Envision a world in which people are not compelled to stoop to a criminal's level in order to feel safe, a world in which arguments were solved with words, and power did not come from a weapon. Imagine sitting at home staring at the TV after a hard day at work or school. You get back trusting that the night will be one of relaxation, when the all of a sudden, a gunfire comes from out of the blue. You jump up apprehensive for yourself and the lives of those most valuable to you. Sadly, this is the same scenario that many people have experienced. There has been a huge debate as to whether or not there should be stricter gun laws. The issue is one that is to a great degree hard to elucidate. Which side is correct? There are many reasons as to why firearms should be controlled in the United States. Guns should be under strict control by the government because of what the second amendment states and also in order to prevent massacres,murders, and minimize gun-related suicide.

    The Supreme Court has characterized the Second Amendment by saying that states have the right to keep a local army separate from a governmentally controlled armed force. However, courts have reliably held that the state may legally control the deal, ownership, and use of guns. Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:“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. II).  Those who are anti-gun control refer to the Second Amendment as protection to their entitlement to carry a weapon. These gun enthusiasts have changed the words of the Second Amendment and have extended its true meaning a long ways past its limits. Alan M. Dershowitz states, “they're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like” (The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms Has Outlives Its Usefulness). This means that people are picking out parts of the Constitution that they like and don’t like so they they can back up their opinion, when in reality they are changing the actual meaning of the amendment. For years, the Second Amendment was meant to protect the rights of states to maintain militias and arsenals, which has become pointless now that we have federal armed services and should not have allowed citizens the right to own weapons. Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger states,“…one of the greatest pieces of fraud…The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to the weapons he or she desires” (Should U.S. Gun Control Laws Be Strengthened). This also states that people are taking the words of the Constitution and changing it to support their own opinions. With the changed definition of the Amendment, the Second Amendment may now be seen as an individual right, but that does not mean that it is unlimited. Many restriction on where guns can be carried,who can own firearms, and which guns are legal have been held as constitutional. It may not be constitutional for the government to put a ban on weapons, but it is certainly proper to enact strong restrictions.

Guns and firearms cause madness, chaos, and mass killings that just wait for our society. Many massacres and murders, whether it it be accidental or purposeful, involve guns owned by regular citizens that did not necessarily go through  a background check. Many people are shot every year directly after verbal confrontations because of anger or because of the influence of drugs and alcohol. Also, several people are killed each year by stray bullets from parties, target practice or irresponsible gun users. With stricter gun laws, there will be fewer guns in the hands of citizens which will reduce the number of deaths by gunshot. With stricter gun laws the amount of crime, massacres, and murders have gone down in many places. According to Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, “U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent” (Disarming Realities). This means that if gun laws were enforced even more than the percentages could decrease by a substantial amount. A reduced number of guns and shootings would result in fewer dead bodies.

    A third important, reason to control guns in America is the number of suicides committed by persons with guns. Although suicide can be accomplished by using drugs or hanging, many suicides occur each day by gunshot wounds to the chest or head. Mentally distraught people and guns is simply a tragic combination. Taking away easy access to firearms could definitely save lives. Too many people in America are killing themselves using firearms or because of the use of them. Matthew Miller, who is the associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at Harvard School of Public Health, says, “If every life is important, and if you’re trying to save people from dying by gunfire, then you can’t ignore nearly two-thirds of the people who are dying” (Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll). Not only that, but statistics show that the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher in homes that have firearms present than those that do not. Therefore if there were stricter laws on guns, many suicidal people could be saved.

    Many gun enthusiasts argue by saying that arming everyone could help people in severe situations. This contention essentially says that if a circumstance including guns were to break out, someone else would have the capacity to stop it by utilizing another weapon. On the other hand, when connected to reality, this appears to fail more often than not. Statistics show that  higher levels of gun ownership does not mean a safer society. The Violence Policy Center’s analysis states with higher amounts of gun ownership have higher levels of gun homicide. There are 3 to 5 weapon gun deaths for every 100,000 in the bottom five gun ownership states, while there are 17 to 20 firearm gun deaths for every 100,000 in the top five possession states. These statistics prove that the argument of universal gun ownership is just a fantasy. Not only that, but shootings are chaotic and if everyone has a firearm, there is a true potential for a crossfire. No one would know who the first shooter was, and everyone would shoot at other people. In this crossfire, shots would likely hit regular people causing even more deaths. Once the police arrive, it would be difficult to determine who the original shooter was, and it is also likely that the police may end up shooting the people who didn’t start the gunfight.

    Those who are anti-gun control also argue that most of the countries with gun control laws sometimes have high levels of gun violence and this shows that gun control doesn’t work. Firearms are frequently acquired in zones of the nation where it is easy to purchase weapons without background checks, such as southern states. Once they obtain these guns, they are able to transport them up north and sell them in cities with stronger gun laws. There is the potential for a few gun friendly states to undercut the ability of all other states to control the flow of guns within their borders. There is a benefit for weapon traffickers when they do this, and there is no chance to get of halting them once they have the weapons in their ownership. By arguing that violence in cities with strong gun control laws illustrates the ineffectiveness of gun control, gun enthusiasts are simply proving that strong gun control laws are necessary on a federal level. For as long as some states are allowed to undercut the ability of other states to enact sane gun control, there is little chance that gun violence will be controlled.
In conclusion, we need stricter laws concerning guns in order to make our country safer and lower the amount of deaths. Following the Second Amendment, and lowering the amount if homicides and suicides are all very good reasons to control gun purchases in the U.S. Allowing guns to be held by the general population does not make sense. In any scenario, for example, self-protection, mishaps and suicide, firearm ownership is hindering to the security of  individuals. This is to say that it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks.

                                  Works Cited
"The Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Has Outlived Its  

        Usefulness." – IQ2 Debates. N.p., n.d.Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

"Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes

    Plummet." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 14 May 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

"Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    Guarantee an Individual Right to BearArms?" Infobase    

    Learning - Login. N.p., 11 July 2008. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

"The Genocide And Gun Control Myth." Robert Nielsen. N.p.,

     n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
"Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll." Magazine Features. N.p.,

      n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
Sager, Josh. "Refuting Anti-Gun Control Arguments." The        

      Progressive Cynic. N.p., Jan. 2012.Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
"Should U.S. Gun Control Laws Be Strengthened?" Infobase

      Learning - Login. N.p., 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2014
U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. II
"United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court."Second Amendment. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.