“The right to bear arms”, an amendment so prioritized by our founding fathers that it earned the very second spot on the list of birth rights as Americans. However, with constant tragedies striking the United States, such as massacres in public high schools and universities, mall shootings, and attempted assassinations on state representatives, it’s no wonder law makers are constantly debating the topic of gun control. The history of firearms has changed dramatically since the late 1700’s. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle loading musket. Should modernized, high caliber, automatic rifles and handguns be protected by an amendment written nearly 250 years ago? Should the second amendment be abolished altogether? Or regulated, perhaps? If so, to what extent? All these questions are what trigger extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. In the article, “Gun Control Isn’t Crime Control”, the author John Stossel argues exactly the opposite. Stossel claims that the United States gun control system does not effectively diminish crime rates within the nation; instead, Stossel provides evidence proving the very opposite effect. Summed up, the article mentions how an armed society tends to be safer, with lower violence and crime rates. This is mainly due to criminals becoming fearful of committing crimes, as they know that a civilian is likely to be armed, creating both an obstacle and a threat. On the other hand, cities and states that lean towards and enforces ‘carefully controlled firearm laws’ often experience an increased or steadily maintained crime rate. Stossel provides support for his research by using logical to get one of his points across. Stossel writes, “When will we understand that people who intend to kill are...