There is a constant argument of whether the regulations on guns that are in place are sufficient in stopping or limiting gun related violence.  Half of the population believes that there needs to be stricter gun laws or the complete removal of guns, and the other half believes that there are enough regulations in place if not too many.  This tends to correlate with a person’s political party.  Gun violence in America is not a result of lack of regulations on who can buy a gun, but instead is a result in the crime rates and severe mental illnesses that are not being taken care of efficiently.  In the United States of America, today there are 270 million guns.  That is 89 guns to every 100 people, and there are on average 12,000 gun related incidences.  Almost 1,000 of them are incidental or none violent, and around 70 being mass shootings.  Gun regulations are not the problem, criminals will find a way to get a gun with or without regulations, and civilians should have the choice to protect themselves.  The more regulations that are put in place to prevent the purchasing of all or certain types of guns will not be beneficial to America’s safety, economy, or protection.

In the Constitution, we have the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.  If the government were to try and put checks on our constitutional rights, they would be taking away the basic ideals of being an American.  Freedom of the people would be gone.  Gun control would be going against the basic values the Founding Fathers established this country on.  Gun control is the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians.  For anyone to try and infringe on our rights as American citizens is wrong and unconstitutional and once we lose that right, other rights stated by the constitution are no longer safe.

Guns give people a sense of security and protection against criminals and home invasions.  Since the first gun was built, guns have been used as a way for people to have a sense of security.  Guns are what keep the United States of America free, they are what keeps our police officers safe while they defend our streets, and they give protection to the average person who is worried about someone harming their family.  A large majority of gun control advocates believe that guns should not only have more checks put in place, but should be completely removed.  This includes not only from civilians, but from the police forces around the nation also.  Recent news has sparked this due to the “police brutality” and “excessive force” used by officers when dealing with criminals in situations that the average person cannot fathom.  Last year alone, 166 police officers were shot and killed by armed criminals.  This number represents solely the officers shot by people who could not legally acquire a fire arm due to their history and criminal record.  People like this would continue to get these fire arms illegally the same way they have been for years.  Now if you removed the protection of guns in the police departments, not only does the number of officers that are killed go up, but the amount of crime going on goes up, because the police force loses their strength and ability to scare a criminal. John Stossel, a journalist and researcher of gun behaviors and law, compiled research from government data bases about states with assault weapon bans in which he found that from 1980 to 2009 (when his research ended) the crime rates per state did not differ from those without the bans.  He later stated in one of his articles “Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'.  If a criminal knows the officer has no way to protect himself, the criminal will not worry about being caught.  Adding strict gun controls like the complete removal of guns in the police department would leave people feeling unsafe, and would make crimes easier to get away with.

Another view that is still very extreme is to completely take away guns from the American people, while allowing police forces to still be armed.  Maybe not all guns, but even if the government were to infringe on our rights and take away assault rifles and handguns, people would feel as if the government was taking their family’s protection from them.  The National Rifle Association has found that there are 2.5 million times a year that civilians use a fire arm in self-defense.  The presence of a gun, even if the gun is not used, can be the deciding factor on whether a crime takes place.  If a criminal thinks you have a gun, they are much more unlikely to proceed with a crime.  In recent years, researchers have surveyed convicted felons and found that on average 48% of felons said they would avoid committing a crime on a victim that was armed or they thought may be armed.  Removing guns from a person’s home takes away security and makes being a criminal easier, knowing they cannot be met with brute force. 

Gun controls not only infringe on people’s right to protect themselves and their property, but also their right to recreationally hunt for sport.  Recreational hunting is one of America’s biggest pastimes.  Annually there are around 15 million hunters over the age of 18, so this does not even account for the youth hunters in America.  Most of the gun restrictions that the gun control advocates want to put in place would eliminate much of the big game hunting.  Water fowl and field birds would still be able to be hunted, because shotguns are not included in most of the legislature that is trying to be passed, but bigger game like deer and pig hunting would be limited to shotguns and bows.  The limitations on what type of guns that can be used would affect the people who rely on hunting for food, hunting for fun, and hunting to keep populations controlled and numbers of certain animals down.  Feral hogs are on the rise in America, with 750,000 pigs harvested annually, but the population still rises.  These pigs result in around $50 million of damage per state where the hogs are per year.  If means of keeping the populations down are eliminated, like removal of assault rifles and other hand guns, the population would grow exponentially, eventually wreaking havoc on America’s Midwest farm lands and crop growth.  Gun control would remove the ability to recreationally hunt, eventually costing Americans millions in damages, while also raising the price of produce due to limited supply.

