A shot rings out in the night. Under a streetlamp a trembling would be victim holds a smoking gun, they just have shot an assailant trying to harm them. In the event described above a firearm saved someone from harm. Just because a few people use firearms to harm others does not mean all firearms and firearm owners are bad. When a crime involving a firearm occurs, the anti gun activist are up in arms advocating stricter gun control, but the use of firearms for recreational purposes: hunting, sport, collecting, in all those cases anti gun activist look the other way. Enact stricter gun laws that make it difficult to almost impossible to obtain a firearm is not the way to go. But owning a firearm is a legal choice that a United States citizen is allowed to make, just like how we have the choice to vote for our US president. So creating laws restricting the purchase/ownership of guns would be the same as restricting peoples voting rights. In the United States asking about gun control is a hot button topic, and everyone has their own beliefs. Michael Brick recounts an instance where McCauley walked into his local Starbucks in August in San Antonio, TX. Starbucks followed local gun ordinances, which allow the open carrying of weapons. He was arrested outside that Starbucks for disorderly conduct. …show more content…
106 million were handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns. Those guns were purchased legally, meaning the owners went through the proper steps set out by state and federal lawmakers to obtain a firearm. Whether purchased for recreational use or self defense, gun owners are exercising their second amendment right to own and purchase a firearm. Just imagine how many guns were not purchased legally. In the event of a crime, police officers cannot be there instantly to protect you. You have the right to defend yourself and family until the proper authorities