Several arguments by those who support gun control have provoked thought in many people and have caused them to move towards the anti-gun side of the argument. Some that I have heard are "Reducing gun control can lead to an increase in deaths because it is giving more people the opportunity to own guns and take advantage of it." and when I say gun control does not work people say "What does?". The fist argument is completely false and the second has an answer that gets results, and it's not gun control.
The first argument is not true because stats show that gun control has not decreased violence or stopped massacres in other countries and US states that have passed strict gun laws. Several massacres have happened in states that passed strict gun laws. In 1994 Connecticut banned assault weapons but in 2012 Sandy Hook happened. In California assault weapons were banned in 1989 yet San bernardino took place. After sandy hook; Colorado limited the size of magazines,however it did not stop the planned parenthood shooting. During the nationwide assault weapons ban of 1994-2004 there were multiple rampage shootings; including the infamous Columbine. Another study that was done by the Washington post showed "Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws." Here's the link  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/
I also mentioned in my previous posts how the gun bans in the UK and Australia were complete failures. There is also proof that the myth of more guns meaning more crime is completely false. The city of Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that requires all households to have a firearm with usable ammo; with the exceptions of felons, the mentally disabled, those in poverty, etc. since the passage of the law the violent crime in Kennsaw is 85% lower than the rest of Georgia.

The other point is that people ask that "What does work?". I have the exact solution. It's called project exile. Project exile was passed by Richmond, VA. The goal was crime reduction; this was done by implementing the rule that if you commit a crime with a firearm you get five years in jail. The program was considered a major success as the city saw great improvements with crime rates and many US cities copied the program. The law is supported by both the Brady Campaign and the National Rifle Association, so it leaves both sides happy. This program is our solution to the violence problem in America, by locking up the bad guys and leaving law abiding citizens alone.

A third reason why we should not ban guns is that it ultimately punishes law-abiding citizens who would lose their right to own guns and their ability to protect themselves.

Banning guns would only hurt law abiding citizens because several countries that have done it are way worse off in terms of crime than the United States. An example of this is Australia. Australia banned most semi and pump action guns as well as severely restricted handguns in response to the Port Arthur massacre. One other things was licensing of all gun owners, including that self-defense was not a reason to obtain a license. Because people have had most self-defense weapons banned and the remaining guns they have cannot be used for defense, the people of Australia are defenseless. The website Nation master allows you to compare all kinds of statistics of other countries and I found this. Australia has in terms of population size, twice as many robbery victims, twice as many assault victims, twice as many burglaries, and three times as many rape victims as the United States ("Australian vs United States Crime Stats Compared." NationMaster.com. NationMaster, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.). Not only that, but after the gun ban; Port Arthur has not been the only massive loss of life in Australia. The gun ban did not deter people who wished to do evil because there have been eleven massacres in Australia since the gun ban. It has been a mixture of Shootings (Monash University Shooting, 2011 Hectorville siege, Hunt family murders, Logan shooting, Sydney Siege, and the Ingleburn Shooting), stabbing and melee attacks (Lin family murders and Cairns child), and arson attacks (Churchill Fire and Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire), so it proves that the law does not stop people who wish to do others harm. This shows that you are much safer in a country that you can defend yourself in.

It is also clear that limiting the size of gun magazines will hurt and endanger law-abiding citizens. In the article "A Ban On Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime" edited by Noel Merino, it was brought up that "While a police officer can carry extra magazines on his duty belt, and have a rifle or shotgun in his patrol car, and call for back-up, a private citizen attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense."(ic.galegroup.com, Merino).

Not only that it would hurt law-abiding citizens who use guns for defense; gun bans also affect hunters, target shooters, and collectors. Bans that go as far as Australia's would ban semi and Pump action shotguns; guns that many Americans, including myself use for hunting and target shooting. Strict gun laws and bans only hurt the innocent and do nothing to criminals

The U.S does not have a crime problem because of guns

Because the United States has more guns than any country in the world does not mean that it has a crime problem just because of guns. If you look at the stats; many countries with strict gun control are much worse off in terms of crime. Some examples are as follows

In the UK, there are very few gun owners except in rural areas. However there are limited types because the country outlawed handguns and most semi and pump action firearms. Despite myths that the UK is so safe because there are no guns, they are not true.

Because the populace is almost disarmed in the UK there are several crimes and other negatives in which the UK out rank the US in. Note: * means percentage of population.

 Fear of being attacked.

