A vivid example was the Travon- Zimmerman case, whereby Zimmerman who had a history of violence was allowed to carry a gun around for self-defense rather than retreat. According to an article in International Business Times, Juliet Leftwich states, "America should learn from Travon Martin's death that more guns in public do not make us safer, and use this tragedy as an opportunity to closely evaluate our nation's gun laws," (qtd Levy Pema).More guns in the nation will rather increase the availability of guns in the nation hence increase gun related violence. In addition, according to Handgun Control, Inc. studies have found that guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy. Frank Hagler reported, "Even though American citizens have the legal right to own a weapon, that weapon should be in the hands of a trained, qualified person." He added that there should be a requirement to be "certified for ownership and usage" in order to ensure that guns are in the hands, and are used properly.
COUNTERCLAIM.
On the other hand, critics argue that people need weapons to protect themselves when a criminal attacks. These people think that the more helpless or harmless a person is, the more easily the enemy can attack. An article states that, "A national survey finds that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection, and having a gun makes them feel safer" ("Perspective of gun owners"). For those who think that proper certification and special training for gun ownership and usage will reduce gun violence, how then will these people explain the fact that the mass shooting tragedy which happened at the Navy Yard was caused by a well-trained Navy guard? Hence there is no link between being trained on the usage of guns and reduced violence.
