Over the years, there has been a fervent debate over gun control, or the possession of firearms. Different people have starkly contrasting views on whether or not the possession of a firearm should be legal. While both sides are

passionate in their arguments, one

side is particularly compelling. Because

of the negative consequences of gun

control, the people of the United States

should not restrict the use and ownership of firearms. The second amendment promises Americans the right to bear arms and gun control may compromise our rights as stated in the Bill of Rights. Gun control can be defined as the restriction or removal of firearms from a civilian. More than a third of the people in the United States say that someone in their household owns a gun. William Lawson, a Texas resident, states, "This is a country of laws. But I want to protect our Constitution." In the second amendment,                                          it says that "...shall not be infringed." In                                          the dictionary, the word infringement                                              means the action of limiting or                                                        undermining something. The purpose                                            of gun control does not comply with the                                          second part of the second amendment.                                            This makes the purpose of gun control                                            controversial and questionable.

                                         In addition to the constitutional foundation of gun rights, there are other reasons to reject gun control in America. With the passing of gun control, the people would be putting their absolute trust into the government. Putting trust into the government is a very flawed tactic because of the slowed government responses. For example, if an armed perpetrator were to break into a person's house,  the victim with the availability of protection would most likely have a better chance to both survive and protect his or her family and belongings. However, the victim without a gun would be much more prone to be robbed or harmed at a much quicker rate because methods of defense would be severely limited. Although there are more sources of defense than a gun, almost undoubtedly the most efficient would be a firearm. Even if both victims are to call the police, the time between call and response leaves much room for harm to come to the victim who is defenseless. Although some people may not want to use their guns for protection, sixty percent of gun owners say that personal safety and protection is their main reason for owning a gun. 

Although supporters of gun control may argue that the removal of guns will make our community safer and prevent a lot of the problems that are associated with guns, this is not true. The people who commit these crimes would still have access to these firearms because of black market exchange. Some of the people who own guns today may not get rid of their guns, but secretly keep them, sell them illegally in times of financial need, and unwittingly put them into the hands of those who will abuse their power. Gun control thus gives an unfair advantage to those who still have access to guns or who have to respect the law. 

While many gun control proponents believe that the crime rates would drop with gun control, according to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), places that have banned guns has seen a growth in crime. In multiple instances, it can be observed that when gun ban restrictions become more strict, the murder and crime rates will rise. In January 1997, for example, England and Wales banned handguns and afterwards, there was approximately a fifty percent increase in homicide rates. Overall, the crime rate had grown, despite the ban. This shows that banning firearms is ineffective, and will not solve the problems we have today; in fact, it could make those problems worse.