To gain a better understanding of gun control in general, it is important to research and understand the perspective of anti-gun control advocates and their personal feelings on the matter. The Huffington Post wrote an article on an interview that was conducted with David Anderson. Anderson has been a member of the National Riffles Association (NRA) for over 50 years and is a strong believer in the right to bear arms. He makes multiple claims about why gun control is an ineffective tool to stopping gun violence. I will be refuting three of the claims that he made during his interview. Although his arguments are passionate, there is no true validity behind his statements.
The first topic he discusses are background checks. He claims that they are entirely ineffective. He believes they are not comprehensive enough to be prevent crime and the policies are not enforced correctly throughout the country. Even if his claims were true, it does not mean America should “do away” with them entirely but rather fix the existing problems. While researching information on background checks and analyzing the recent shootings throughout our country, I came across a shocking piece of information. A recent shooting in a Texas church has tragically left 26 people dead. This heinous crime was committed by a man named Devin Patrick Kelly. To further understand how gun control plays a role in this situation I began to research more about Devin Patrick Kelly 
himself. It turns out he was not eligible to purchase the assault rifle he used in this shooting. He was court-martialed by the Air Force in 2012. Also, he served a year in prison and received a bad conduct discharge in 2014 for assault on his spouse and their child. While Anderson claims that background checks are ineffective, it is clear that a more extensive check for Kelly could have prevented this shooting. With stricter and more clear regulations, 26 people may have still been alive today. It is not the background check that is ineffective but rather the way in which its enforced. We need more extensive regulations when purchasing weapons. Something as simple as a background check could have saved 26 people.
The second argument that he makes is in regard to gun free zones. A gun free zone is when a certain location bans the concealment and use of guns. He claims that these zones ineffective as well. He believes the best way to stop gun violence is by having more presence of guns around, rather than banning them. If a shooter has a high chance of being shot and killed by officials, Anderson claims it will deter him/her from committing the crime. This argument is not strong. There are ways to execute mass shootings inwhich you do not have to be in the presence of anyone. Stephen Paddock, the shooter in Las Vegas, was alone in a private room and killed 59 people. With his right to have a military style weapon now shooters can commit these crimes from a large distance and not worry about the presence of anyone let alone officials with guns. Anderson does not seem to understand that you can’t fight guns with more guns. The shooters will find a way to commit these evil crimes no matter how many guns you give to people. The simple fact that Paddock was able to purchase his guns is the sole cause of this shooting, and no armed presence would have stopped him.
His last claim states that as citizens we have the right to bear arms in terms of self defense. It is important to keep our country safe and people should have the right to protect themselves if need be, but there are other ways. Protection from a dangerous situation does not have to result in death. First, there are various non-lethal weapons that can aid in self-defense but won’t result in death. Opposed to guns, people can own, pepper spray, Tasers, stun guns, self-defense alarms and whistles or even keychain weapons. All of these products can protect citizens without needing a gun. Conclusively, in terms of owning a gun for self-defense, it is not the only option. Secondly, there are instances in which people use a gun in “self-defense” when they are not required to which can result in an unnecessary and fatal accident. This brings me to the popular 
incident with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Zimmerman felt in danger and wished to protect his neighborhood from crime. He mistakenly viewed Martin as a threat to his safety and shot and killed him. Perhaps Zimmerman used a stun gun instead and waited for police to arrive, Martin would be alive today and Zimmerman’s neighborhood would remain safe. Guns are fatal and the actions committed behind a gun are irreversible.
Although Anderson does make various arguments against gun control, each argument has a refutation with clear evidence. The debate for or against gun control has been heated and passionate for years but it is important to look at facts rather than personal opinion. Anderson is admittedly passionate about guns for personal reasons such as hunting and sport therefore his arguments are not entirely valid.
r several minutes, only pausing to reload his weapon. Records show this is the worst mass shooting in Texas history. 26 people were left dead and 20 were wounded. This man applied for a license to carry and a check with the national criminal background databases didn’t turn up his military conviction. This shows the importance of better gun control laws and background checks otherwise tragedies like these would never occur.
weapon should not be protected under our Constitution. When the sale of guns is used for harm, we must revoke or rewrite the 2nd Amendment. Let’s put it into perspective… If Stephen Paddock was only able to purchase a handgun, not any military style weapon, there would be astronomically less damage done by him. It is a fact that without that gun, he would not have been able to do what he did. It makes me wonder, did he kill all of those people, or did the gun?
The Importance of Gun Control 