\For decades people have stressed over the issue of gun control. The long heated debate has always been focused on whether the government should enforce restrictions on guns or not. People often think that enforcing gun control laws will eliminate gun violence. However, not only does it not eliminate gun violence, the consequence that follows will cause harmless citizens to be unable to defend themselves. Lenient gun control laws actually results in less occurrence of crimes. Therefore, gun control should not be supported.

          Imposing gun control laws is a violation to our second amendment rights. In 1791, our founding fathers wrote in the Constitution, “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.” (Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States). As citizens of the United States, it is our natural right to be able to own guns. The government should not have the right to make decisions on whether we should have guns or not.

          Not to mention, even if there is gun control laws, it is still pointless because criminals can obtain guns anyways. Why stress something that is futile?  Studies have shown that there are loopholes in our background check system for guns. Unlawful sale of guns are carried out publicly all the time. Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine and important researcher on firearms, explained, “Undocumented private party gun sale transactions account for as many as 40 percent of all gun sales” (UC Davis report exposes loopholes in gun-control laws). This is an expedient and rapid way of illegally purchasing gun and the lawbreakers get away with it. However, while criminals[1]  are supplying themselves with ammunition, citizens will have nothing to protect themselves with creating opportune moments for crimes to occur. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association once said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Only 'A Good Guy With A Gun' Can Stop School Shootings, NRA Says). This quote makes sense because in order for a balance of power to occur between common citizens and criminals, citizen must also have guns.

          Implementing stricter laws for gun control will not decrease the amount of gun violence. An article that shows notes of the NRA and ILA states that "Forty states have Right-to-Carry, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law. And, since 1991, the total violent crime rate has declined over 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate has declined by half to a 45-year low" (Gun Control Reform). Clearly, it shows that being lenient on gun control can decrease the rate of crimes. John R. Lott, Jr. once answered in an interview “Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself” (John R. Lott). This is a clear explanation on why gun violence will subdue even without gun control laws because criminals fear running into someone that has something to defend themselves.

          Since the heated quarrel of gun control commenced. The rise of varying interpretations of the Second Amendment surfaced. The first interpretation is called the collective-right interpretation. This is preferred by the United States court and legal experts stating that the Second Amendment only applies to members of the militia. However, the majority of Americans supports the individual-right interpretation where every Americans should be allowed to own guns because the Constitution is made for all United States citizens and not just for members of the militia. Conducted polls show that only twenty percent of Americans prefer the collective-right interpretation where only trained militias are allowed to own guns. Whereas, the majority of American citizens prefer the individual-right interpretation. Why should we listen to the interpretation of the minority?

          People who support pro-gun control claim that the high rates of gun shooting in the United States can be traced back to the lax government. If the government made stricter laws on gun control then maybe many gun shootings such as the Tucson shooting in Arizona and Sandy Hooks Elementary School shooting could have been avoided. However, these shooting cases are actually extremely rare and most people who own guns do not even pose a threat to the public. There are people who own guns for collection, personal likings, hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. In fact, a lot of people use guns for self-defense today. For instance, there was one case where a normal citizen, Johnny Bridges, saved his fiancée and children from three armed attackers by firing at them and forcing them to flee. His actions were complemented by a Cleveland, Ohio Councilman Mike Polensek who said “Whoever shot this dirt bag ought to get a medal… I might get a proclamation for him.” However, Bridges explained that he just wishes for the safety of his family. As you can see, there are people who use guns to defend and protect their families. Who knows what might happen to Bridge’s fiancée and children if he did not have a gun. Besides, states that allow hidden weapons have lower crime rates than states that do not.

          It is about time we realize that making gun controls laws is pointless. It is unfair to enforce these laws when two centuries ago, our right to bear arms had been declared. Criminals will take advantage of these laws to harm the citizens and the citizens will not have anything to protect themselves with. Let us embrace our common defense and show the world the importance of gun ownership!