Maintaining Citizen's Security without the Use of Guns and Mass Shooting

After you look at these two articles, Can you give me two replies(debate)?
article 1
my topic and position Citizens can maintain their security without the use of guns.
Due to the liberal nature of the U.S. Constitution, the second amendment of the constitution maintained that it would allow the existence of a militia group that was well regulated so as to avoid the tyranny of the federal government (Gardner 18). Under the amendment, therefore, there are close to five hundred and twelve militia groups working under the principle. Most of these groups, in their quest to maintain the peace and order of the society, haven’t had to use guns in the pursuit for their objectives (King Jr 835). In fact, their success is as a result of not using the firearms because then, they assure that no civilians are caught in between the crossfire of flying bullets. For instance, in the year 2006, Minutemen (a militia group former to maintain the integrity of the United States borderline) was successful in the prevention of entry of one hundred undocumented immigrants into the country on a daily basis (Wintemute 10). The Minutemen militia achieved this milestone despite the fact that it didn’t use guns in conducting its missions (since it didn’t have a gun permit for its members). Conclusively this shows that guns need not be placed in the hands of common civilians for them to maintain the law ((Wintemute 12).
A common citizen can’t prevent a mass shooting (even if they wanted to)
Since mass shootings have become a common occurrence in the United States today, most people argue that these shootings can be stopped by a single bystander who may have a legal firearm on them. Under such pre-texts, the populace argues that it is better if people are accorded even freer gun laws (Weinberger et al. 514). However, researchers have shown that the likelihood for the gun-carrying bystander to prevent the act is massively overshadowed by the fact that he/she (the bystander) is most likely to shoot innocent civilians in the process. Additionally, if there is another gun person in the vicinity such a police officer, he/she will shoot the bystander (who is in the process of stopping a crime) under the presumption that the bystander is under the intent of committing a crime. The mass shooting of Tucson, Arizona on the 8th of June 2011 proved this theory true (McGinty et al. 407). In the event that a citizen managed to disarm or overpower a mass shooter, the civilian used physical combat to defeat the criminal and not their firearm.
Counter-argument.
However, excessive gun laws would have serious detrimental repercussions on the American economy. The abolishment of ownership of guns by civilians would lead to a disaster in the American economy (McGinty et al. 407). There are many businesses that are established for the sole purpose of the sale, resale and purchase of firearms as well as other weapons. The institutions of such a law would, therefore, lead to the shutdown of the businesses and the owners of the business would face financial constraints due to the loss of their source of income.
article2
In my response to with regards to Educating Children Eating Healthy Food, children should not be restricted from eating whatever they desire. They should be free to choose the food they enjoy from healthy foods to sweets. Every child has their own sense of taste and a unique diet.
Every child in this world has a right and freedom to choose what kind of food and drink he or she can eat consume or take. Childhood comes only once, and it is not forever. Preventing children to eat what they really enjoy, it is like torturing a hummingbird.
Eating sweets like ice cream, candy, or chocolate is one of the highlights of the childhood, it gives color, spirit, happiness in every child's life.
Childhood is a precious time for every human being's life. We should not steal the happiness of our children.