Gun control is a highly controversial topic. When discussing the opposing sides, either pro or anti, the conversation can become heated. While researching anti-gun control arguments to try and better understand that point of view, I stumbled across a blog written by Justin A Perry. He makes three main points that I would like to discuss within this post. His stance is clear, anti-gun control and he believes the legalization of guns will do nothing to create a safer and more civilized society.
The first point that he makes is, people cannot be deprived of gun rights because it aids their source of food and will decrease their quality of life. Although many people do hunt to kill animals for consumption, we are not an underdeveloped country in which this is the main source of survival. A study conducted by Responsive Management, shows that
over 60% of hunters hunt for sport, bonding, trophy or nature as opposed to the approximate 30% of people who hunt for meat. Also, people who hunt for meat do not claim that this is there one and only source of survival and without it they would die. While many people enjoy freshly hunted meat, it is not a matter of life or death but rather preference.
His second argument claims that just because things are illegal, it doesn’t mean they cannot be obtained. He puts this into the perspective of drugs. Of course, LSD, Cocaine and Heroin are all illegal drugs but can unfortunately be found on the streets of the United States. He then draws the comparison that guns will be found on the streets even if they are illegal. I believe this argument is weak. The drugs he listed above are highly addictive after just one use. If they were legal we would have a much larger epidemic of drugs than we currently do. Making drugs illegal acts as a deterrent. Although it may be possible to find it on the streets, because it is banned, a large number of people abstain from using. This relates to guns as well. If a gun is legal, it is more likely to be used by every day people but once it becomes illegal it will deter the general public from purchasing it. Deterrence theory relates to three concepts, swiftness, severeness and certainty. If anti-gun laws are written clearly and there is strong enforcement of those laws, many citizens will become deterred. This will decrease the overall amount of people who physically own guns. Thus in turn, decreasing the potential for gun violence.
His third argument claims that, guns are not unsafe in households. The only way for a child to get into possession of a gun is by explicitly giving them access or teach them about the gun itself. This argument is extremely false. I recently watched a documentary 
called, Bully. It follows the lives of children who experience hardships at school. One girl, Ja’meye, was bullied so much that she found her mothers gun and brought it onto the school bus. She then attempted to shoot passengers but was luckily stopped in time. She now is in juvenile detention and will face most of her childhood behind bars. Her mother in the documentary claims she hid the gun and never spoke about the gun itself, where it was or how to operate it. This goes to show that Perry’s argument is not true. Just because we are not verbally teaching our kids about guns, their curious minds can get them into trouble. Children, in compromising situations, may turn to gun violence just like Ja’meye. The pure fact that her mother had that gun is what put Ja’meye behind bars and stripped her of her childhood. We are putting these weapons in front of our youth and presenting the opportunity to commit an act of violence.
Perry’s aggressive stance against gun control may excite others who agree with him but it is important to look at the facts of his arguments. With careful research and consideration it is clear that the anti-gun control claims are protecting a small group of people, those who enjoy guns, and harming the rest of the population. The presence of mass shootings and gun violence has gone too far. We need stricter laws relating to the ownership of guns.
another mass murder is committed by a white man who has legally obtained a gun, this debate unfolds yet again. However, no progress is ever made in terms of gun control. About 90% of Americans support universal background checks, but that has yet to be enforced. According to Weindling, the main reason that no law enforcement is ever accomplished is because the 10% of Americans that are opposed to stricter gun control laws are way more committed to the cause than the rest of the country who support it. One of the most illogical arguments that Weindling mentions is an analogy of guns that are tools that can kill, compared to knives which are a tool that is not being banned. Anti- gun control advocates have yet to prove why gun restrictions will not work with concrete evidence. Their debate is always focused on our second Amendment right, and other arguments that do not seem viable to the debate issue, or the solution for our country. 
The first argument in regards to the second amendment, refers to the notion that the world is an ever-changing place. The way in which we interpreted this argument was simple. The constitution and the amendments within have been around for hundreds of years. The way inwhich the world functioned in 1791, when the 2nd amendment was ratified, is very different from the world we live in today. It is clear that laws can and should be interpreted differently over the course of history. With our changing lives, the laws in which we abide by should adapt and grow as we as a country do as well. So, although the we had the right to bear arms in 1791, is it safe to have the right today? Maybe not. 
experience with guns before the time of the shooting. Maybe the “over-acceptance” of guns can make a person more susceptible to committing a crime such as a mass shooting. This shows how a positive culture around guns can potentially have a negative impact on the country.
The Importance of Gun Control 