Gun control is a topic that has been exhausted over the years due to many conflicting beliefs. Our country has been divided on the topic due to the rate of mass murder and reasons for holding on to the United States' 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay People should always have the right to defend themselves from a corrupt government. Therefore, we should not limit gun ownership. Americans who pass a background check and have no violent criminal record should have the right to own any handgun, rifle, shotgun, and semi-automatic rifle. Self-defense is a fundamental right guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution. Our country was founded on the right to own firearms, and if we violated that right, we would no longer be the same country we originally were. When the Constitution was founded, George Washington was asked whether firearms should be banned. Washington wanted people to have guns to keep the government in check. When the United States declared its independence from Great Britain, the Bill of Rights was established to develop a better and happier way of life for the people. One of the rules put in place was that people should have the right to react appropriately against a tyrannical government. Some may consider this idea crazy or even scandalous. However, the hard truth is that if you look at all civilizations ever, they have all failed. In most cases, this happens because of a disconnect between the people and the government. Tyranny in government can occur in a short time, as seen with the Turkish government. The Bill of Rights was created to ensure that this does not happen in the United States. If we were to limit people's right to fight back against government, how are we different from any previous civilization that has failed? Often in the past, governments have completely overwhelmed their citizens and led to their destruction. The people of the United States currently have reasonable firepower to counter the government if necessary. With the firepower that the US military has today, they could completely annihilate us if we were not adequately armed. We cannot fight their power consisting of fully automatic weapons, tanks, bombs, etc. with sticks, stones and not even with guns. It is often believed that if guns were banned, crime would decrease significantly. Several studies have found 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 alone are inconclusive. Other studies, such as those by John Moorhouse, have found that there is no evidence that gun control reduces gun crimes. This 2016 study examined the correlation between mass shootings and firearm ownership in 171 countries. Moorhouse says, “India ranked second in gun ownership, but it didn't even make the top five countries in the world for mass shootings.” A good example of this would be to look at Australia after it banned semi-automatic weapons, shotguns and rifles. A research paper on gun controlprovided by Gary Kleck shows that following this ban there was not enough evidence to show that this was a reason for the decline in mass shootings. This is a perfect example that banning firearms will not ensure fewer mass shootings. People often believe that a reduction in available firearms will, in turn, lead to fewer murders. However, researchers Chapman, Alpers, Agho and Jones have shown that these beliefs are inaccurate due to insufficient evidence to verify that gun bans have led to a decrease in mass shootings in Australia. The 1994 assault weapons ban meant 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 ban on firearms would only push people to commit crimes with other equally harmful weapons. Whether it's knives or homemade bombs, if people want to commit violent crimes, they will find ways to do so. Information provided by the US 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 been committed without the use of weapons. Just recently, the Boston bombings injured and killed many people, leaving the world speechless. All this was done by a couple of backpacks loaded with explosives. Or consider what is perhaps the worst day in American history, September 11, 2001. This event caused the deaths of over 3,000 people and injured 6,000 others. Mass killings will happen whether guns are legal or not because of all the different weapons available. The point is that if an individual, or a group, wants to kill or harm others, they will find a way. Viewing firearms as the only issue in mass murder is scandalous. Looking back ten years, approximately 39% of American households owned firearms. The last recorded percentage of gun-owning households was just over 43%. These percentages have increased over the past 20 years, reaching highs of 45% in 2011 and lows of 37% in 2013. Statistics show that in 2011 there were just over 32,000 gun deaths. These numbers include intentional, unintentional suicide, and legal intervention. However, according to ProCon.org, a website that provides neutral and credible research, in 2013, with nearly 8 percent fewer households with guns, gun deaths increased to nearly 34,000. So, with a lower percentage of households with guns, the number of gun-related crimes has actually increased. If we were to simply consider this evidence, it would be fair to say that an increase in households with guns would not lead to an increase in gun deaths. The last recorded number of firearms in the United States was just over 393 million. Ten years earlier, in 2007, there were just under 300 million firearms. In 2007 the population was almost on par with the number of firearms hovering 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 an increase of 6,000, but if we look at this per capita, the numbers look a little different. The number of weapons has increased, but so has the number of people. The number of firearms has increased much more than the number of firearms, therefore with an increase ofover 90 million firearms and only 6,000 more deaths, the increase in deaths is not that alarming. Furthermore, with the population increasing by nearly 25 million in these 10 years, there will certainly be an increase in gun deaths. In addition to that, in 2017 there were