Introduction: Let's imagine, for a moment, that national gun restriction laws have been put in place. Home defense weapons would be banned. No one would be able to defend themselves from armed intruders. This will probably lead to numerous thefts, but will also lead to an increase in the murder rate. It is clear that the United States is suffering from an epidemic of mass shootings. For this reason, people in favor of providing a solution to the problem have generally turned to gun control. These advocates represent the idea that if we limit the number of guns used in mass shootings, we might see a change. While this may be true, most of these people have bad statistics. Many people believe that gun control will solve the epidemic of mass shootings, but that is not the case. Of course, everyone would like to see an end to the epidemic of school shootings and mass shootings. It seems like the only logical answer is to limit the use of guns in most school shootings. Gun control advocates automatically turn to bans on weapons like the AR-15 because "AR-15 rifles have been used to commit every major mass shooting in the United States since the 2012 attack on an Aurora movie theater , in Colorado". Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Context: However, most gun control advocates have the statistics wrong. First, most mass shootings don't even involve rifles like the AR-15. It is clear that gun control advocates oppose assault weapons like the AR-15 and say they are the most popular weapons used among mass shooters. Therefore, gun control seeks to limit only the purchase of certain weapons, mainly assault weapons. In hindsight, guns actually outnumbered assault weapons when it came to mass shootings. Statistics show that the use of handguns versus assault rifles was 141-55 in every mass shooting in the United States from 1982 to 2019. While most mass shootings don't even occur with the use of guns assault, why are we just trying to limit them? It seems that gun control advocates don't want to address the problem directly. They are looking for a gradual approach to the problem which, in my opinion, will only make things worse. If we choose to limit the problem rather than abolish it altogether, we will only create more problems at each stage of the process. Thesis Statement: Here's why gun control is a bad alternative to solving our epidemic of mass shootings. It will only lead to the creation of further problems such as arms trafficking. As an example, gun control will only increase the amount of criminal activity that occurs in the United States. We will inevitably see an increase in arms trafficking. We definitely had a drug problem in America, so we made most drugs illegal. What did he do? Increase the amount of drug trafficking, cartels and illegal drug smuggling organizations. Why shouldn't this result be the same for gun control? Evidence and Citations: It has become evident that someone seeking to cause the greatest possible harm to human life will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. Among these, other firearms will be purchased illegally. With the inevitable increase in arms trafficking, more and more consumers will purchase from these illegal organizationsarms trafficking. Comment: If a mass shooter has the goal of doing as much damage as possible and unleashing all his hatred, is it really likely that a simple gun restriction will stop him? For example, the two boys who committed the mass shooting at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, obtained some of their firearms illegally; the rest was stolen. They went through months of preparation to plan and proceed with this attack on their classmates. The lawlessness of the situation did not stop them from obtaining weapons. This did not stop them from proceeding with the attack. A person focused on causing as much harm as possible will not obey the law. Therefore, it is logical to assume that limiting assault weapons will not prevent mass shooters from obtaining them. Topic Sentence: Also, this concept is irrelevant, as mentioned above, most mass shootings happen with guns, which are not taken into consideration when it comes to gun control. Evidence and Citations: Beyond the effects, it is likely that extremist supporters of the Second Amendment can invoke their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves from the tyrannical government. Taking away someone's constitutional right will surely lead someone to question whether or not their government is trying to limit their rights completely. Comment: For a constitutionalist who supports guns, this will likely result in violence justified by self-defense. Overall, the misuse of firearms is far outweighed by the positive aspects they bring to many Americans. To elaborate, firearms save more lives in self-defense each year than the number of lives killed by the use of a firearm. Evidence and Citations: According to Capitalism Magazine, “approximately 11,000 lives are lost due to non-suicidal deaths involving a firearm each year…Nearly all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun use by of victims is at least as common as offensive use by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from approximately 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of approximately 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” According to statistics, about 3 million people are saved every year thanks to the use of firearms. Furthermore, only 11,000 people are killed due to firearms every year. This number includes all mass shootings, murders and accidental shootings. Topic sentence: The number of lives saved by firearms is already significantly higher than those taken, but gun control advocates seek change in hopes of limiting deaths caused by firearms. ? Comment: Furthermore, taking away people's right to own guns will not help prevent future shootings. Evidence and Citations: Shootings like the one in Southerland Springs would not have been stopped and would ultimately have resulted in many more deaths if gun control laws had been put in place. This shooting occurred on November 5, 2017. Twenty-six people were killed during this massacre. Luckily, the owner of an AR-15, Stephen Willeford, was nearby and was able to respond faster than local authorities. He heroically discharged his firearm and killed the assassin. Comment: If he had not had his AR-15, and instead had a pistol, it is likely that he would not have been able to stop the attacker because he would have had to get into close quarters combat, without any weapons. with the shooter. Between shootings like this that would not be stopped, people will not be able to defend their homes