After the appalling Las Vegas shooting, many more anti-gun activists are calling for additional gun-control measures, which they believe will make the U.S safer. They also explain their rationales on why the Second Amendment should be modified or even abolished. But, as Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”(Haskins) Although gun control has been seen to be a facile correction to the gun violence, many evidence have shown otherwise.
Having laws to prevent guns to be bought will not prevent anything from happening and will affect mainly two types of people. Law abiding citizens who account their protection from guns and people who want to use guns for iniquitous reasons. The difference
…show more content…
Guns are used more defensively to protect than offensively. “This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.”(GOA) Although the police and law enforcement officers have guns to protect people, they can’t always be there to protect citizens. According to the Pew Research Center, “The public also says that stricter gun laws would make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families (by 58% agreeing to 39% disagreeing) and give too much power to the government (57% to 40%).” Firearms are considered one of the greatest tool for self-defense, but if the government takes it away, citizens are left vulnerable to criminals. If citizens are left with guns, criminals are less likely to have something happen. According to the GOA, “Three-fifths of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Guns are extremely important for self-defense for individuals to protect themselves, family, and