Does having gun control laws trample an individual’s rights to possess guns?  This debate has divided our country and established strong opinions on both sides of the issue.  One can turn on the daily newscast and be guaranteed to see the effects of senseless gun violence.  Too many people, especially young people, die as a result of gun violence.  Further, the ease in which a gun can be obtained illegally in the black market is a major problem in our city.  So while I acknowledge these horrors and problems, stricter gun control laws will be ineffective and will not solve our problems or widely benefit America in the long run.

     More gun control laws will not deter the criminals from obtaining a gun.  Criminals will always find a way to break the law and get a gun.  Also, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitutions grants every person has the right to bare arm. If the government were to create more gun control laws, it will take away the constitutional rights of law-abiding people to own guns for their safety and/or for sport purposes.

     Currently there are many guns in the hands of our citizens.  A 2012 Congressional Report stated that the total number of guns U.S. citizens had was 310 million in 2009.  This means that as of 2009, the number of guns in the hands of citizens averaged one for every US citizen.  If a law was to be passed that no more guns/rifles can be made or sold, there’s still going to be at least three million guns in America (FlameHorse, Maybe In A Perfect World). Gun control laws will be ineffective because there is still going to be thousands or even millions in the US.  Legal or not.  Laws will not cause them to go away.

     If gun control laws were passed to prevent the bad people from getting guns, the laws would not achieve this purpose.  One may not be surprised by this, but criminals break the law. Criminals don’t care about laws.  Laws to them are meant to be broken.  If  laws were to be passed to ban guns, criminals will always find a way to get guns.  The amount of shootings crimes done with unregistered guns by criminals show that they can easily get a gun that is not owned or registered to them.  For example, in Philadelphia over 90% of the shooting are committed by criminals with illegally possessed guns (Angel L. Flores, Chief Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office).  Also as an example, Adam Lanza, the person responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting, stole the guns to commit this horror from his mother, who legally owns them (Hawkins).  These examples, and many others like this, show that these criminals can get guns without much trouble.  Gun control laws will not stop the criminals from getting their hands on guns.  Rather the gun control laws will just prevent good, decent law- abiding people from obtaining guns legally.  It will do nothing to reduce the gun violence.
     The 2nd Amendment states that “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” (U.S. Const. am. 2).  This simply means that everyone has the right to legally own a gun unless they are disqualified by law to own a gun.  The United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. found in June 2008 that no city in America can stop citizens from having a gun in their house that are used for safety reasons.  Also, public polls show a clear answer that most Americans approve of the Second Amendments individual-right to bare arm (Infobase).  If the Constitution, written in 1787, states everyone has the right to own a gun and the majority of citizens in America believe that too, why should the government pass gun control laws?  There is no purpose in adding gun control laws especially if it against the will of the people.  The government should not make laws that are contrary to the 2nd Amendment, which is the right to own guns.  People also tend to forget that the Constitution was created for the law abiding people, not criminals (Lauzen).

The lawmakers should not be the ones to take away law-abiding citizens right to own a gun for safety or sport purposes. The majority of people who purchase or use a gun are law- abiding citizens (Infobase). If law-abiding people were unable to obtain or purchase guns for use in self defense, they would feel defenseless and unable to protect themselves or their property. The hunters without a gun will feel at lost and angry because their right to a sport was taken away.  What do you think the crime rate would be if you took away guns from law-abiding people and the criminals still have their guns?  Criminals will come after law-abiding people more knowing they are unarmed (Lauzen). This shows that making gun control laws can actually be more dangerous.  This may keep the crime rate where it is at or even increase it.  This is another reason as to why gun control laws will be ineffective.

     One might say that guns are what cause death, shootings, and violence.  However, people do not realize that guns are not what kill people, but people kill people.  Guns should not be blamed for violence.  Violence is an act.  There has never been a violent act performed by a gun.  Instead, a person themselves commits the violent act.  If a person misspells a word while writing with a pencil, is it the pencil’s fault or the person’s fault?  Guns will not end violence, only people can.  With that said, to end violence, look at people to make a change with themselves rather than the weapon they are blaming it on.  If guns are banned, the United States might as well ban every weapon because they all kill people too.  Should we ban knives, bats, or cars because they can also hurt people?

I am aware that some countries with strict gun control laws have a lower crime rate than in the United States. Yet, this is not the case for the Unites States.  For instance, Chicago has the highest gun control laws in the nation.  A Washington Examiner in an editorial, stated that the gun control laws in Chicago are only proving them to do nothing about decreasing violence.  As proof, in January 2013, there had been forty-four murders in Chicago in just that month.  At this rate, the amount of murders can easily pass the amount from the year before which was more than 500 (Maass).  Further, Iceland has one of the largest gun ownership rates in the world yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world (Ghosh). This shows that gun control laws can be ineffective. Its the person that owns the gun and not the guns itself.

In conclusion, gun control laws will not widely benefit America or reduce gun violence.  Criminals will always find a way to get a gun.  Also, making gun control laws will go against the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and the peoples rights.  This will make it unfair to the citizens who use guns for self defense and sport purposes.  Violence is caused by people. Making gun control laws will be ineffective or possibly make things worse.  It will be pointless. Keep our laws the way it is.

Works Cited
"Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Guarantee an Individual Right to Bear Arms?" icof.infobaselearning.com. N.p., 11 July 2008. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. .
Ghosh, Palash. "Iceland: Plenty Of Guns, But Hardly Any Violence."International Business Times'. N.p., 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Nov. 2014. .
Hawkins, Awr. "Sandy Hook Report: Adam Lanza Broke Laws to Acquire Guns, Broke More Laws Using Them." Breitbart.com. N.p., 25 Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2014. .
Maass, Harold. "Chicago's Rising Murder Rate: Has Gun Control Failed?"Theweek.com. N.p., 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2014. .
"Pro-2nd Amendment." Lauzen.com. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
.
"Should U.S. Gun Control Laws Be Strengthened?"infobaselearning.com. N.p., 17 Dec. 2012.
Web. 27 Oct. 2014. .