in the event of a home invasion. Evidence and Citations: According to Skilled Survival, the AK-47It is an essential weapon for home defense. Allows easy close and distant combat. Furthermore, it is relatively economical with a low maintenance price. Comment: If gun control restrictions were to be put in place, assault weapons like this would not be an option for enthusiastic home defenders. Some advocates might argue that Americans don't need an assault weapon to defend their home, a gun will do just fine. However, it makes no sense for gun control advocates to favor guns. Topic Sentence: As mentioned numerous times throughout my argument, guns are the primary firearm used in most mass shootings. Why would someone trying to limit mass shootings favor the very weapon used by the majority? This is because many of the gun control advocates are not educated on the real statistics. They are mainly fueled by propaganda used to persuade uneducated people. After all, what is the best solution to this problem? Comment: We need to move away from gun control and look for better alternatives. As clearly mentioned, gun control is not effective prevention when it comes to limiting the number of mass shootings that occur in America. Perhaps we should instead consider the signals that lead to a mass shooting and develop a system based on them. Evidence and Citations: According to Steve Helling, "several organizations and foundations have developed warning signs to identify possible mass shooters." To limit the number of mass shootings, why not test people susceptible to these warning signs? Simply require that they undergo a psychological evaluation to determine whether or not they are fit to wander into the public. If testing concludes that they are deemed unsafe for the public, send them to a facility where they will be housed and cared for. Sure, some people might find this idea extreme, but wouldn't it be more beneficial to require a simple test that targets only those who show signs of a mass shooting, rather than tampering with the Second Amendment that targets every citizen in the country? United States? If we were to simply perform a psychological evaluation on every person exhibiting the signs, proclaimed by gun control advocates, we would surely see a decrease in the number of mass shooters roaming the streets. Of course, there is the possibility of innocent people being put into custody, but that possibility also exists with almost any law put in place. It is much more beneficial to have a system that actively works to prevent something from happening, rather than taking a phased approach towards prevention as gun control laws try to do. Topic sentence: In response to gun control advocates, it's amazing to see someone put their foot down and attempt to solve a very real, serious, and devastating problem. However, gun control is a solution that simply won't work. There are much better and more effective solutions that will result in much better outcomes for everyone. Comment: Trying to ban guns that many people believe are essential to their well-being is not a wise decision by gun control advocates. Beyond that, most of the arguments made by gun control advocates are flawed. Evidence and Citations: The number one argument made by gun control advocates is that “gun control saves lives.” It is alarming to know that, once you look at the actual statistics, the number one argument proclaimed by advocates of control ofweapons is actually fake. Gun control will no longer save lives and that is proven. Restricting the availability of firearms will undoubtedly affect the nearly 3 million people each year who are saved from armed robberies, home invasions, etc. due to the use of firearms. To put this number in perspective, only about 11,000 people are killed by firearms each year. This number includes all mass shootings, school shootings, and homicides. Topic Sentence: Additionally, the second most common argument made by gun control advocates is “you have no right to own the gun you want.” This argument is also false. Evidence and Citations: According to the Constitution of the United States of America, we have the right to possess any firearm necessary in the hope of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is already limited as it is. Comment: If a citizen wishes to purchase a firearm legally, he must undergo extensive checks, wait a certain number of days (usually thirty) to even receive that firearm and, among these, it is not possible to purchase the weapon you want. Fully automatic weapons are virtually unobtainable by ordinary citizens. Topic Sentence: Finally, the third most common argument offered by gun control advocates is “fewer guns means less gun crime” (Rooney). Again, this argument can also be proven wrong. In theory, it seems that fewer firearms circulating in America will help reduce gun deaths. While this may be true, that is not the argument gun control advocates push. Evidence and Citations: They believe that fewer firearms will result in fewer gun crimes. Would this only increase the number of gun trafficking incidents in America? What happened when we made drugs illegal? We have seen an epidemic of drug smuggling, the formation of cartels, drug rivalries, etc. Comment: Implementing laws that completely restrict guns will certainly increase rates of gun trafficking, which will result in an increase in gun-related crime. It seems like every argument made by gun control advocates can be refuted. Closing Paragraph: Does America Have a Mass Shooting Problem? YES. Does America need a change that results in fewer mass shootings? YES. Is gun control the answer? Absolutely not. These problems we are facing in America are real and desperately need solutions. However, the main solution, namely gun control, is not an effective means. There is so much more that can be done to stop the epidemic of shootings occurring in America. We must consider the results and find a solution that works for the majority. Gun control is a very heated topic that in no way favors the majority. Whatever the problem, there is no way to satisfy everyone, but we can at least do our best to satisfy the most people and unite to stop this horrible epidemic. Overall, the epidemic of mass shootings in the United States is a real and serious problem. Obviously, something needs to be done to limit this as much as possible. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay However, restricting gun rights will only cause more problems when it comes to gun ownership and distribution of firearms. There will probably be a riot in America. We will see millions of gun owners become furious with the government and they will probably take it”..