Mathieu 1

William Mathieu
Ms. Reed
Composition 1
31 March 2016
Gun Control is Not the Answer
When I initially began this subject at the beginning of the semester, I was initially
undecided on my stance. After an extensive amount of research, though, I decided that my stance
towards the subject was that I leaned towards anti-gun control. There are many reasons on why I
picked the stance I did, which is to keep to law the same. So, I picked the few most valid
argumentative points to discuss throughout my paper.
The first main reason for being against gun control is the fact that it is a constitutional
right being infringed upon. The Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant
the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. At first it was
thought to apply only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it has been applied to the states as well (Second Amendment). Yes, some may
say that today's society is much more different than when the Constitution was written, but the
fact of the matter is that its not as different as many would think. The right was initially given to
the citizens of the United States as a method to create a standing militia to prevent against an
oppressive government. But who is to say that that couldnt happen in todays America. As well,
who isnt to say that guns in todays society dont give a similar purpose?
The purpose Im speaking of is protection, currently, this protection isnt needed by
Americans to protect themselves from an oppressive government; however, it is needed by
individual citizens who live in a world with danger all around them. This protection is for

Mathieu 2
individual citizens who live in a world with danger all around them. In todays society murder,
rape, and various other crimes are all too prevalent. Guns in a lot of cases absolutely save lives.
If guns are banned it will diminish protection for those who might not be able to protect
themselves. Criminals will find ways to gain weapons and commit their criminal acts regardless
of gun control. Cops cannot be everywhere all the time. Protection in a lot of cases relies on
ones self or the help of others in the community to be brave and step up. In no way is this
bashing the police force at all, its just simply a fact that it often takes them long times to arrive
at a scene. The average police response time is roughly 10 minutes, and thats to say someone
called in the heat of the moment (Average-Police-Response-Time). In private encounters in
immediate danger thats too long, even if you are able to get to the phone and make the call, the
act has probably already been committed.
There are more scenarios than not where a citizen acquiring a gun for protection if used
right, is the better option. There are in fact many stories to prove that having citizens with guns
has been a possible life-saving scenario. For instance, A woman being dragged across a Texas
parking lot as she held onto her purse in an apparent mugging attempt was saved when a nearby
stranger, who was carrying a concealed weapon, joined the situation and held the suspects, a
man, and a woman, at gunpoint until police arrived (Guns Save Lives). This is just one of the
many examples of a possible life-saving event. He didnt kill the man he simply prevented them
from whatever horrible thing that could have happened to that innocent lady. She couldve been
assaulted, raped, or even murdered. So, the 2nd Amendment is no longer meant for its originally
applied purpose, seeing there is no really threatening higher power at this moment. As time has
gone by, the 2nd Amendment has developed a new purpose really: protection from dangerous
criminals.

Mathieu 3
Another main focus on gun control is the possibility of hunters and sportsman having
their guns stripped away from them. This is unfair, both to those who hunt and shoot
competitively. Hunting can be a very important activity that is often times overlooked. This
activity too many is a stress reliever, as well as a way to bond with family and friends. Hunting
to many is a cheaper, and highly nutritious, way to put food on the table. Hunting is something
that has been around thousands of years and is a very productive activity.
Competitive shooting, on the other hand, is a great activity as well. This allows the
shooter to practice safe and effective shooting. This can be a recreational activity or one that
practices efficient shooting for when hunting. This is a sport that often times has a lot of money
spent on it. The higher the competition level usually the more money spent. When starting off
you simply have to have a gun, ammunition, and pay for use of the facility being shot at. At
professional levels, it is often better to shoot a higher dollar gun and use more expensive
ammunition.
Hunting and competitive shooting are both activities that can be either inexpensive or
highly expensive. The possibility of these two activities being stripped from Americans causes
huge economic problems for many both big name and small business that thrive off of the
revenue of selling hunting and outdoors-related sells items. I can think of several chain stores
throughout the country that would be affected by this. Big sporting goods stores like Cabelas,
Bass Pro, and TP Outdoors might still survive due to their ability to have tons of different sells
items such as clothes, motor vehicles, and many other accessories. Although, smaller businesses
that are more local such as Macks Prairie Wings and Simmons Sporting Goods both business in
this state might be more heavily affected.

Mathieu 4
Since the repercussions of this being passed could not only hurt the business related to
hunting, it could, in turn, affect the economy itself. Its more likely to be affected poorly. This
would strip many people of their jobs, and destroy many local business owners as well as big
business owners. Now this will cause the consumer to most likely have more money to spend
elsewhere, but this still causes many people to lose jobs that could support their families,
themselves, or give them a possibility to get working experience and get a better job in the
future.
Gun control supporters can make many arguments such as: it will reduce a number of
murders, it will reduce a number of assaults and rapes, it will reduce a number of suicides, etc.,
but I say that if someone wants to do something and puts their mind to it, theres really no
stopping them. If you think a school shooter or a murderer isnt going to go through with their
plan because they lack the ability of having a gun youre wrong. These people would find a way
to commit their crime. A murderer is a murderer, the argument that guns kills isnt valid, its the
people behind them. People get murdered by various weapons frequently. Guns protect much
more so than they do harm. You dont see the president go hardly anywhere unless he
surrounded by the secret service, and what do they have on them at all times? A gun.
In essence, to say that our country would be safer without guns is a blatant lie. Many
citizens carry weapons used for protection and use them for activities that are completely nonharmful. So, why take away their freedom because some gang member stole a gun and killed
someone with it. Every right given is going to have an upside and a downside, someone is
always going to fight it and try to change it. This is exactly what is happening here with gun
control, it is something that has two very opposing sides that battle frequently over who is right.

Mathieu 5
After going through extensive amounts of research the side of Anti-Gun control just
seems right. The good outweighs the bad, in nearly every aspect. The argument of the decline of
safety because of guns is obviously trying to spread fear. Were ranked 162nd out of all 218
countries in intentional homicides committed with a firearm (Global Study on Homicide).
Considering America is third biggest country due to population that is not nearly as bad as the
media makes it out to be. Statistics can be thrown all around to make them sound scary, but how
frequently is it heard that a friend or family member of yours has been shot or killed? This
answer may dramatically vary due to where you live, grew up, or a lot of different variables. All
in all, gun violence would most likely be replaced by violence of another sort, the argument of
crimes rates going down is a total myth. This is because there is no evidence to it at all, its just a
proposed theory that is a huge side of the gun control argument. So, I say is giving up freedoms
and rights given by our country's constitution worth losing our guns? The answer being no.

Mathieu 6
Works Cited
"Average-Police-Response-Time." Average-Police-Response-Time. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr.
2016.
Guns Save Lives: 12 Stories Cited By Second Amendment Advocates.Newsmax. N.p., 28 Oct.
2014 Web.06 Mar. 2016.
"Global Study on Homicide." UNODC:. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
"Second Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.