Against Gun Control

Landon Clay, Reporter

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Gun control is a heated issue that has yet to be resolved. With both sides constantly going against each other, it can be hard to find what place you belong in in this whole thing.

Being a gun owner myself, I tend to get a lot of negative feedback. You will hear and see a lot of things in mainstream media about things like “mass shootings” and how “assault rifles” cause mass death and destruction. These claims tend to have little to no evidence backing them and exploit fear in people to get them to vote against guns. This tends to lead people to look down on those who are exercising their Second Amendment right to own guns.

The term “mass shooting” is not officially defined, meaning quarrels that consist of more than two people with few to no deaths involved are getting mixed in with incidents like the Las Vegas shooting. This not only represents information inaccurately, but also make it seem like guns do a lot more mass harm than they actually do.

Another thing you’ll hear is that “guns kill people.” This statement is horribly inaccurate. Yes, people use guns to kill other people, but guns themselves cannot kill. It is almost impossible for a gun to discharge without human intervention.  

Contrary to popular belief, advocates against gun control have common sense and are willing to listen and compromise. For example, the Las Vegas shooter used a kit to convert his semi-automatic weapon to an almost fully automatic one. I personally am against kits like this and certain other things that are meant to cause harm and wrong-doing. However, taking all guns or a large portion of them isn’t the answer.

In March of 2017, in Oklahoma, three armed teenagers broke into a house. The homeowner’s son was home with his father when the break-in occurred. The son of the homeowner shot and killed all three teenagers with his AR-15. Had that son not had access to a gun, the family would have been left defenseless.

Gun control is not only negative now, but opens up opportunity for future incidents. A good number of mass shootings happen in public areas and “gun-free zones.” It makes sense that a shooter would target an area with little to no resistance, so arming law-abiding citizens reduces the chance of a mass shooting. If people are willing to commit mass murder, they are willing to illegally purchase a gun. Gun control laws will not help prevent mass shootings. In fact, they will simply make it more difficult for regular citizens to obtain guns and potentially save lives.

A few years ago, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit stopped a potential mass shooting. The driver (who wasn’t named for privacy reasons) was sitting in his car when he witnessed a gunman opening fire in a public area. He responded by pulling out a gun and shooting the man repeatedly. He injured only the gunman and no one else. This is just one example of a civilian acting ethically and bravely to stop mass violence, and he was able to do so because he had a weapon provided to him legally. If gun control were more strict, the driver would not have been able to defend himself and other innocent people.

We have the Second Amendment for a reason: to protect our ability to defend ourselves. The right response to outside threats is not to get rid of our defenses. While there are common-sense measures, gun control doesn’t solve the problems it tries to address. It only hurts ordinary people. For that reason, I am against gun control.