In Today's society, Gun Violence has sparked many debates about how guns should be controlled.  Gun Violence violence is any crime or violence committed with the use of a gun. It includes homicide assault with deadly weapons, and or suicide.  When regarding this topic, it often time boils down to arguments over Gun Control Laws and what they should and should not be. Gun Control Laws are policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. The First idea of Gun Control Laws was brought up in 1934 where the supreme court put a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns. In present day many people have and continue to try to either put more gun laws in effect or take guns away for good. This topic is crucial to figure out as the more time passes, the more lives are at stake.

With our worlds vastly growing technology world, there are downsides that come along with the new tools. Social and news Media are often times used for good, but instances are seen where they do not do anything but negatively affect our country. As these means of communication continue to grow, it offers ways to transmit information very quickly to a large amount of people and when related to Gun Violence, The media sometimes will deliver the news in the wrong manor. Many times they can project the opposite of what you would want young children to be seeing and impacted by. Many times the news will state how guns should be taken away for good. By looking at gun rights and gun control laws one can see that gun rights should not be taken away from U.S. citizens because Guns are used for saving lives, Gun laws aren't existent in other countries and neither are shootings, and the people need a way to protect themselves from tyranny.

Gun Violence is such an important topic being that there are so many sides to it and so many people argue vastly different points. When looking at one of the United State’s most controversial topics, one will find gun violence high up on the list. More specifically media’s affect on gun violence and shootings. Media is still very new to our world and is an outlet that allows a person of any age to almost do anything they want. It allows a lot of great things but with those advantages come repercussions. Many people are bullied over social media or influenced by things they read or see online. This involves the entire world and and has been happening ever since the very first social media. In the article”Mass Shooting Mass Media” Jennifer Johnson talks about how the gun Violence in our country is influenced and encouraged by news coverage and media. “The content of their coverage matters, too. At least half of all the news coverage in the United States focuses on violent crime, despite the fact that violent crime is actually only a small percentage of total crime. Furthermore, there is a great deal more happening in the world than crime, but for financial reasons, crime is considered extremely “newsworthy” here.”(Johnson 21). The author brings to light how News channels are all about making money and getting viewers to watch their show. As they decide to focus on more violent crimes such as mass shooting and other gun violence rather than the more frequent and more likely white collar news that is happening around the world that no one is informed about. The author also brings in how the shooter is glorified in shooting and is often the most talked about subject: The shooter is often almost glorified as victims are often not made priority when information comes out on the event. Their may be one person involved that helped stop the shooter but overall any important lives and people are left out over media sites and the news (Johnson 10). Johnson has us Looking back at one of the biggest school shootings and acts of terrorism before 2000, The internet presents the wrong information to the immediate viewers eye. While people see the details of the actual shooter and what happened to him, The victims of the crisis often go forgotten and many are never mentioned as there isn't “room” to talk about that on the news. When looking at this problem it is very obvious that there are many areas in gun violence where we need to improve on our countries culture and mental health. Guns should not be taken away from citizens and our country should focus on real problems at hand such as news media affect on gun violence instead of trying to fix a problem in an unfixable way.

