The United States’ current gun policy is constantly bombarded by liberals and pro-gun control political figures who suggest that it is crucial for the United States to change should be made. This is unreasonable; guns are used all over the world to protect and defend those that are most important to us and it’s absurd that a few incidents can demand a change. People who support gun control say it’s needed, but why? There is no justification in doing so. Gun control simply does not work. A study from Harvard University shows that the crime rate has no correlation to the ownership of  firearms. This means there is no point or evidence which would suggest that the people of America should take the precaution to ban firearms; it is unconstitutional. Also, the number of times a firearm was used in defense is similar to the number of crimes involving guns. This leads me to conclude that people that have legitimately used a gun for defence are actually helping to reduce crime, since if people were defenseless, crime would become more prevalent. Besides, it is our right to bear arms; it’s part of the Bill of Rights created by our country's founding fathers. Gun control would just take away guns from law abiding citizens instead of the criminals. There are better alternatives than gun control for example attacking illegal gun trafficking groups, target drug cartels, or possibly eliminate the loopholes used by implementing a law that a full background check has to be done whenever dealing with firearms.

Moreover, research shows that gun control does not work. For instance, a pro-constitution websites argues that you can't prove gun control works, he states, “Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this” (Small Government Times). If there is no evidence to support that gun control works, then what is the point? It would just waste valuable tax dollars. Also, the number of guns available to people does not matter; there is no connection between the number of guns and the crimes committed. Gun control would be worth it if it worked and was able to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. Some gun control advocates may say that it works based off the gun control of Australia in 1996, where the homicide rate went down; however in the United States, the homicide rate also went down leaving the results unclear. Realistically, even if gun control works, eliminating the supply would be nearly impossible due to the overwhelming amount of guns that Americans possess. If congress were to pass a law that banned firearms, that would be violating the constitution,which  leads me to conclude that it’s simply not possible.

To begin, the number of defensive uses is similar to the number of crimes involving guns. Gun control takes away guns from law abiding citizens, while failing to take away guns from the bad people with the wrong intent. There are many people who say nothing good comes from guns and all they do is create problems. However Peter Tucci thinks differently. In the Daily Caller he states, “there are perhaps 600,000-1 million defensive uses of guns each year, about the same as the number of crimes committed with guns” (Daily Caller). This information clearly counters the skepticism that guns only result in a negative way. The factual evidence that shows the number of positive uses of a firearm is about the same as the number of crimes committed by guns; therefore the amount of guns actually helps reduce the number of crimes committed. It is safe to assume that having a gun is a good thing, as many people have used it successfully for defence. Furthermore, criminals rarely obey laws. Studies show that most criminals acquire guns through friends or through theft, which means they’re able to bypass background checks and other well-meaning restrictions. For example, Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook shooting stole the guns that were used. It was irresponsible of the owner for not properly locking the gun up. Fortunately, not all gun owners are irresponsible and this situation could have been easily avoidable with proper care of a firearm.

There are many people who do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment.The Second Amendment declares the right to keep and bear arms to maintain a free state. Continuing, the Senator of Texas made the remark, “I am a firm believer that the 2nd Amendment has everything to do with my God given and Constitutionally enumerated right to defend myself and my family against criminals and/or an oppressive government” (TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW). Clearly, it is a law allowing people to defend themselves against all threats. To take that away would be infringement upon the rights of the people.
It’s unconstitutional to take the right to bear arms away. The Second Amendment serves a useful purpose; it allows people to be able to protect themselves against anything, including the government if need be, as in history governments have become tyrannical and people were not able to defend themselves. Also, some of the many benefits include deterring criminals. Burglars are less likely to target people and locations that are armed or
protected. There are  also thousands of cases where people are attacked, but were armed and avoided the situation by fighting back against the attacker as the rate of defensive uses of guns match the number of crimes involving a firearm.

In conclusion, we as a nation should not take the desperate effort to rely on gun control; a measure to reduce gun related crimes that has no evidence proving that it will work. There are actually many reasons why gun control is a negative thing and will not work. More importantly, there are, in fact, better alternatives than gun control. Instead of eliminating guns in general, which isn't possible, it would be better to target the people who should not have guns. One of the actions that can be taken is try to stop gangs and organizations involved with gun trafficking, stop the illegal smuggling of firearms. Another precaution that could be taken is to pass a law that requires places like gun shows to perform background-checks before they sell guns. This combined with the current laws preventing people with mental issues and criminal records from owning firearms, should help remove guns from the hands of the wrong people. Furthermore, I also believe that the removal of guns may be unfair to some people because they may need a gun depending on their lifestyle; therefore the liberty for a state to make its own gun laws is also needed. The reality is that guns have become a problem, however gun control is not an effective way to fix that problem.