John Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that Americans should never fear the federal government because of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” The guaranteed rights of security withheld by the Second Amendment of our original Bill of Rights and immediate constitution, is the best strength of freedom and independence. Gun control was the bridge linking 56 million deaths in the 20th century to citizens, dissidents, and minorities being without firearms that could have changed the gloomiest history of the world’s most impressive timeline. And in eight mass-murder crises of the 20th century, it was never about the gun, but about the control.

Switching gears from control to the rates of crime of gun control, evidence has proven that famous gun control laws such as the Draconian gun ban and the Brady law have either failed or had so little gain statistically, that the only component of these gun-control restrictions that are functioning is the control segment. It has been confirmed from misdemeanor and felony records, polls, and interviews, that robbers and other potential wrong-doers, avoid armed citizens and armed complexes. And if this is difficult to comprehend, then consider, how many firearm stores have been robbed? How many police officers have been robbed? Slim to none. Nonetheless, it is still arduous for the entente of the world’s gun-control advocates to comprehend that if everyone controlled a firearm, then the chances of probable criminals avoiding property and violent crimes towards ordinary law-abiding civilians, will sensationally magnify.

Across the world in mostly Asian and European countries, leaders have been influenced by gun restriction promoters to add new firearm access laws due to the theories and beliefs that homicide, suicide, and other crimes that have employed firearms as the method of physical output, will decrease. The results were far from the forecast expected when reality established higher criminal actions over short and long time periods. In England, the violent crime rate soared from 1997-2004 by 118% after the Draconian gun ban, and in 2004, England and Wales had a violent crime rate that was twice as high as the USA whose gun restrictions pale in comparison. Also, Australia has been in the process of passing a multiple series of firearm-restrictions that has led to a gradual increase of violent crimes against the elderly by 6.9% since 1995. Canada has been facing inadequacies too, because after passing new bans on firearm purchases, the Canadian government later admitted that it couldn’t identify a single violent crime that was solved through gun registration. And regarding suicide resulting from gun control, Japan’s suicide rates swamp Americas even though Japan’s gun control laws are much more rigid.

A smarter way to ameliorate the defense against firearm criminality is to begin practices that will deter would-be offenders from committing assault, burglary, etc, with a gun as the employment of force. Instead of adding new confinements to the legal purchasing of guns, increase the penalties and jail time to the convicts that use a firearm in the event of crime. This will be much fairer to probable gun owners and individual nationals because law-abiding citizens who wish to purchase a firearm, will not have to suffer the poor judgment of criminals, and the increase will drop a lawbreaker’s incentive to commit crime which will progress the safety of individuals.

The most typical misconception of gun-control is that lax qualifications have led to serial murders, serial rapes, serial robberies, school shootings, and much more. Consider this, since America’s birth, there hadn’t ever been a problem with school shootings until 1966; even though until the date continuing to today, America had more households with guns per household. This is apparent since the leaders of our country encouraged every man/household to own a gun so he will always be ready to be called to the militia if needed. But the explanation of the lawlessness, post-1960s mentioned above, is not only due to an expansion of firearm regulations, but an erosion of culture and family values. Especially now, when property crimes are 2.5 times higher and violent crimes, 4 times higher than 60 years ago. It has proven impractical to continue regulating the purchases of firearms, when the results of higher crime are due to the disintegration of the morals and ethics that this country was founded upon 215 plus years ago. Besides an increase in gun control limits, what other explanation can account for the massive increases in crime? It’s like Peggy Noonan said in her book, The Case Against Hillary Clinton, a ten-year-old child is like a fish who, in the water, has waves of sound and sight that come invisibly through the water (like radar). The fish is bombarded with stuff like: “was found strangled and is believed to have been sexually molested”, “had threatened to kill her children”, and “is thought to be connected to earlier sexual activity among teens”. To retreat back to a more pristine state is impossible and just as difficult to prevent the appending decline in morality. But to continue punishing gun owners is incongruous and irrational, simply because this is the ocean our children swim.

The last complication, which leads to the most dangerous predicament, is the hazard of the continuing slope effect that leads from one gun control constraint to another. An example, what happens if the country or the state establishes a five-day waiting period; why not make it 10 days, 20 days, a year? It is much more probable to accomplish this feat as compared to lowering the time waited or removing a different restriction. Principle reason, all it takes is a nationally famous tragedy to occur and the buzz and propaganda will burst, advocating for more appropriate gun-obtainable qualifications. And when this tragedy happens, the gun advocate side never gets its objection heard because the masses are filled with an emotion that cannot conceive the insecurity of increasing gun control laws. This in turn, may lead to a new gun control restriction since “gun availability” is the root of national tragedies. And then another national misfortune eventuates, and the call for newer firearm control qualifications happens again, locally and nationally. The consideration that the new limitations or the corrosion of morality may have been the underlying factor of the newest tragedy, ceases to present itself as the core issue of the affliction. This, and other deliberations, results in the never-ending production of gun control restrictions until law-abiding citizens never again, have the option of maintaining a firearm.

America’s Bill of Rights was created by intelligent men who experienced the tyranny of oppression and the expulsion of civil liberties. They were all well equipped to write a constitution that protects the essential rights guaranteed to a free people’s country. The second amendment was created just in case the other nine were ever to be ignored, therefore, they would never advocate for laws that restrict access to the intangible rights of our firearms. Crime rates were not the ambition behind the second amendment because our founding fathers knew the greater risk lied in governmental oppression. This needs reiteration; the fundamental principle of gun rights is not and never will be crime, but keeping the government from ever becoming inhumanely authoritarian.

What happens when the firearm restriction slope ends and you have met total and outright gun control? Currently, this point seems impossible and likely to never occur; but what about American citizens 30 years ago? They would never have been able to comprehend the fact that we have waiting periods and are unable to purchase a variety of firearms with more restrictions on the verge. What about the patriots who spilt blood at Concord and Yorktown? They would’ve never been able to imagine that one-day dishonor would be dealt to their deaths when Americans become complacent and, one-day, lose the appreciation that they are free because the government should never have the power to restrict a citizen’s ability to defend themselves from oppression. Representatives from 13 colonies and 56 gnomic signatures understood that an autocratic or despotic government is only a few steps away, even in a Democratic-Republic. And currently, Americans need worry about this predicament because the government has taken away the best means of physical protection in certain forms. To bank on the dream that American bureaucrats do not have the power or will to continue removing firearms is a gross misunderstanding. Ask the Mensheviks. Ask the protestors at Tiananmen Square. Ask Anne Frank.

Gun control may begin with preparations to solve a domestic firearm problem, but the end result has always concluded much worse than the initial intention. And this terminus fathoms only one belief that 56 million dead victims were unable to cope; that gun control will never be about the gun, but about the control.