approximately 1.31 firearms per person. In 2007 there were only 1.03 firearms per person. Doing the basic math, the numbers are clear: As the population increases along with the increase in firearms, the number of gun deaths is actually lower than it was with fewer guns per person. Gun ownership is essential for Americans because good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. The National Safety Council says that, including suicides, there were about 40,000 firearm-related deaths in 2018. Removing suicides, there were between 12 and 16 thousand homicides caused by firearms. However, the National Safety Council also recorded that 500,000 (lowest estimate) to 3,000,000 (highest estimate) lives have been saved by firearms. The numbers here demonstrate that many more lives are saved than lost to firearms. Defensive use of firearms far outweighs negative use. An active shooter can cause an extreme amount of damage in a matter of minutes. These precious minutes could be the time it takes for law enforcement to arrive at the scene. Now, what if one or maybe two people were near the crime scene and were also armed? The threat could be eliminated long before the situation really gets out of hand. If the active shooter were stopped by an armed civilian, the number of casualties could decrease significantly. All it takes is one armed civilian to stop a possible fatal shooting. If we look at one of the bloodiest mass shootings in US history, the Pulse nightclub, the shooter was able to kill almost 50 people in just a few minutes. If one person had been equipped to fight back, this threat could have been eliminated with far fewer casualties. This idea was demonstrated 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 gunman with an AR-15 forcing the shooter to drop the rifle and flee the scene. Although 27 people lost their lives in this tragic event, it was killed by a man equipped with an AR-15. If criminals want to get guns, they will and it will be relatively easy for them thanks to the strength of blacks. market. No matter what laws we pass to prevent people from getting firearms, they will still find a way to get them. An example of this would be drugs. Drugs are illegal, yet they still have a massive presence in the world today and are very easy to obtain. This would be the same case with firearms. If they were to be banned, they wouldn't disappear, it would just be harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain them. This would lead to more armed bad guys and fewer armed good guys. If criminals have access to firearms and law-abiding citizens do not, how can you stop the criminal with a gun? This is exactly like the idea of ​​a tyrannical government. If people have no way to fight back against an opposing threat, it is simply unfair and serious harm can be inflicted. Examples of this are the Aurora movie theater shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary. A shooter armed to wound was able to do just that with his victims like sitting ducks. They were forced to hide and pray not to be hit by a bulletI arrive. If law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry firearms, there is no way to stop these threats. Criminals are the ones who commit the majority of gun-related crimes. Civilians should have the right to respond appropriately against an adversary threat if the time comes. Legal gun owners are not the problem in mass shootings. Today, there are over 40 million legal gun owners in the United States. Information from Everytownresearch.org shows evidence gathered by several researchers. The information provided evidence of the number of mass shootings by legally prohibited gun owners in 2018. Of 307 mass shootings, one in three occurred by shooters who were legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. Among all gun owners in the United States, there is an extremely low rate of mass murder by legal gun owners. It is not fair to punish all gun owners with the bad 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 tests that prevent anyone from purchasing a firearm with any type of violent background, 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 happen, criminals will get guns, and guns will be used to kill innocent people. Having said that, we can only do our best. This includes keeping weapons in the right hands, having ways to repel attacks if necessary, and lastly, most importantly, upholding what our country was built and founded on; the right to bear arms. Once we begin to change and modify what our country was built on, clearly eliminating our natural rights stated in the Bill of Rights, that's when we will fail. Owning a gun is a fundamental right to protection. Whether it's self-defense, our property, or the government's, every civilian deserves the right to protect themselves. Crime will happen and people will have to realize that we will not and will never live in a utopian society. Guns give us the power of freedom. Abigail Abrams, a New York Times writer, conducted a study examining a number of Americans and their beliefs about what freedom means to them. “Many people believe that if you take away their right to rebel, that is not fair to the Constitution.” His research has shown that 74% of gun owners believe that owning a gun is essential to their freedom. The United States liberated itself 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 adopted to prevent this from happening to the United States. George Washington saw the importance of people owning guns and found it essential to having happy people and preventing the possibility of a tyrannical government. This strong gun culture in the United States remains true today because of what the country was founded on. A common argument for stricter gun control is that more guns lead to more gun violence. Vermont is one of the most gun-friendly states, and gun owners, with a permit, have the right to openly carry their firearms. That said, evidence provided by Bindu Kalesan shows that Vermont has some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country, just behind Hawaii and Rhode Island, while Chicago, where gun control laws are among the strictest , i.