There has been an increase in the number of mass shootings over the last two decades. While it may seem that there is an obvious solution to the issue, it may not be as simple as made out to be. Guns are not necessarily the issue when the idea of gun violence is brought up. The issue lies in the people themselves and not the guns. Alongside, the issue with state versus federal powers comes into question. While federal law states we have the right to bear arms, state governments are infringing on that right by putting restrictions in place.

Self-defense has been a staple in historical and modern-day United States. Without it, Americans would not have any land to call home. While there is an issue today with the extreme amounts of gun violence, it is clear that the real issues have been overlooked. An investigation of gun legislation in self-defense and the pros of safely owning a firearm reveals that increase gun laws do not mean decreased gun crime,  gun owners are advocating for safety, and the issue lies in public health and school’s rather than guns themselves.

Self-defense has been an aspect of human life since the dawn of time. Without it, people would all be dead and there would be no United States. this is why self-defense has proven so effective, not only does the practice of self-defense keep people safe,  it also shows others you are willing to stand with them in defense of those you love. By dissecting self-defense, one can further develop whether or not a country truly stands for its people. In the article “America’s Stand on Self Defense,” by Nancy Tappan, she examines why there has been a constant fascination with lethal defense in the US. A point brought up in the article examines a manslaughter case. The Prosecution and the judge at the Selfridge’s manslaughter trial argued that he had a duty to retreat, while his defense said it was the natural right of man to protect his honor. The verdict stated that Selfridge was innocent, setting the precedent for justifiable homicide cases (Tappan). The author states that the Selfridge manslaughter case, where Thomas Selfridge killed a man in a dual for having both of their honors infringed upon, set the precedent for how lethal self-defense was to be handled. Without that case, courts would not have had guidelines for how self-defense cases are to be handled. That having been said, “The natural right” of a person to protect him/herself in a lethal manner has been granted to us by these precedents and it shows us the historical pattern of generalizing the idea that in all cases of self-defense, lethal action is acceptable. While in some cases that is true, there are many cases where situations could have been handled in a civilized and safe manner. Tappan further develops the idea that people who fear for their lives have the right to protect themselves by examining a 1921 Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court case Brown v. United States, decided in a 7-2 vote that, "If a man reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury from his assailant, he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense” (Tappan). People have protected themselves for tens of thousands of years before the invention of firearms, why should the right to protection change as the world progresses? In situations where people fear for their life, lethal protection is sometimes the only reasonable answer. Firearms are merely a means to that protection. For example, the military and police could not protect those around them unless they had a firearm of some sort. People need to protect themselves. They have been doing so for as long as there have been people, and will not stop. Without defense, the world is doomed. People will turn to chaos. A world without guns will be a world in chaos.

Increasing gun laws does not necessarily decrease crimes involving a gun. Since 1992, the amount of guns in the United States has nearly doubled, and as stated by former President Obama, the states with the most strict gun laws have the lowest death by gun rates. While this may seem like a convincing statistic, science does not prove it.  In his article, “You Know Less Than You Think About Guns,” Brian Doherty argues that more guns do not mean more homicides and more gun laws does not necessarily mean less gun crime. Doherty explains that a Boston Globe headline announced that states with the strictest firearm laws have the lowest amount of deaths by guns. But if you simply separate the suicides from the murders, the headline becomes debunked. John Hinderaker headlines his reaction through the Power Line Blog, " New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides" (Doherty). The idea that gun laws help protect people are skewed. These gun laws, while they may seem effective, are actually not. Look at the stats of suicide versus murder. If you take the suicides out, you have a much lower death rate by the hands of guns. Gun laws that prevent the sale of certain weapons only cause people to become shady and get their guns illegally and the laws do nothing but promote crime. Doherty further develops the idea by discussing the benefits of having guns on people. Harder to state in numbers, but still quite relevant, is the sense of self-fulfillment and identity that gun culture brings to Americans, the same way other recreations such as car culture do. Further study of the “social costs” of gun ownership demonstrates that the benefits are not equally represented (Doherty). Throughout the centuries since the United States has been a country, we have been known as the land of opportunity, and to some, that could mean happiness.  For some, their happiness is their hobbies, and for many, those hobbies include guns. There are many benefits to owning a gun, they can not only help to protect the individual who owns it but also, when used properly, for hunting or for recreational use, it can release neurotransmitters that can positively benefit the body. The problem is not with guns, the problem is the miscommunication between lawmakers, health care industry, and gun dealers. Just because gun control laws are imposed, does not mean that gun crime will decrease, if anything gun crimes will be increased if they are outlawed or limited by the government. Guns will become the new alcohol in prohibition.

