We are known as the Land of the Free. People from far away places dream of coming to this very country for that exact reason. I know my family did. Because of the issues America is dealing with now, that vision of a free land is no longer. The Government of the United States came up with a plan called ‘gun control’ and that threatens our right to possess firearms. Our right to bear arms should not be touched by the government because, an act like that, attacks the individual as well as the people overall. It is counterproductive and must not come into play for the sake of the people involved and the future generations.

Americans today are unaware that gun crime is lower than it has been since twenty years ago. Since the peak of the U.S. gun homicides - in 1993 - our rate for firearm homicides are 49% lower, even with our population growing. Our biggest plunge in those rates were in the 1990s but has been gradually declining since. Research from the Pew Research Center also concludes that homicide rates in the late 2000s and now are equivalent to those in the mid 1960s, which is fantastic because those numbers were fairly low considering there was barely any crime back then (Cohn et al., "Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware").

Gun control doesn’t make people any safer. It will be counterproductive in the sense that it makes them prone to harm from criminals because guns deter criminals from assaulting a person. Since they too don’t want to be shot (Tucci, "Why I'm Against Gun Control"). But the lack of a gun will leave the people vulnerable. Also take into consideration that owning a gun evens out the playing field in which the criminal and the victim is playing on (Tucci, "Why I'm Against Gun Control"). It’s more for personal safety and intimidation than anything. Evidence from a study performed by criminology professor Gary Kleck, shows victims with guns are less likely to be injured or hurt than victims who are unarmed (qtd. in Tucci, "Why I'm Against Gun Control").

Let’s not forget that it is our given right to own guns. That is clearly stated in the Second Amendment in the Constitution and cannot be argued with (amend. XII, sec. 3). “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” (US Const. amend. XII, sec. 3).That right was protected by our Founding Fathers to help maintain an already existing right. We are the militia, it is the individual and not just the military force that this applies to (qtd. in MacBradaigh, "9 Things You Didn't Know About the Second Amendment"). And our right to possess firearms should not be violated or else that will be going against the law set for us by the Founders.

We as a whole shouldn’t be taken accountable for a few other individual’s wrong doings. The fact of the matter is that mass shootings is a terrible thing to be happening in the first place but contemplate the number of criminals that committed those crimes. In 2012, there was a total of 16 mass shootings in America (Zornick, "Sixteen US Mass Shootings Happened in 2012") - meaning only 16 people in total were in the wrong . Take that number and compare it with the 34% of American households that possessed guns, according to a new national survey (Brinkerhoff, "One Third of Americans Own Guns"). You would end up with a fairly tiny percentage that allows you to understand how unfair it is for the majority of gun owners who will have to pay the price for something that they didn’t do or condone.

One purpose of the Second Amendment that most politicians overlook is the fact that it is there to help the protect the people against tyranny. Once we allow the government to take one right of ours away from us, they will begin to think that they can keep taking as they please. It will get to a point where we won’t have anymore rights of our own and this country will switch over to autocracy. That was a concern in 1788, during the ratification debates, that the government would take away their arms to impose laws upon them with a military force. The Second Amendment came to be from that, it was and still is the solution to tyranny (qtd. in MacBradaigh, "9 Things You Didn't Know About the Second Amendment").

Gun control advocates would argue that gun control does work because they have proof of it. They will bring up Australia’s 1996 gun-control law and how it brought down homicide rates (Tucci, "Why I'm Against Gun Control"). Basing on that piece of information alone, the pro gun-control people use it as their strong evidence to prove the law’s effectiveness. They didn’t mention the fact that those statistics were more true for firearm suicide rates than homicide rates (Matthews, "Did Gun Control Work In Australia"). Studies also show mixed results to whether there is a correlation between gun possession and homicide rates; that is still unclear . Though Australia’s homicide rate has showed a decline since the late 1990s so has America’s (Tucci, "Why I'm Against Gun Control"), yet no one wants to acknowledge that in an argument.

Originally I was mutual on this topic. Until I weighed the pros and cons of gun control and realized that for something that is suppose to be ‘good’ for the nation, there sure is a lot of cons involved. Gun control ends up being more counterproductive than the government anticipated. Ultimately, our right to own guns shouldn’t be touched by the government. Not only doesn’t it guarantee total protection for the people but also it punishes them for crimes that only a small amount of non law abiding citizens committed. Another key point is that, this right that some Americans are fighting over is already ours. The Second Amendment promises us that, it also restricts the government from having too much power over the people. All in all, if the Government of the United States run this over in their heads then they would come to the conclusion that they have no right to take away our right, that is to possess guns.



















>.