Though many think that guns should be taken away, one main reason argued is that they should stay in order for protection from tyranny. In the article”If You Want Gun Control, Understand These Pro-Gun Arguments” Steve Bramucci states how gun control is very unlikely to happen with all the Pro Gun arguments existing: As American citizens we need a way to protect ourselves or fight back if our nation’s leaders are ever working against the country and our beliefs. The Government has treated people tyrannically in the past so why would it not happen in the future.If left without guns we would stand no chance against our government and military(Bramucci 11). The author emphasizes that one of the main reasons the Second Amendment was made was so there would be a way to resist tyranny or the government/leaders of our country in case they ever go against our countries principles and attempt to take over. Taking this away, us civilians would stand no chance against a fully armed military and government. There have been many instances in the past where our government was tyrannical such as Native Americans, Black Americans, the poor, and women. If they have been harsh in the past who is to say that the government will not do this again as history repeats itself.  Bramucci further strengthens his argument as he goes on to state how gun violence is often exaggerated on how much of a threat it actually is: Gun Violence is exaggerated in how much it is happening. The amount of guns in the world to the amount of gun violence is less than 1 percent. There is less than a 0.0007% chance that one of America’s gun owners has been involved in a mass shooting this year(Bramucci 4). The author states, there is a huge misconception in today's society on just how much guns are affecting us. It is awful when mass shootings do happen but there is no reason guns should be taken away when these shootings are as rare as lightning strikes. Compared to how many people own guns there is only .0007% chance that one of america's gun owners are involved in a mass shooting. Take that up against the 3 million people a year that use guns as means of self defense(New York Times 12) and the pros far outweigh the cons. As stated by the author, all citizens need a way to protect themselves from the government and other higher organizations that could take over our country. This and the fact that gun violence is greatly exaggerated in everyday life further concludes that gun rights should not be taken away from U.S. citizens.

As the war over guns continue many people argue that they only take lives while often times guns are used for saving lives. The New York Times upfront claims in their article ” Does the U.S. Need Tougher Gun Laws?” The Author argues that most gun-control laws violate the right to "bear arms" that the Framers laid out in the Second Amendment. “Under President Obama, the CDC examined the gun issue again in 2013 and reported that there are anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million annual cases of guns being used for self-defense. This means that people like that doctor in Pennsylvania are using guns 16 to 100 times more often to save life rather than to take life.”(New York Times 12). When looking at recent events that the author brings to light, it is very clear that gun control laws are not helping; In fact, guns may be the only solution to the gun violence problem in today's society. If the only way a shooter was stopped before the police arrived on scene was by an armed civilian, then why is todays society trying to hinder one's ability to be armed. In most cases it does not matter if there is a no weapons policy or gun control rights to stop certain people from getting guns because in the end they are still walking into buildings and killing innocent people. The author also reminds the reader how guns are a human right and backed by the majority: In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the "right to keep and bear arms," which is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Court correctly noted that this right "belongs to all Americans," that it is a right that "shall not be infringed" or denied to good people, and that it allows citizens to better "resist tyranny”(New York Times 13). The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States; Therefore when they say that the right to bear arms belongs to all americans and should not be taken away, it’s a very reliable source. The court themselves mention that civilians need a way to protect themselves in case a compromised government or tyranny. As said by the author, One of the only way to stop guns is with guns themselves as many people use them for protection. Along with that our second amendment right dates back 1791 and is protected by the highest court in america; Therefore further proving how the second amendment right should not be taken away from everyday civilians.

When looking at gun rights one can see that Gun Laws aren't existent in other countries and neither do shootings. Therefore, often times it's not the guns fault. In the article “I used to think gun control was the answer. My Research Told Me Otherwise” Leah Libresco talks about how Gun Control is not the answer to our countries gun problems, “I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths”(Libresco 3). Libresco explains how all around the world in countries like Britain and Australia, there are little to no gun control laws or restrictions. Even though this is the case they still have little to no gun violence in their countries and found that when using gun control laws, neither mass shootings nor other gun related crimes decreased. This further proves that gun restrictions have little to no effect on mass shootings or gun related crimes and maybe more to do with The United States mental health care or culture. Along with Gun controls laws in other countries the author also goes over gun control laws that already exist in our country and how we do not need more. “When I looked at the other often-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos”(Libresco 4). The author concluded how In today's world the way in which we perceive guns is often very far from the truth. Many people dramatize how easy it is to get a hold of a gun and dismiss the fact that there is already gun control today and many of the guns used in mass shootings aren't even sold in a store that you can walk into. In order to show how Gun should not be taken away from a citizen, not only does the author talk about gun rights in other countries, but libresco also goes over all the gun control laws we already have and how they do not do much.

