In November of 2017, Devin Kelley stormed into a Texas church with the intent to murder twenty-six law-abiding citizens with his illegal assault rifle. Kelley, however, failed to complete this malicious act, as Stephen Willeford stepped in to end this tragedy before it began. Willeford, a former National Rifle Association instructor who lives next door to the church, heard the gunfire and proceeded to investigate with his AR-15 rifle by his side. Willeford then confronted the shooter, shooting him in the leg and torso. Kelley dropped his weapon and fled in his SUV (O’Reilly). Willeford is rightfully being hailed as a hero, but h is hardly the first to do this. In 2007, Mathew Murray killed four people at a Colorado church before being shot …show more content…
The main claim is that guns lead to a higher homicide rate (“10…”). Additionally, the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns, as they only mention “a well regulated militia” (“Gun Control”). Assault weapons are also not necessary for self-defense, as any firearm would perform the task (“10…”). Finally, fewer guns would lead to fewer suicides and a smaller amount of gun accidents committed by children (“Gun Control”). While these claims have some backing, they can be refuted easily with simple logic. The homicide rate only increases with guns of the citizens do not have them, because if they did they could wound or even kill their attacker. The Second Amendment does mention a militia, but this is the very reason we need the Second Amendment. If the citizens are unarmed, nothing prevents a tyrannical government from rising in the United States. If someone wants to commit suicide, they do not need a gun to do so, showing that gun control does not influence suicide rates. Lastly, the US General Accounting Office estimated that automatic childproof safety locks could prevent 100% of deaths per year in which a child less than six years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child (“Gun Control”). The weak arguments made by strict gun control supporters stand no chance against facts and simple …show more content…
The right to “bear arms” is a basic American right given to citizens by the Second Amendment to protect them from a tyrannical government (“Gun Control”). Stricter gun control will also not help because criminals simply do not obey the law. If someone wants to acquire a gun, they will do so, legally or not (Rowe). This is evident with the current drug problem in America. Despite being illegal, these drugs create a black market of nearly $750 billion a year in size, proving that making things illegal does not eliminate them (“Drug…”). It is also quite evident that criminals stray away from armed civilians. In a 1982 survey, it was found that 34% of criminals had been shot at or wounded by an armed victim, 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they knew the victim was carrying a gun, and 69% decided not to commit a crime because they knew other criminals were shot by the civilian (Agretsi). Strict gun control has also failed in other countries. After passing strict gun control laws, Ireland and Canada have both seen their homicide rates double (McMaken). In Ireland, after the gun confiscation of 1972, the amount of homicides spiked from 800,000 to 1,600,000 people in just two years (McMaken). These criminals used firearms to gun down innocent citizens who had their defenses taken from them. Additionally, gun control has failed in the United States. In the United States, the murder rate is 5% of