Gun control is a topic that has been exhausted over the years due to many mixed beliefs. Our country has been divided on the subject due to the rate of mass murders and the need to remain faithful to America's Second Amendment. The Second Amendment 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.” » Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The people should always have the right to defend themselves against a corrupt government. So we should not restrict gun ownership. Americans who pass a background check and do not have a violent criminal record should have the right to own all handguns, rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. Self-defense is a fundamental right granted to American citizens by the Constitution. Our country was founded on the right to own firearms, and if we were to infringe on that right, we would no longer be the same country we were originally. When the Constitution was adopted, George Washington was asked whether guns should be banned. Washington wanted the people to have guns in order to keep the government in check. When the United States declared its independence from Great Britain, the Bill of Rights was founded with the goal of developing a better and happier way of life for the people. One of the rules put in place was that the people should have the right to fight properly against a tyrannical government. Some may consider this idea crazy, even scandalous. However, the harsh truth is that if you look at every civilization, they all failed. Most of the time this happens because of a disconnect between the people and the government. Tyranny in government can arise in a short period of time, as seen with the Turkish government. The Bill of Rights was created to ensure that this did not happen in the United States. If we were to limit the people's right to fight back against the government, how would we be different from all previous failed civilizations? Often in the past, governments have completely overpowered their people, leading to destruction. The American people currently have reasonable firepower to strike back at the government if necessary. With the firepower the US military has today, it could completely wipe us out if we were not properly armed. We cannot fight their might of fully automatic weapons, tanks, bombs, etc. with sticks and stones, or even handguns. It is often believed that if guns were banned, crime would decrease significantly. Several studies have estimated that stricter gun laws would lead to less accessibility to guns, which in turn would lead to fewer mass murders. Researcher Gary Kleck noted that findings on the effectiveness of gun control laws are not conclusive on their own. Other studies, such as those by John Moorhouse, have found that there is no evidence that gun control reduces gun crime. This 2016 study examined the correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership in 171 countries. Moorhouse says: “India ranks second in gun ownership, but is not even in the top five countries in the world for mass shootings. » A good example would beto take a look at Australia after banning semi-automatic weapons, shotguns and rifles. A research paper on gun control provided by Gary Kleck shows that following this ban, there was insufficient evidence to prove it was a reason for the decrease in mass shootings. This is a perfect example of how banning guns will not guarantee a reduction in mass shootings. People often believe that a reduction in the number of guns available will, in turn, lead to a reduction in homicides. However, researchers Chapman, Alpers, Agho and Jones proved these beliefs to be inaccurate due to insufficient evidence to verify that banning guns led to a decrease in mass shootings in Australia. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban ensured that Americans were no longer allowed to obtain assault weapons. This ban lasted from 1994 to 2004. A 2014 study by Mark Gius found that this ban had no impact on homicide rates during this 10-year period. A gun ban would only encourage people to commit crimes with other, equally harmful weapons. Whether it's with knives or pipe bombs, if people want to commit violent crimes, they will find a way to do it. Information provided by the U.S. Department of Justice shows that you are 19 times more likely to be stabbed than shot. Some of our nation's deadliest and most tragic events have occurred without the use of weapons. Most recently, the Boston bombings left many people injured and killed, leaving the world speechless. All this was done by a few backpacks loaded with explosives. Or think about what is perhaps the worst day in American history, September 11, 2001. This event left more than 3,000 people dead and another 6,000 injured. Mass murders will happen whether guns are legal or not, because of all the different weapons available. The fact is that if an individual, or group, wants to murder or harm others, they will find a way. Viewing guns as the only problem in mass murders is outrageous. Ten years ago, approximately 39% of American households owned guns. The last recorded percentage of households owning guns was just above 43 percent. These percentages have rebounded over the past 20 years, reaching highs of 45 percent in 2011 and lows of 37 percent in 2013. Statistics show that in 2011 there were just over 32,000 deaths per year. firearm. These figures include intentional, unintentional, suicide and justice interventions. However, according to ProCon.org, a website providing neutral and credible research, in 2013, with nearly eight percent fewer households with guns, the number of gun deaths increased to nearly by 34,000. So with a decrease in the percentage of households owning guns, the number of gun crimes actually increased. If we were to simply look at this evidence, it would be fair to say that an increase in the number of households with guns would not lead to an increase in gun deaths. The last recorded gun count in the United States was just over 393 million. Ten years earlier, in 2007, there were just under 300 million guns. In 2007, the population was about equal, with gun counts around 300 million. Sarah Mervosh, a researcher for the New York Times, reported that "gun deaths in 2007 were 32,000 and gun deaths in 2017 were 38,000." Yes, there was aincrease of 6,000 people, but if we look at this per capita figure, the numbers look a little different. The number of guns increased, as did the number of people. The number