Without heavy restrictions on firearms, people might have more trust in the government. The Second Amendment was given to the U.S. to show that gun ownership was “necessary to protect our liberties” (Clear Picture). Stricter regulations on firearms wouldn’t be needed because being allowed to own a firearm gives citizens the right to protect themselves under any circumstance. Placing restrictions on guns just might cause even more crime. If guns were banned or restricted, criminals would still find a way to arm themselves (Restricting Guns is Not the Answer). For a criminal to obtain a weapon with gun restrictions would require theft among citizens. Also, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” The government should concentrate on the morals of their citizens and the position the media plays in acclaiming violence and the absence of respect for the law (Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations). Putting restrictions on gun purchase and use would cause more trouble than it’s …show more content…
Knowing that the citizens of the United States have access to military weaponry can cause stress on a nation. Leaving an unsatisfactory feeling on citizens, there is destined to be a bit of fear within the country. Without heavy restrictions on gun control, the number of homicides and suicides caused by firearms will steadily increase. With weak gun restrictions, Americans are more vulnerable to being a victim in a mass shooting (Clear Picture). Though increasing gun control won’t stop criminals, they can save lives (Milligan). For example, the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 might have been avoided if the government performed a higher background check on the shooter. Putting more of a restraint on gun ownership would be for the greater