When it comes to the topic of guns, most of us will readily agree that guns are a tool that allows one to injure or kill another person. Where that agreement ends, however, is on the question of gun control. Whereas some are convinced that they should be restricted, others maintain that owning a gun is a constitutional right. The principle reason people have an issue with guns is due to the amount of murders with guns that have happened in recent years. The reason that people support the second amendment is usually to be able to own a gun for self-defense. I was at my uncle's house a few years ago, and an armed robber attempted to steal from his house. He threatened us, until my cousin pulled his legal gun against him, at which point he ran away. Due to my cousin being allowed to own a gun, no injuries happened, and nothing was taken. It is vital for the next president to understand that gun control laws are a waste of government time and funding; the existing gun laws should be abolished, and we should not implement any new laws pertaining to gun control.

Part of the reason that the topic of gun control is so controversial, is that the Second Amendment is vague, and therefore doesn't provide a clear answer. It states that “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.” This is a paradox in itself. A Militia, (being an army), would reference the army of United States. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, would reference a single person owning a gun for private interests, such as self defense. The Amendment is saying that guns are only allowed for those part of the US Army, and that there can never be a law saying that someone can’t own a gun. While this counteracts itself, it also conflicts with the existing background check laws. While it is important to not legally sell guns to felons or mentally ill persons, the system has been proven to be ineffective at times, and make a significant number of errors. This infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Another reason that gun laws are superfluous is due to the ineffectiveness of the background checks that exist. While they prevent a criminal from buying a gun legally, most criminals get their guns illegally anyway. According to government research, “almost 80% of criminals with crimes related to gun violence obtained their gun illegally.” Clearly, this shows that there are many ways to obtaining a gun, and even if the 20% of people who gained their gun legally were denied, most of them would probably turn to illegal methods anyways. Gun control activists say, “if you are a law abiding citizen, then background checks will not deny you from owning a gun”. While for the most part, this is true, in the past year alone, there have been an estimated 28,100 appeals from buyers wrongly denied access to buying a gun. Meanwhile, the FBI has not found conclusive evidence that gun control laws have decreased homicide or suicide rates. They just don’t help much. Echoing the statement; “background checks don't deter those people, and, therefore, that expanding them to more online or private or gun show sales would do little.”, there just isn't much of a point. All the money that is used to fund these programs, along with the time spent, should be put to good use, not wasted on an ineffective measure that infringes upon privacy.

The biggest reason that gun laws should not exist is that guns help to protect people. Criminals will obtain guns illegally, so if law abiding citizens can't obtain guns legally, then their life is put more at risk. In a study by the US government regarding felons with gun related crimes, “34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.”69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.”’ Those are some pretty big numbers. Without those people owning a gun, there would be a significantly larger amount of gun violence crimes, with even more potentially hurt victims. Carrying a gun is a matter of safety against armed or unarmed attackers and criminals. Mass shootings can be stopped if even one law abiding victim there uses a weapon, in self defense -completely legally- to stop the attacker. Sequentially, we should not limit those who obey the laws if it could potentially increase the risk of injury or death, without much or even any benefits.

To the next future president, you need to stop debating about the gun control issue. It will not make a difference to implement further restrictions, and the time and money devoted to the issue could be better used elsewhere. Stop the debate, and do something else with the resources, something else that can make a difference.

Sincerely,

A passionate youth,

Lewyn B

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/462252799/research-suggests-gun-background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/08/28/confusion-the-wording-of-the-second-amendment/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/19/fbi-guns-background-checks/78752774/