As citizens of the United States, do we have the right to bear arms? America's growing gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and carry weapons, shall not be infringed." This amendment has come under severe scrutiny over the past decade due to mass murders involving firearms. It is a hotly debated topic with two very polarizing points of view. On the one hand, it is believed that more read about gun control would lead to less gun-related violence. On the other hand, taking away guns from law-abiding citizens is not the answer to gun-related crime control of individual rights and the fulfillment of the needs and interests of the larger community. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an Original Essay Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens not only leaves many people unprotected, but it won't even have the dramatic effect of controlling gun violence that everyone was hoping for. It's easy to conclude that fewer guns in public possession would result in less gun-related violence, but is that true? The fact is, criminals will find a way to get a gun if they want it. If a criminal was already planning to hurt someone with a gun, he doesn't care whether it was obtained legally or not. The problem with this issue is that many are only focused on reducing gun violence and homicides. The overall homicide rate is also an important statistic because you have to think about all the cases in which American citizens have used guns to protect themselves. America has approximately 1.45 firearms per American, or approximately 393,347,000, which is the highest total and per capita in the world. In 1993 there was less than one gun per American. What may be surprising is that the murder rate has decreased as gun ownership has increased. The idea that more gun ownership equals more crime, or even that more guns equals more mass shootings, has very little evidence. When people watch the news and see a mass murder committed by a man who used a gun, it can trigger anger. You might ask, “How do we continue to let things like this happen?” Many people automatically think that with all this violence that stricter gun control laws are needed. The reason they believe this way is because current gun control laws are not as effective as they hoped. The main thing to understand is that you can put a law into legislation for stronger gun control, but criminals don't care. They are criminals, if they want a gun, they will get it illegally. It doesn't matter whether the gun is legal or not if a criminal uses it against someone else. The act they choose to use the gun on someone is illegal anyway, so why would they bother with a gun control law. “Every mass shooting that has occurred has been carried out against current laws that have done nothing to stop it. This isn't because the laws aren't tough enough, it's because you can't legislate behavior." Basically, criminal activity, including guns, cannot be stopped by a gun control law because “you can't legislate behavior,” as explained by Ryan Cleckner. Here's another statistic that shows how current gun control laws have proven to be ineffective. Gun control inTexas has an "F" rating from the Giffords Law Center for preventing gun violence. Since 2000, Texas has recorded only 6.6% of its total public mass shootings, which is lower than expected given that it is home to 8.6% of the nation's population. On the other hand, Washington state has a "B" rating and accounts for 2.2% of public mass shootings. population but 8% of mass public shootings since 2000. This is just another example of how gun control has failed to do its job, and some lawmakers believe that more gun control is the answer, which it's absurd. I Understand that when people fight about the issue of gun control, they are looking for ways to combat the amount of gun-related murders and violence across America. However, what defense does a law-abiding citizen have against a criminal with an illegally obtained gun? Passing strict gun control will only create more victims who will be left defenseless against an armed assailant. It would surprise you if I told you that “gun-free zones” are the most popular locations for mass shootings. Probably not. What happens when all firearms are outlawed and the only ones left are illegal weapons in the hands of criminals? How could we defend ourselves. Adams (1996) identifies two theoretical explanations for defensive gun ownership: acute fear of crime and past experiences of victimization. This is why many like to have a gun at home for protection. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: Guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people. People think of guns and automatically think of murder. But the truth is that guns save lives and without them many more would be lost. “Firearms prevent approximately 2.5 million crimes per year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including that of the criminal) is shed. and “Each year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented by using firearms.” According to Department of Justice statistics, 67,740 people each year do not become victims because they own a gun. It is plausible to suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry, the number of cases of defensive gun use would be even higher. The number of defensive gun uses doesn't matter much to anti-gun advocates. Whether the number is 67,000 or 2.5 million or somewhere in between, they will do everything they can to dismiss defensive uses of weapons as insignificant. They want to focus only on the dead people lying in the streets rather than those people using a firearm to stay standing. While you try to limit the number of guns in the hands of criminals, you are taking them away from law-abiding citizens who help the world immensely. The idea that gun violence is the only problem is absurd, when the problem is violence in general. “Anti-gunners often point to countries where firearms are actually banned to demonstrate how safe we ​​would be. This is absurd. This logic seems to think that only armed violence must be stopped." I'm not sure why gun homicide is worse than homicide where a firearm isn't involved. Most arguments I hear for gun bans imply a decrease in gun violence and completely ignore other types of violence that may well increase when guns are banned. “This raises the question: Was the world a peaceful place before weapons? Of course it wasn't. However, I bet.