The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

Gun control is a topic that is heavily debated in our country and has been for a while. Since the ratification of the 2nd amendment in 1791, it has been interpreted very fluidly from many different groups and people. Ranging from the National Rifle Association who believes that our 2nd amendment right should not be restricted at all, to our current president Barack Obama who believes the process of obtaining a gun needs to be stricter. There is reasoning behind both sides, but when it comes down to it, our right to bear arms should not be infringed upon by gun control laws, it is guaranteed by our Constitution. The problem with gun control is that it most of the time crosses the fine line between necessary and unconstitutional. We should have

For instance, the law of microstamping currently intact in the state of California today. Microstamping is an identification mark on every cartridge of bullets purchased, which allows every shot fired to be monitored. The intention behind it was for it to be easier for law enforcement to investigate gun crimes, but as the California Police Chiefs Association have said, “'Publicly available, peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds'" (Michael F. Haverman). Microstamping only applies to California currently, but senators have tried to push bills similar to this, such as Senator Henry Reid in 2013 when he proposed his background check legislation. It would allowed the government to keep records of gun purchases indefinitely, which would be troublesome as it would restrict what you can do with the guns. Thankfully, the bill failed 54-46, but it is an example of how these gun control laws can be intrusive. In the meantime, another popular form of gun control suggested by legislators is having stricter background checks for the purchasers of firearms. President Obama has pushed for

Gun control laws are not without reason, legislators are just approaching it the wrong way. It seems that the government is trying to limit our accessibility to guns, which is not necessarily the way to stop crime involving them. With this mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a test, and found that "...there were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993, but by 2013, the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50 percent to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population" (Mark J. Perry). With that being said, "Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013" (Mark J. Perry). Taking away guns did not decrease the gun homicide rate, in fact the amount of weapons owned were increased. Right now, most gun laws pertain to legal ways to obtain a weapon, but as you can see, that is not what we should be addressing. We need to control the amount of firearms criminals obtain, most of the time done illegally. The Justice Department surveyed 18,000 convicts, and found that, "39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member, 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source, 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets" (J. Scott Olmstead). These restrictive laws are