2nd Amendment Rights

http://home.nra.org/ 

https://www.vpc.org/gunviolence.htm

I have chosen to use the NRA (National Rifle Association) website and Violence Policy Center website. The NRA is the largest pro-gun association in the US, with the VPC being one of the largest gun control organisations. The NRA is known to be very pro gun and has a very vocal opinion when it comes to gun ownership and aims to allow everyone to have an option to carry guns. Americans see it as a basic right to own guns and use them to not only hunt, but to protect their family. The following clip is a 6 minute video showing the response to gun control laws in Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo . This shows how angry some of the gun owners got when the laws were introduced and this would only be a fraction of what would occur in America if such laws were introduced. The NRA is an association that strives for Gun ownership and has a lot of power to get their way.
This is a brief history of the start of the NRA taken from their website, "Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis". The idea began as something aimed to improve the armed forces and has evolved into the organisation it is today. 
Many pro-gun organisations have called for the arming of more people, especially teachers, in the wake of Sandy Hook, Newtown, Columbine etc. These massacres, according to the NRA and others, could have been avoided or at least limited, if more people had guns. Another example is the Luby's shooting in Texas, where thoughts of survivors, one in particular had been, if they had had access to their gun they could have taken out the gunman and limited the number of casualties and maybe saved the lives of her parents. This extract is from the NRA website and gives a little bit about who they are today; "While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly four million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time." 
I don't agree with the NRA, I think that allowing everyone to have guns is a stupid idea that will lead to more shootings of less killings, as they shooter will be gunned down themselves. Their opinion, while it makes sense, does not consider the side if the parents of murdered kids, who have to then go out and see such blatant ownership of guns, such disregard for public safety that isn't seen as such by the NRA. They see it as a deterrent fro anyone who may consider opening fire. Most are gunned down anyway and expect it to happen so it won't stop them. By limiting guns the amount of accidents can be cut down and by having stricter gun laws then the dangerous people that own guns can have them taken away, leading to less shootings (maybe).

VPC is an organisation that tries to spread its message of gun control. Most of these organisations, including the VPC, has used the same examples as Pro-Gun organisations as to why guns should be restricted in use. In their opinion, if guns were controlled, then these horrendous crimes wouldn't occur as they wouldn't have access to such deadly weapons. A counter argument is what happened when certain drugs were outlawed. How, if people wanted to, they would still be able to obtain the outlawed item illegally and if they were legal, it could be controlled and such behaviour wouldn't happen. As much as their point makes sense, for me, while outlawing guns completely is a waste of time, age restrictions and background checks should be used, to filter out the criminals and the under aged from owning deadly weapons. 
The following is from the VPC website and concerns results from a 2012 study; https://www.vpc.org/press/1410gundeath.htm
This shows that gun control and strict laws can limit the amount of gun crime that goes on on the streets of America. This has some truth as incidents such as the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings may not have occurred, although, that can still be linked back to racism in America, but also linked to gun control. If the shooters, George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, had not been in possession of guns then they would not have been killed, although, Wilson was a police officer, and is justifiable for having a weapon. (Worth noting shooters were Hispanic and White respectively). 
This clip shows how easy it is to buy a gun in Texas (stupidly so). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc1FLSg2wIY
The VPC have particular interests in outlawing weapons such as the AR-15, the one used by Adam Lanza in the Newtown shooting.

In my opinion, guns shouldn't be outlawed completely because people will get hold of them if they really want to. But, background checks should be more thorough and age limits, such as 21, should be in place, as well as the ownership of guns among young children who have had guns brought for them. At least by keeping some guns legal, it can be controlled, but weapons such as assault rifles and machine guns should be kept off the street and in gun ranges, unable to be fired by anyone other than an adult. This would limit accidents among young children, such as the gun going off and killing them accidentally. but the culture is so strong in the US people will always find loopholes or ignore it altogether, as they consider a right as an American to have a weapon.