of guns has increased far more than the number of guns, so with an increase of over 90 million guns and only 6,000 additional deaths, the increase in deaths is not as alarming. Additionally, with the population increasing by nearly 25 million over those 10 years, there is bound to be an increase in gun deaths. To add to that, there were approximately 1.31 guns per person in 2017. In 2007, there were only 1.03 guns per person. Doing some basic math, the numbers clearly show that with increasing population and increasing numbers of guns, the number of gun deaths is actually lower than it was with fewer weapons per person. Gun ownership is essential to Americans because good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. The National Safety Council states that including suicides, there were approximately 40,000 gun-related deaths in 2018. Not counting suicide, there were between 12,000 and 16,000 gun homicides. However, the National Security Council also recorded that between 500,000 (lowest estimate) and 3,000,000 (highest estimate) lives were saved by firearms. The numbers presented here prove that far more lives are saved than lost to firearms. The defensive use of firearms far outweighs the negative use. An active shooter can cause considerable damage in a matter of minutes. These precious minutes could be the time it takes for law enforcement to arrive on scene. What happens if one or two people are near the crime scene and are also armed? The threat could be eliminated long before things really get out of hand. If the active shooter is stopped by an armed civilian, the number of casualties could decrease significantly. All it takes is one armed civilian to stop a potential deadly shooting. Considering one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history, at the Pulse nightclub, the shooter managed to kill almost 50 people in a matter of minutes. If only one person had been equipped to fight back, this threat could have been eliminated with far fewer casualties. This idea was proven by a man named Stephen Willeford, who is also an NRA firearms instructor. In Sutherland Springs, Texas, a man entered a church and killed 27 people. However, this number was limited by Stephen Willeford when he shot the active shooter with an AR-15, forcing the shooter to drop his rifle and flee the scene. Although 27 people lost their lives in this tragic event, it was interrupted by a man with an AR-15. If criminals want to get weapons, they will and it will be relatively easy for them because of the strength of the black forces. walk. No matter what laws we pass to keep people from getting guns, they will always find a way to get them. Drugs are an example. Drugs are illegal, but they are still widely present in the world today and are very easy to obtain. The same would be true for firearms. If they were to be banned, they would not disappear; it would just be more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain them. This would result in more bad guys with guns and fewer good guys with guns. If criminals have access to guns and law-abiding citizens do not, how can the criminal be stopped with a gun? It isexactly the idea of ​​a tyrannical government. If people have no way to fight back against an opposing threat, it is simply unfair and serious damage can be inflicted. Examples of this are the Aurora movie theater shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School. A shooter armed to harm was capable of doing just that with his victims as easy targets. They were forced to hide and pray not to be caught by an oncoming bullet. If law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns, there will be no way to stop these threats. Criminals are the ones who commit the majority of gun-related crimes. Civilians should have the right to properly retaliate against an adverse threat when the time comes. Legal gun owners are not the problem with mass shootings. There are more than 40 million legal gun owners in the United States today. Information from Everytownresearch.org shows evidence collected by several researchers. This information provided evidence of the number of mass shootings carried out by legally prohibited gun owners in 2018. Of 307 mass shootings, one in three were carried out by shooters legally prohibited from purchasing firearms . Among all gun owners in the United States, there is an extremely small percentage of mass murders committed by legal gun owners. It is not fair to punish all gun owners through the negative decisions of some. When guns are in the hands of responsible owners, we can limit the number of crimes involving guns. With proper background checks and mental health testing prohibiting anyone from purchasing a gun with a violent history, we can limit the number of guns in the wrong hands. Finally, we don't live in a perfect world and we never will. Crimes will happen, deaths will occur, criminals will obtain guns, and guns will be used to kill innocent people. That being said, we can only do our best. This means keeping weapons in the right hands, having the means to repel attacks if necessary, and last but not least, maintaining what our country was built and founded on; the right to bear arms. Once we start changing and altering what our country was built on by clearly removing our natural rights stated in the Bill of Rights, that is when we will fail. Owning a firearm is a fundamental right to protection. Whether it's self-defense, our property, or the government, every civilian deserves the right to protect themselves. Crimes will happen and people need to understand that we do not and will never live in a utopian society. Guns give us the power of freedom. Abigail Abrams, editor of the New York Times, conducted a study of a number of Americans and their beliefs about what freedom means to them. “A lot of people think that if we deprive them of the right to rebel, that is not in accordance with the Constitution.” His research showed that 74 percent of gun owners say owning a gun is essential to their freedom. The United States broke free from the world's greatest superpower of the time, Great Britain, by fighting and doing what other civilizations could not do. The country was born from a violent revolution that led to a strong gun culture. The Constitution was set up so that this could never happen in the United States. George Washington understood the importance of people owning guns and found it essential to keeping people happy and preventing violence..