Juan Bravo Although gun control does help to prevent crime, and guns ending up on the wrong hands,

it also makes law-abiding citizens feel unsafe and unarmed. These factors are what make gun control such a controversial hot-button issue right now. On one hand, the argument is made that if everyone was able to carry a weapon, crime would decrease due to the fact that virtually anyone could be armed at any moment. On the other hand, the argument could also be made that virtually anyone could be armed at any moment, which is unsettling to some parties. Because both parties have valid points, it is important to consider both points of view when coming up with a solution, and really regulate and restrict the purchase and use of certain weaponry. Restricting access to weapons is not quite as simple as just taking them off the shelves. The constitution does grant all civilians the right to bear arms as per the second amendment. Additionally, theres no direct link or studies having been done in the United States which directly links the restriction of weaponry to a decrease in crime, and many people have indeed saved someones life and their own lives by having ready access to a weapon. Additionally, guns are a part of the American way of life, and it would be very unfair to the thousands of law abiding gun enthusiasts to take their right to own weapons away from them due to criminals misusing that right, especially when you consider that criminals will always find a way to obtain weapons, leaving the average citizen defenseless. All these points pale in comparison however, to the fact that banning guns from the population is essentially revoking their liberties, brings us closer to socialism and totalitarianism and ultimately, guns dont kill people. People do. Looking at it from the other perspective, you find that people, are in essence, lazy. There is a direct link to a decrease in suicides when minimal obstacles were put in place, such as the Golden Gate bridge, which up until recently was the most popular suicide spot in the United States. This was the case until a small barrier was added, and the suicide rate dropped drastically. What that shows you, is that if you make it slightly harder for people to get to something, in most cases they dont look for another way, they just stop. If regulations are put in place for people to access weapons, it would mean that a lot of mentally unstable people, suicidal and homicidal individuals such as lunatics, bullied school kids and displeased workers would be deterred from committing spur of the moment, impulse crimes of passion. Additionally, studies show that most violent crimes are committed using guns, and that legalized gun ownership increases the chance of legal, registered weapons falling in the hands of children. While all of these factors dont necessarily warrant an outright ban, logic would dictate that there should be more effort involved in purchasing a weapon, than there is to get your drivers license, and with some proper guidelines, a reasonable compromise could be reached. Many people cite the fact that Guns dont kill people, people do, and to a degree they are correct. The President of the New Jersey rifle and pistol clubs, Scott L Bach made that argument, and added the argument that just because fires kill people, should we outlaw matches? The only problem with that argument, is that matches, knives, or really any other weapon was originally intended for a different purpose than to kill. They have other uses. Guns however, do not. You cannot use a gun as a hammer, a lighter, a knife. The only practical use of a firearm is to fire projectiles. Having said that, just

because guns dont have alternate uses doesnt necessarily mean that they should be outlawed, but that some provisions should be put in place. One of them being, first and foremost, a thorough background check. A gun related background check should be something more than a few questions eluding to do you plan to kill anyone? It should include a mental health background check, criminal record, and a number of references who can attest to the individuals character, and their tendency to fly off the handle. While the second amendment of the constitution states 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. It mainly applies to a militia, and more importantly, a well-regulated militia. That doesnt mean that if an individual is not in a militia (i.e National Guard) that individual should not be able to own a gun. What it does mean however, is that if an individual has no plans of going to war, there is no real reason for that individual to own an assault weapon. Individuals should be able to state the reason why they need a weapon they intend to own. Whether it be hunting or home defense, an AK-47 with a one hundred round drum magazine is not practical for either. That is exclusively an assault weapon, and as such, should be regulated. Not banned, but the individual should be able to pass a thorough background check before being allowed to own such a deadly item. While this may seem restrictive, the end goal is not to keep weapons from law-abiding citizens, but from potential criminals. If an individual has no history of mental illness, no criminal record, and has witnesses who can vouch for that, then they have nothing to worry about. They would be able to continue to own and enjoy their weapons. If an individual cannot pass that background check, has had thoughts of suicide or a history of mental illness then they have no right owning a weapon. This is not an infringement on the Constitution, as the Constitution is not meant to be permanent. This whole argument revolves around the second amendment. As Thomas Jefferson said, every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. The constitution has not been rewritten or amended in over 200 years, and therefore there is no way to accurately interpret the right to bear arms due to the fact that when it was written, there were no weapons as deadly and as readily available as what can be found today. In conclusion, the Constitution does state that individuals should have the right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. It does not however, state that people should be able to get whatever they want, no questions asked. Therefore, with the right checks and balances, a compromise could be reached where law-abiding citizens would be able to continue owning weapons, with just a few reasonable restrictions, and ultimately find themselves practically unaffected. It would be the individuals who could be a threat to society in general, who would be unable to pass that background check, and find themselves affected by this. Ultimately, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and rather a few individuals be inconvenienced by this in exchange for the well-being of the general population, than the better part of society living in fear so that a few dangerous individuals can continue to enjoy this right.