If the gun control legislature is implemented the American economy and job system would lose billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of small businesses would be forced to close, putting thousands of people out of work.  The use of these guns that gun control advocates are trying to limit, bring in an annual income of $35 billion dollars to the U.S. economy when you add in the attachments, ammunition, and other gear.  The removal of this would not only cut a major dent into state tax income, but also have an impact on jobs.  In the United States of America, there are currently around 300,000 people employed by the gun industry.  Most of the 300,000-people employed by guns are either small business owners, or employed by a small business.  The gun industry is not controlled by one or two massive corporations, but thousands of small ammunition manufacturers, or gun smiths.  For example, in the Midwest or Southern parts of The United States of America small towns rely on this as a major income.  Idaho records around $500 million of their states revenue as coming from these small businesses, while also employing around 10,000.  Even if the gun controls put in place only limit the types of ammunition, attachments, or magazines, the United States and local economies will take a hit.

No matter if they are illegal or not, criminals will find a way to buy guns illegally.  Gun controls will limit the average law-abiding citizen from purchasing rifles, high-powered ammunition, and other attachments; however, it will not stop a criminal.  Criminals do not care about the law and the way they live their life is not by following the law.  If you create laws about guns, nothing will change and criminals will still break them.  Conducting a background check? The criminals will get the gun from a friend.  Limit sales of a fire arm in your state? Criminals will just get one in another state.  Completely stop the sale of firearms? The criminals will turn to stealing.  According to the BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) around 40% of criminals that were in possession of a firearm at the time of their committed crime or arrest, say that they themselves were not the ones that purchased it, but a friend had given it to them.  If people try hard enough to acquire a gun, then they can.  Chicago has one of the highest crime rates in all the United States.  As a way to limit their crime, the state of Illinois banned all gun shops, assault rifles, shooting ranges, and high capacity magazines.  This did not have a dent on the crime rate.  Crime rates in the city of Chicago went up from the previous years.  In 2014, there were 2091 shooting victims, 395 of which were ruled as a murder.  There were also nearly 50,000 guns that have been recovered in the past five years by Chicago PD, with only half of them originating within the state of Illinois, further proving that if you ban guns, criminals will find somewhere else to obtain them.

Another reason gun control advocates say stricter gun control needs to be implemented is more sensitive than others.  Gun control advocates claim that if stricter gun regulations are implemented the rate of suicide will go down.  Research shows that countries with high HDI have no correlation between suicide and gun control.  Lithuania has a HDI of .89, and the lowest number of guns and highest gun controls out of all of the countries with the countries listed.  Lithuania also reports a yearly suicide rate of around 46 per 100,000 people.  Similarly, in Japan, another country with one of the higher HDIs has 0.6 guns per 100 people, but has a yearly suicide rate of 20 per 100,000 people.  On the complete opposite end, a country with the highest gun to people ration of 89 to 100, the United States, has a much lower suicide rate of 11 per 100,000 people.  This comparison shows there is no correlation between guns and suicide rates.  If someone is going to take their life, the government’s influence on guns is not going to be what stops them. 

Although there are so many reasons why gun control would be detrimental to society, there would be a few beneficial outcomes.  Every year there are accidents.  Whether it be a hunting accident, or a child showing his best friend his father’s cool new shotgun, there will always be the accident.  With the gun controls in place this could limit the 548 unintentional killings that happen annual.  You take away a family’s gun and maybe their son does not accidently shoot his friend.  Maybe some drunk does not shoot his pistol in the air and hit someone’s wife.  These senseless, unintentional loses of life would not happen if legislation was put in.  Another way gun control could be beneficial is with a limited number of guns in American households, stolen guns would no longer be a way for criminals to acquire them.  There are 232,000 guns stolen from households per year in America.  This results in the products being sold on the underground markets to people who should not be able to purchase them.  Eliminating guns, or high powered ammunition, would remove the 232,000 guns that are stolen and used in criminal acts.  Although overall gun control would have a negative impact, the accidental killings would stop and you would limit the stole gun markets, hopefully resulting in less crime.  