• UK: 43. 09
• US : 42.08

Crimes per 1000 people

• UK: 109.96
• US: 41.22

Rape victims

• UK: 0.9% *
• US: 0.4% *

Total crime victims

• UK: 26.4% *
• US: 21.1% *

Total assault victims

• UK: 2.8% *
• US: 1.2%*

Property crime victims

• UK: 12.2%*
• US:10%*

Robbery Victims

• UK: 1.2%*
• US: 0.6%*

The reason for all of this is that in the UK you simply cannot own a gun to defend yourself. In the USA where you can own a gun to defend yourself and your family, all of the stats above are lower. The US has a higher homicide rate because almost all homicides are drug or gang related, those guns have a very small chance of actually being legally owned because then they can be traced by the police. When Scotland, England, and Wales outlawed hand guns in response to the Dunblane massacre it was believed that the spree shooting would not happen again. However the laws did not stop people with evil intentions from killing. Because in 2005 the London bombings happened. Along with that in 2010 there was another spree shooting, the Cumbria shootings, and again in 2016 the Spalding shooting. This proves that no matter how strict the laws are or how many guns you ban; people with evil intentions will not be deterred. The best way to deal with it is to let law abiding citizens arm and protect themselves 

Criminals don't obey the law so why would they obey the gun laws and it would leave us at a disadvantage.

Don't Be Fooled

As a gun owner I am well aware of all the recent attacks on our right to bear arms. Many people I meet as well as politicians that support these restrictions usually give me similar responses. "It will reduce crime", "You don't need an assault rifle to hunt", " Look at countries with no guns", "These mass shootings are happening to often". The thing is that when you are told this you are being mislead.
First terms such as "weapons of war" and "Assault weapons" in an attempt to scare people. The AR-15 used by law abiding citizens such as myself are much different from the AR-15 used by law enforcement or the M-16 used by the military. They are semi-automatic, meaning that you have to pull the trigger repeatedly to fire it;as opposed to an assault rifle used by military and law enforcement which you can hold down the trigger to fire it. In simple terms the AR-15 used by civilians are not full auto machine guns and are not designed for war. Something else to consider is that these guns that gun control supporters call assault weapons are deemed more powerful and deadly than other firearms. This is not the case however. A firearm's power is determined by it's caliber or gauge. What this means is that the stopping power of any firearm is determined by the size of it's ammunition and barrel . For example an AR-15 fires 5.56x45 mm bullets, also referred to as .223 meaning that the bullet is that many inches in diameter. Compare that to my dads hunting rifle which fires .257 bullets. You can see that my fathers Hunting rifle(.257) is more powerful than his AR-15(.223). I would not want to hunt with an AR-15 because it is just not powerful enough. Meaning that guns used for hunting are much more powerful than the weapons that gun control advocates call "assault weapons".

As well as not being powerful enough to hunt big game; the guns that gun control advocates want to ban are used almost never used in any crime and banning them will do nothing. Police reports and surveys of felons have found that "assault weapons are used in 1-2% of violent crimes and there are more homicides with hammers or knives than all rifles combined, including what politicians call "assault weapons". Examples of this are that in the following five years after banning "Assault weapons" in 1989 California had an increase in homicides for five years straight. California banned even more guns in 2000 and the homicide rate is still 12% higher than the national average. The AFT has even said that it "Can in no way vouch for the validity" of the claims made by the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Cal) that the federal "Assault Weapons ban" reduced crime ( The law expired in 2004). The FBI does not consider gun control as a crime factor, and California does not give credit to their gun laws as a reason for the recent statewide crime reduction.

Something else to think of is have you heard the phrase "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them"? It has a lot of truth to it. Criminals do not obey the law. So why would they obey new gun laws? You also have to think that if you are disarmed, How would you protect your family? Someone breaks into your house and all you have is the police on the way, but they may not get there in time. Don't get me wrong I love our police officers, but would you rather risk your life and your family's life waiting for them to show up? Or would you rather protect yourself. People also say that you don't need fifteen to thirty bullets to defend yourself. This is a direct quote from an article I read and it directly states what I was going to. "While a police officer can carry extra magazines on his duty belt, and have a rifle or shotgun in his patrol car, and call for back-up, a private citizen attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense." (http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?disableHighlighting=&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&currPage=&dviSelectedPage=&scanId=&query=&source=&prodId=OVIC&search_within_results=&p=OVIC%3AGIC&mode=view&catId=&u=colu91149&limiter=&display-query=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010015270&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=)

So enacting more gun control will do nothing to criminals and would only hurt law abiding citizens.

Feel free to comment and you can look at that website where I got the quote because I have a lot of information on here that is also in that article. I hope you consider all of this before you vote for an anti-gun candidate

Also I love history. My favorite board game is the Axis and Allies Franchise

I also have three cats, this one is Bug (My sister named her that for her eyes). The other two are Snickers and Bell.

                This is my Black Lab Lucy. I also have a Golden Doodle Ricky Bobby (Talladega Nights)