There is a raging argument in the world that many people are divided about. The argument is gun control, should we ban guns, or is there another way to stop mass shootings? In my research book called “Shooting Back” it talks about how On July 25, 1993, a man named Charl Van Wyk personally experienced the attack on the ST James Massacre. At that time, their area was experiencing danger and fighting so Charl had his gun with him at the church. When a couple of men walked into the church holding guns, no one was sure what was happening, they thought it could have been part of a scene from the play going on, until the men started to fire at the crowd. They shot random people, and threw grenades with nails in the sides killing even more people. …show more content…
This shows how people have reasons guns should not be banned, how would we defend ourselves against people with guns if we cannot fight back without breaking a law. Charl saved a lot of lives at his church, but if he had killed a man while protecting others, he could have gone to jail, how can we protect ourselves if we cannot fight, we must use our words, lessen the news about all the shootings, don 't talk of the murderers weapons, this will make it so copycats have nothing to follow, don 't make a spectacle out of bad guys, be like batman, he does not use guns, no matter what, that is how we should be, and don 't ignore the shootings, just don 't see it as a easy way to get fame, as it is not worth the cost, no matter how grand it looks, if it helps, go look at a prison, how would it feel to be stuck there, no good, which is why i believe we should decrease the amount of media attention on shootings, as it just leads to more