Just a few weeks ago a man with the name Adam Lanza decided to take the guns of his mother and take the life of 20 children and 8 adults, including his mother's and his own. This atrocity hasn't been the first one. In the weeks since the massacre, gun control supporters have called for a new federal ban on assault weapons and for reductions in the number of concealed-carry permits issued to private citizens. However, to blame assault weapons for this tragedy makes sense like blaming airplanes for the 9-11 attacks. The problem lies with the perpetrator, not the tool used to commit the crime. It is an illusion that further gun control will protect the public since no law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Guns should never be banned in the United States, because the possession of guns ultimately helps improve public safety.

Embodied in the Second Amendment to the Constitution is the truth that self-governing individuals should bear the responsibility for defending themselves. The 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. Cramer and Joseph examined the history of pistols in early America that tells us the Framers' original intent in protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms with no apparent limitations concerning handguns.

Many pro gun control supporters adhere to the belief that the availability of guns make violent crime happen and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general can be reduced by limiting access to firearms. This is a testable empirical proposition. Research shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence. For example, in Washington, D.C. and New York City, severe gun control laws had been applied, yet Washington D.C. is the "murder