This important point is wrong because gun laws do not mean discrimination. There are some people who do not meet the requirements to purchase a gun, which does not mean that they belong to a different category from the rest of American citizens. Not being allowed to purchase a gun due to certain criteria probably has a reasonable explanation. Firearms aren't just used for random violent acts, some people enjoy hunting for sport. A Pew survey found that “57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized” (Growing Public Support for Gun Rights). This shows that people use guns as a sense of protection. Taking away all the weapons will not solve the problem. In one part of the article he makes a good point about how we will never know whether a person will commit a violent act or not, but with this point he does not use any evidence to support his statement. By not using any evidence, he makes it seem unimportant when it should be one of his main points to argue about. It would help her if she gave some kind of support instead of her sarcastic tone. In my opinion, banning guns will only make things worse. It might decrease gun deaths, but if guns were illegal there would be even more people breaking the law to own them. There's no way some people would give up their firearms, it would spark a major riot trying to tell American citizens that they have to get rid of a gun they already purchased. In the 20th century, gun ownership doubled and the murder rate decreased (Sowell). Bovy could have supported his claim by saying that states with the most gun laws have fewer gun deaths and then provided some evidence and statistics, but he didn't. Then I am able to refute and present my evidence. Strict gun laws do not affect murder rates as significantly as some might think. A 2013 study found that “between 1980 and 2009, states with restrictions on carrying concealed weapons had