Although gun control may seem favorable and morally appealing at first glance, I can assure you that once you take a look at the facts and solid evidence you will see why it makes logical sense to not have gun control laws in place in America. There are many credible studies and real life examples that prove why no gun control is a much better alternative to strict gun control. Strict gun control laws are taking more lives than they are saving, which is why this is such an important topic. If you can get past common opinions, and biases, and take the time to thoroughly research the topic of gun control and find the facts and evidence, you will see why no gun control is the way to go.

According the New York Times author Sabrina Tavernise, in the United States around 23% of people living in cities own guns and around 56% of people living in rural areas do to. The real number is estimated to be much higher because in many states it is not required have a permit to own certain types of guns. Which means that there are many unregistered guns. Infact, there is an estimated 270 to 300 million guns circulating in the United States. Thats almost one gun for every American citizen. So from that we can conclude that the topic of gun control affects a lot of people.

One of gun control’s major flaws is the fact that criminals will always find a way to get guns. “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings” cites a study from Harvard.  If a person is motivated enough they will find a way, and we already established that there around 300 million guns in the United States so finding a way wouldn't be too hard.

Taking guns away would only disarm the law abiding citizens, leaving them defenceless to criminal attack. “Gun control laws ensure thieves and bad people that the person they want to take down will be defenseless” says Earl Bumpkin, an author from pantagraph.  People may argue that we have the police to protect us. But the issue with that is the police can't be everywhere at once. Actually, they can be quite far from where the crime takes place. Average police response time is around ten minutes, but has been known to take as long as over 20 in some areas. A lot can happen between 10 and 20 minutes; people can die, stores can be robbed, cars can be stolen, and many other events can take place. Which is why citizens should be armed.

FBI reports show that despite the ongoing debate on gun-control, violent crime has been decreasing since 2007. The interesting part is that gun ownership has been increasing at the same time. The increasing amount of guns may actually be causing the crime rate to go down. If you look at a place like Russia for instance, a country who enforces very strict gun control laws on its people. They have a very high crime rate despite the gun control laws, maybe even because of them. The more citizens there are that own guns the less likely there will be crimes committed. An armed population is much more threatening than an unarmed population to criminals.

Yet another reason to not have gun control is the Second 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." Let’s break this down. When the founding fathers wrote of  “a well regulated militia” they meant that the citizens of the United States should be armed and are “necessary to the security of a free state.” They should be armed to protect themselves against criminals and a possible tyrannical government. "The founders warned [the people that the government not restrict gun ownership],...they knew that governments could turn against their people” said Glenn Beck. As a nation who had just broke away from a government who turned against their people, it makes sense to have had that amendment put in the constitution, and it makes sense to uphold it now. It may sound absurd to think that the United States government may become corrupt but many governments in the past have, so it better to be safe than sorry.

Some people argue that gun laws such as the “Stand Your Ground” law encourage people to shoot first, ask questions later which will result in unnecessary killings. However, not having laws such as the “stand your ground” law would result in many more deaths. When people are put into life or death situations they should not have to worry about breaking laws.  “Citizens must be able to protect themselves without fear that self-defense will be legally problematic”. says Rich Morthland, a member of the Illinois House of representatives. That would cause hesitation in a situation that allows none, resulting in bad things. Even  police are taught not to hesitate in such situations.

People also argue that lax gun control laws make it easier for criminals to acquire guns. Although that is true it can not be avoided. The alternative to “lax gun control” is strict gun control, which will result in just the criminals having guns (criminals aren't known to follow the

laws). Having just criminals owning guns is a much worse alternative to having criminals and citizens having guns.

Now that you’ve seen all of the facts, you probably see this topic in a new light. I hope my essay has brought you to the anti gun-control side of the gun-control debate, and if you were already on this side I hope this essay has helped you to better understand the topic.

Work Cited
"Average-Police-Response-Time." Average-Police-Response-Time. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2014
"Combating Conditioned Hesitation." - Article. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2014.
"Second Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2014.
Tavernise, Sabrina, and Robert Gebeloff. "Share of Homes With Guns."The New York Times.
The New York Times, 09 Mar. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
US News. U.S.News & World Report, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014

"Gun Control Leaves Only Criminals Armed." Pantagraph.com. N.p., 06 Jan. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.