One Argument against guns could be that if you have stricter gun laws, you will have fewer gun deaths. In John W. Schoen’s article ”States with stricter gun laws have fewer firearm deaths. Here is how you stack it up” He talks about his research on guns and that states that have a lower amount of gun restrictions do have more gun violence and deaths. “The relationship between gun laws and firearms deaths is compelling. In states like Alabama,. Alaska and Louisiana, where guns are lightly regulated, the rate of deaths by firearms (per 100,000 people) is more than four times higher than in New York, Connecticut, Hawaii or Massachusetts, which have some of the strictest gun laws in the country”(Schoen 5) . The author states facts talking about why guns should not be around. He shows statistics saying that countries with more gun restrictions have less gun violence. In the article,”I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise”, Leah Libresco makes points that contradict that of Schoen's. The author goes to explain how taking away guns won't do anything while comparing our country to others: In other Countries gun control is non existent. Also Mass shootings are also rare in these countries. This shows that Gun restrictions had no effect in mass shootings or gun related crime.  

The author looks at countries like Britain and Australia where little to no gun control laws or restrictions are present. Even though this is the case they still have little to no gun violence in their countries and found that when using gun control laws, neither mass shootings nor other gun related crimes decreased(Libresco 3). This further proves that gun restrictions have little to no effect on mass shootings or gun related crimes and maybe more to do with the U.S.A’s mental health care or culture. Libresco’s argument directly contradicts that of Schoeans as he states how more gun restrictions cause less gun violence. Its shown that this is not the case as libresco shows that other countries have zero gun control laws while have little to no gun violence. This shows that it is a problem somewhere else that does not lie with the guns as it is more the person behind the guns fault.

As a citizen living in The United States, and especially a student in High School, there is a possibility I could be involved in a shooting almost everyday. This makes this topic very crucial to me and to my future. While reading up in preparation to writing this essay I would say the most common factor I found while reading about this was the attackers or the shooters. They always seemed to be the introverted kid at school who ended up having mental health issues. After all my research I truly believe that our country's problem does not lie with the guns. Yes they are a constant in all shootings but the alleged shooter in the end will always find a way to induce terror and accomplish what they want to get done. I think improving our countries mental health facilities and overall mental health help would vastly help our country as that right there would reduce shootings in my opinion. For me, I always believe that there will be someway out there to cause mass killings whether it be guns, cars airplanes, bombs, or other weapons. I don't think getting rid of guns will help this epidemic and I do believe our resources would be more useful put elsewhere.

Once weighing all possible factors when thinking about gun rights and laws, there is no denying that guns should not be taken away from U.S. citizens for many reasons such as saving lives, protection from more powerful officials, and especially because many other countries fail to use gun control laws yet they have no gun violence. Even when looking at other problems that include the topic of gun violence such as news media, it is obvious that the gun should not be at blame. One of many possible fixes to the gun control problem is focusing on mental health facilities such as providing them extra funding and making more of them in general. This would improve not only the facilities themselves but increase the quality of help towards the mentally ill and could potentially save many lives. This topic gets increasingly more beneficial to today's society and everyone should be informed about as everyone could have an impact on fixing this wide spreading problem. So next time one says guns should be taken away from everyone, bring up a different perspective by asking the questions. Maybe ask them if they know how guns save lives, ask about gun violence other countries, what one would do against a tyrannical ruler, or one could just ask: Who is at fault for the deaths at the end of the shooting, The gun or the person?

Works Cited

Bramucci, Steve, and Steve Bramucci. “Want Gun Control? You'd Better Understand These Pro-Gun Arguments.” UPROXX, UPROXX, 22 Aug. 2018.

Libresco, Leah. “I Used to Think Gun Control Was the Answer. My Research Told Me Otherwise.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Oct. 2017.

Schoen, John W. “States with Strict Gun Laws Have Fewer Firearms Deaths. Here's How Your State Stacks Up.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 Feb. 2018.

Johnston, Jennifer. "Mass Shooting Mass Media." Globe and Mail, 17 Feb. 2018, pp. O.3. SIRS Issues Researcher.

"Does the U.S. Need Tougher Gun-Control Laws?" New York Times Upfront, Apr. 2015, pp. 22+. SIRS Discoverer.