The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Recently, the controversy of guns and gun control has been a huge topic of discussion. In the past few months, there have been multiple shootings, including two popular mass shootings such as the one in Las Vegas and the one at the high school in Florida. Some are saying that all guns should be banned and no one should have guns, and that will result in less homicides and mass shootings. On the other hand, some say that there should not be gun control because of the second amendment, self defense and safety, and how it will not change the amount of violence in the country. …show more content…
The first evidence of this is from a FOX News interview with a high school student who suggests, ‘“I would also talk about the importance of arming security guards and other trained individuals in schools. . . . The SRO, was reportedly nowhere to be found during the time of the attack and it shows in the fact that Cruz managed to vacate the school unscathed,”’ (Parke 1). This explains how the student believes that there should be more guns in schools used for protection and that there is only one armed person on campus who was not present during the shooting. Therefore, guns are needed for self protection. From the same article, it added to the previous quote, ‘He added: "At the same time, [security guard and] Coach Aaron Feis had a face-to-face altercation with Cruz and was unable to do anything but use his body to shield others. . . . but there is no freedom from danger or threat when security guards are unarmed,”’ (Parke 1). Going along with the previous piece of evidence, this justifies that the ones who were unarmed could not save themselves. Again, this validates that banning semi-automatic rifles will not help the ones put face to face with someone who is armed when they are