As people understand that there is an issue, gun owners are advocating for safety with firearms due to the data that shows how many people are getting injured. Gun owners are getting antsy, they are scared not for the fear that they will lose their guns, but that they will lose something far more important, their family. Private citizens who own guns are beginning to enter the talks on gun control, but this time in a surprising way. Discussed In the article,” Calls For Gun Control From The Well Armed,” by Jess Bidgood and Sabrina Tavernise, armed individuals are finally starting to join the discourse on gun control. Young survivors of the Parkland shooting have lead efforts to tighten firearm restrictions, in doing so, the survivors have been met with deep resistance from gun rights activists. But the renewed national gun debate, brought up more heavily in recent months because of the shooting in a Nashville Waffle House, has gotten the attention of a group who are often forgotten, Gun control supporters who own guns (Bidgood and Tavernise). The author asserts that It is a fact that there need to be gun laws. Without order, we would only have chaos. Some gun owners are bound to the opposite of that idea and think that there should be little to no restriction on guns. Others feel that things have gotten out of hand and there needs to be change. After recent shootings, more gun owners are advocating for gun control. Those people think that there should be limits, limits that do not infringe on the overall idea of the Second Amendment. One example is more in-depth background checks. The NRA had been strictly opposed to that for some time and may be starting to come around. Bidgood and Tavernise further analyze the discourse between gun rights activists and pro-gun control groups.  

“Only a small number of gun owners seem to be stepping forward in activism in favor of stricter gun laws, and not all agree about which laws should be toughened. But advocacy groups that support increased gun control say they sense a new kind of participation in more subtle ways, such as calls from gun owners wanting to know what the groups do, and a greater willingness to listen”  (Bidgood and Tavernise).

Gun owning communities are starting to come around to the idea that gun control is not all that bad. Gun control is not the banning of guns, it could be as simple as the adding of one more step to a background check or requiring you to take another test to get a gun. Gun owners are beginning to realize that and are joining the discussion on gun control in order to protect not only people but their rights as gun owners. To be comfortable listening to what pro-gun control groups have to say, it is opening up the chance for a relationship between the two communities and possibly an agreement that both sides could get behind. Doing so would build a bridge that would benefit the United States on extreme levels. If the two communities were to take up arms so to say, we could better protect our citizens and overall decrease death by gun. Gun owning communities have a responsibility to keep people safe, as they are the protectors of our world. Yes, the military and police protect people every day, but there are thousands of accounts of people who own guns protecting them self and others. By getting these people to participate in the discourse, we open up to the possibility of a universal plan to protect gun rights and citizens from gun crime.

Student activists examine why the issue lies in public health and school’s rather than guns themselves. Will Riley, a senior at Carlsbad High School in New Mexico felt his voice was being drowned out after watching thousands of students walk out of class in favor of gun control. Riley did the one thing he thought right, he decided to organize the same type of event in favor of the Second Amendment, asserting that the only way for them to be heard was to have equal representation. In the article “Students stage another walk out on guns-- this time in favor of them,” Michael Livingston evaluates the idea that natural rights are not up for debate, they are not up for a vote, and they can not be taken away. Students participated in a rally to support the Second Amendment. The students did not ignore the issue of school safety. After the rally, students from California High School, one of the schools that participated in the walkout, posted videos to twitter saying that increased surveillance and officers on campus could decrease the chance of mass shootings at schools (Livingston). Livingston further develops the idea that the issues of gun violence lie not with the people but with the government. After interviewing students, they concluded that the conversation about gun control should be steered toward mental health and "failed government bureaucracy" rather than banning assault rifles (Livingston). The author highlights that adolescents understand the issues in place, there is a lack of security in schools and it has shown in the increasing amount of school shootings. One student who thought his voice should be heard wanted to get the discourse on gun rights brought up in his high school and across the nation. There are many reasons to own guns, and it is a natural right given to us by the U.S. Constitution. The issues are not with the guns themselves or the capacity of their magazines or the rate at which they can fire, but instead, it is the high rate of people who have some sort of mental illness while owning guns. It may be because of a lack of diagnosis or lack of finding that out in the background check. There should be a medical aspect of the background check that checks to clear someone if they have had any sort of mental illness that may affect their ability to safely handle or own a firearm. Doing so would cost a lot more than the current background checks in place and that may be the reason that the government has not put that system into place. Continuing on with that point, if current gun owners show signs of becoming mentally ill or have shown signs that they could potentially harm those around them with their firearms, it is 100% necessary for the police and family of that individual to have the legal right to seize the guns of that individual temporarily, and be returned following an investigation into the issues at hand, or kept sized in perpetuity if they show no signs of improving. By getting people to understand that the issue lies with the people and not the guns that they use opens up a whole new level of conversation to be had about the protection of not only gun rights but also the protection of people. If people understood the real issues, we would have a much smoother course of action and not as much disagreement in the societal and political realms.

