Firearms have been a part of American history since the day the Patriots rebelled against the British to begin the American Revolution. Since then, the history of guns and how people view them, has been an up and down rollercoaster. Robberies, mass shootings, and suicides are all used with guns, but all too often the media lays the blame on an inanimate object, instead of directing the blame towards human beings and their actions. In search to put an end to violence with guns, politicians, from both red and blue parties, suggested bills like the AWB (Assault Weapon Ban). The AWB bill was eventually passed in 1994, banning semi-automatic weapons like the TEC-PF9, MAC-11, and the Colt AR-15 from the public. After 10 years, The AWB expired in 2004. During those ten years, robberies and shootings continued, showing no signs of an effective solution. On, April 20th, 1999, two teenage kids that attended the city high school of Columbine, Colorado, massacred 13 high school students with a sawed off shotgun, highpoint carbine, and multiple other firearms, including the TEC-PF9, a weapon that was banned during the AWB. Politicians continued to pass more and more laws, but the violence did not slow down. Now, in the rise of new terror with firearms in the past year, communities are asking for stricter control over firearms. One might ask why we even need firearms like the AR-15 or AK-47, and although at first, banning these weapons from the general public sounds like a good idea, one must not act emotionally, before thinking logically. Creating new laws for firearms will have no affect on gun violence in America and will only unfairly punish the people who follow the laws that we have now. In this paper, I will use only facts to prove why stricter gun control is not the answer, why bills like the AWB do not have any effect on mass shootings, and also why having bans on firearms does not help decrease crime.
The AK-47, known as one of the deadliest weapons in America, would send a shiver down the spine of any soldier when shot at close range, so, why do civilians need them? If you were to ask anyone who owns one, the answer would be quite simple, "for protection." Nevertheless, one would argue that a shotgun would do just as fine for protection, or, even just a handgun. However, this same question could be applied to automobiles; all the safety features on cars nowadays sure are nice, right? Side-airbags, back-up cameras, and side warning cameras, but do we really need all these features? According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, the majority of injuries and deaths in car wrecks can be avoided by simply using your seatbelt and properly adjusting your seat from the steering wheel. So, do we really need all these fancy safety features on our car? Probably not, but me and the majority of Americans sure don't want to be without them. This is how the same people who own firearms, like the AK-47, feel. Do we need this powerful weapon? The majority of the time this answer would be no, but the point is we feel comfortable knowing we have it.
On December 12th, 2012, Adam Lanza, an autistic 20-year old, shot and killed 20 children and 6 adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. He used a Bushmaster XM15 Rifle (AR-15 variant). After the shooting, people all across America, and even people in foreign countries, called for new gun laws in the U.S. Emotionally -charged politicians proposed a new legislation similar to the AWB, banning certain semi-automatic rifles, as well as "high capacity" magazines, holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Parts of the bill were passed, but only in certain states. The decision to pass these laws was not logically thought about before they were passed, as simple research can prove that both these ideas are extremely flawed. There are roughly over 300 million firearms in America; assuming that at least half of those firearms are bought from