The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control Laws

A term often used in modern debates about firearms is “law-abiding citizen”. While “law-abiding” means “abiding by or obedient to the law” according to Merriam-Webster, it also carries the connotation that said citizen poses no outward threat to the other inhabitants of this wonderful country. However, with guns on both sides of the issue, both saving lives and taking them, their proliferation throughout American society raises concerns about where to draw the line with regards to gun control legislation. With Time citing over 30,000 deaths due to gun violence a year, legislation must be effective in order to reduce such a startling number (Hale 1).

Since the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights, debates over what kind of rights it

Statisticians can scramble to tally up the dangers of guns against the safety they bring while sorting out the innumerable variables associated with that task. Despite this, the more interesting approach is to find a solution that fits American society, presumably how the Founding Fathers envisioned it to be. Did the Founding Fathers want America to be “The Land of the Free” or “The Land of the Safe”? The answer lies in three documents: The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. In the Declaration of Independence, the famous words “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” with the governed claiming the right to replace a government that obstructs these three human rights are an example that America was to be a place of freedom. The fact that the wording is “the pursuit of happiness” rather than simply “happiness” conveys the idea that the people were not meant to be coddled by the government, but rather given the equal opportunity to live life as they please. As America became its own country, the weak government created by the Articles of Confederation, which was virtually unable to even tax to pay off its war debt, symbolized the Founding Fathers’ fear of a strong government that would overstep its boundaries into personal liberty. Similarly, the refusal of anti-Federalists to ratify the

Even the aforementioned case of District of Columbia v Heller decided that private gun ownership did not give an unrestricted right to carry firearms. Additionally, with laws such as universal background checks that target issues such as domestic violence, law-abiding citizens can obtain firearms while people like the Orlando nightclub shooter would not. On the other hand, making sure to evaluate each piece of legislation to ensure its effectiveness is essential to preserving the rights of gun owners as well. As seen in the home invasion cases, gun ownership has the possibility to save lives when law enforcement can not reach the scene quick enough. Had that grandmother or father not had their firearm, their lives could have ended on those nights. In the end, allowing political loyalties and partisan bias to polarize this debate on gun control only exacerbates the problem. Instead, Americans must realize that this issue is dire, and work must be done to create effective legislation while making sure to weed out legislation that is more of a liability for law-abiding citizens than anything. Allowing fear and a lack of education about gun safety to control our actions creates a vulnerable society, but pushing for gun rights over obvious safety measures creates the Wild West. Americans must push for a balance between the two in order to truly save lives and come closer to a