While there are many good reasons for guns, there are many good reasons for gun control. Legal age limits have proven to be a very effective hurdle for risky or dangerous behaviors. By increasing the age limits for guns, it would positively benefit not only the public but youth especially. In the article “ this is how we save lives from gun violence!” Robert Gebelhoff demonstrates the pros of gun control and how gun control saves lives. Increasing current age requirements to purchase guns may be more effective since people under 21 are far more likely to commit homicide than people over the age of 21. A study done on inmates uncovered that had the age requirement been 21, it could have prohibited gun possession in 17% of cases where individuals legally owned the gun they used to commit their crime (Gebelhoff). By increasing the age of people required to buy guns, it would limit the chances of people that are more likely to commit violent crimes with guns. By the age of 21, your brain in much further developed than at the age of 18, by changing the age, you are not only making the people who can buy guns be further developed, but you are also protecting the world from dangerous and stupid gun owners, who do not store their firearms correctly and who are dangerous in the use of their firearms. On the contrary, In the article “Why we will always need to own guns,” by John Donovan, he explains that People will always need to own guns and that without them, we are merely slaves to government. Donovan examines the concepts of the gun culture that is present in the United States. Donovan explains a key idea of why guns are a necessity in today’s world, “Behind the surface of the United State’s “gun culture” exists a grim and simple truth: There is no protector; there is no guardian; there is no defender except oneself” (Donovan). There is no one standing in front of you shielding you from the harm of the world. No one filtering your view from seeing corruption and violence, only you can take agency and protect yourself and those around you. Gun are machines of war yes, but also a means of peace, a preventative measure. By owning firearms, you become the protector, the guardian. Donovan demonstrates many reasons why guns are always going to be needed by the people. Gebelhoff examines the idea that if gun control further advanced into keeping anyone under the age of 21 from owning or purchasing firearms, the crime rate involving guns would decrease tenfold. There is no reputable research besides interviews of convicts as well as stating that 21-year-olds are further mentally developed than those who are 18. Donovan gives many good examples of why people should have guns, and why they should have guns as they come of age, stated in federal law, the most prominent one stating that we have no protector, it is you and you alone in these crazy days. You must protect yourself.

I have many experiences surrounding firearms. I was raised shooting and hunting and will continue to do so for as long as I can. I think guns are amazing tools, they can be used in many ways, a lot of which are beneficial to the user. On the other hand, there are many dangerous outcomes that result from guns. That said, I have been brought up with the idea that it isn’t guns that are the problem, it is the people who handle them improperly or to say frankly, stupidly. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. As long as guns are handled in a safe manner, then they will benefit those who enjoy shooting or are avid hunters. As a student, I see both sides of the arguments and the benefits and drawbacks of guns, but overall I see guns as a tool for self-defense, sport, and enjoyment. All aside, I do agree that there needs to be limits in place on firearms because without law and order there would just be chaos. I feel that the background check process should be a bit more thorough, but I disagree with the limiting of the capacity of magazines and limiting the type of gun one buys.

An investigation of gun legislation in self-defense and the pros of safely owning a firearm reveals that increase gun laws do not mean decreased gun crime. There are many arguments that develop the idea that gun rights with some control is exactly what we need as a country. Go out and discuss with your fellow peers, coworkers, and family more so than you already do. The lack of communication on this topic is maddening. What I have found is that the articles around the internet are one sided towards gun control, regardless of the fact that gun rights are what we need to maintain in the United States. In order to fix the issue that is gun violence, what we need are slightly more in-depth background checks, not restrictions on guns or the accessories on said guns. People need to understand that gun rights are necessary for our country to stay strong.