Everyone is talking about it, it’s all over the news, in the headlines of countless stories and articles, it’s so big it’s even made its way into politics. Gun control is a very controversial topic, and currently there isn’t any solution in sight. Over the past couple of years the U.S. government and news have worked up gun control to the point that it’s becoming difficult to talk about it without upsetting someone. During all of this controversy, two main sides have become apparent. The first of which would be those that support the 2nd amendment and the rights of gun owners, and the second being the group of people that are against the 2nd amendment and the rights of gun owners.

While both sides have valid arguments, I do believe that one side is right, and the other is wrong. Many terrible crimes have been committed with a weapon present, they just as easily could have been stopped or avoided with another weapon. For years people have looked for something to blame for these crimes and shootings, of course the immediate blame of the crime was dumped onto the shooter, but overall people kept coming back to the idea and theory that firearms are the issue. Throughout many different cases, whether it is a murder resulting in a single death, or a mass shooting involving the deaths of numerous people, this trend continued. People would be very upset and angry with the shooter, but the people and the media always ended up looking towards gun control for a solution through immediate complaining about how guns are too easy to obtain the U.S. and how guns are evil and the root of these evil deeds.

Then very recently that trend has come to a halt. On December 2, 2015, another shooting happened. This one was different though, people didn’t and couldn’t blame a lack of gun control for the crime, because this crime happened in California. The shooting I am referring to would be the San Bernardino shooting. Without a doubt this was another terrible crime, it resulted in 14 dead and 21 wounded, according to LA Times. You may at this point be wondering, why couldn’t those people complain? What was different this time? Why does it matter that it took place in California? I’ll tell you why, it’s fairly known that California has the strictest gun control policies out of any other state in the U.S. and that it is very difficult to come by some of the most basic of firearms without going through numerous tedious processes and stacks of paperwork. According to the police, multiple .223 caliber magazines were dropped and left at the site, along with various 9mm magazines. These .223 rounds and magazines found at the site indicate that the firearm used would have most likely been an AR15 or something from the AR family. The AR is one of the most common firearms in the U.S. it is a versatile tool and can be used for many things from hunting, to self-defense, to recreational shooting. Though this is such a common firearm across the U.S., it still isn’t very common in California due to its strict gun control.

Even with these strict laws against guns in California, these criminals managed to get their hands on very effective firearms for their task, regardless of the laws in their area. If someone has the capability to or has the intentions of committing crimes such as mass shootings, do you really think they are going to care about firearm laws? No they aren’t going to care about or abide by the law period. Criminals are going to obtain illegal things in illegal ways, no matter how hard the government tries to prevent it. With that being said, what would be accomplished by getting rid of firearms? Taking firearms away from the law abiding U.S. citizen is not only unconstitutional and against the 2nd amendment, but it’s quite counterproductive. Just think about it, if all of the law abiding citizens give up their arms, what happens to the criminals? Do you think they are just going to suddenly adhere to the law and stop purchasing and obtaining guns, and give up those that they already have? If you think so, then there isn’t much of a point in in you reading this. So what then if all of the law abiding lose their right to bear arms and are forced to give up their arms? Are we to just sit undefended and give the criminals the advantage? Because that is exactly what would happen, the people these laws intend to disarm would end up allowing them to be the only people armed. If that was too large of a scope for you to process, I’ll put it in other words. If you were a criminal with a goal of shooting innocent people would you be more willing to go to an undefended group of people and do this or a defended group? Would you rather go into an area with no weapons and no possible way for your victims to defend themselves, or an area with law abiding citizens that are armed and ready to defend themselves and others around them?

For those of you reading who would still disagree and stand by your beliefs such as “guns kill people”, let me ask you this. Do you really think the only way a criminal with intentions to kill a mass of people at once is through a firearm? That criminal could get in a vehicle and run into a group of people and harm them just as easily if not easier than by using a firearm. I still stand by the opposite of the previous mentioned statement, which is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

I hope that in reading this you will have seen and understood the perspective of those who would keep their 2nd amendment right. Not only that, but I also hope I have somehow proved how counterproductive it would be to disarm the law abiding and how it would be punishing the innocent.