement has been weak, “But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.(Gun Control Isnt the Answer.)”

Adding additional regulations would be worthless if we would enforce them the same way we are enforcing our current laws.  Additional gun control laws will eventually catapult into a proposed complete prohibition on guns if we continue to insist on more laws.  For instance, “Take the example of California. There, 1920s legislation required a permit for concealed carry of a firearm, required dealers to report handgun sales to the state, and imposed a one-day waiting period for handgun sales.  The one-day wait was meant to impede “crimes of passion,” but in 1955 it was increased to three days, in 1965 to five days, and in 1975 to 10 days (Why Gun Owners are Right to Fight.)” At a certain point political bickering needs to end and a line has to be drawn.

This topic and argument is very important and significant because it is a huge part of American history.  I am interested in this debate because I am an American citizen, and this has been a controversial topic in the United States for decades.  As a passionate and observant citizen I am inclined to have a view in this democratic debate although it may not totally affect me.  This research question does slightly affect my value. Personally, although I consider myself independent in the political climate, I tend to lean right and Republican.  I believe that the current state of our gun control is enough, but needs to be enforced effectively.  I relate to the major Republican opinion of gun rights and respecting the Second Amendment.  A few changes can be made, however, by trying to minimize possible loop holes in obtaining guns like gun shows.  Many people should care about this debate and this research.  Both sides of the argument, although they may not agree, should be able to acknowledge the other’s viewpoint. There is no perfect answer to gun control so the more it is debated and researched then more positive dialogue will be created by both sides.  The more informed the average American is on gun control, then the more sensible and educated arguments will come instead of the political situation brewing at the moment.  

More gun control is not what this nation needs at the moment.  Many gun control activists main arguments are incorrect.  Gun violence is terrible at the moment but inflated statistics cause increased scare in guns.  In addition, the foreign gun control policies that may work in their respective countries, would be unrealistic and ineffective in the United States.  Also, gun free zones make communities less safe and put innocent civilians at risk.  On the other hand, guns rights activists push to make communities and school safer.  Training school administrators and keeping professionally trained personnel in public areas would deter many mass shootings that occur in the United States.  We need to continue to use our current gun control approach, but with a stronger attack.  The government needs to allocate funds to continue their campaign against gun violence while continuing to uphold the Second Amendment.   Increased gun control would cause more problems than it would fix and more gun control only creates more gun violence.
