There are so many debates on the issues of gun control in relation to the laws and legislation especially in the US. There are several federal laws that have been passed to regulate the possession of firearms. The main reasons why the government of the United States regulated the possession of firearms is because the idea of the citizens possessing firearms is considered a criminal offense, a juvenile case and poses high risks to the individuals of the state. These laws as having proposed by the government of the United States will reduce the possession and availability of the firearms (Welter 294). While other laws wish to be harsh in their implementation, others maintain that the laws should be implemented in a polite manner.
This poses the question whether gun possession should be restricted. There are so many oppositions to the federal controls over the use of firearms. These gun control opponents argue that the government in as far as it is claiming to be keeping firearms out of the hands of high risk persons, there has been an ineffective use of the arms by the members of the public. These have contravened the laws of the country and bridge the sections of the constitution that have been stipulated. The positive thinkers about the issue however belief that a widespread ownership of the guns by the individuals of a state will mean that their security will be safeguarded.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
On the other hand, the concerns of security bring about the issue every member having a right to be safe. The continued developments of rules, which oppose the use of firearms, have raised serious issues in the society such as; Does the constitutional right to possess handguns exist?
There are so many debates that have been raised on whether the citizens of the state should possess firearms (Koppel 160). These have been culminated more by the increased knowledge of individuals to understand their constitutional rights. The second amendment of the constitution of America has this issue stipulated in it and it states that the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well regulated militia is very essential for the security of the Free State. Although this portion of the constitution has been in place in the US constitution for a long time, the courts have been ruling out the cases in which an individual has been found in possession of firearms in the name of having a narrow scope (Cottrol 39).
Although many would say that the possession of firearms will create a situation of fewer crimes in the state, it is evident that it worsens the security of the states. The allowed use of the firearms by the citizens will create loopholes that the individuals will use to do various acts, which contravene the law. The increase in crimes therefore may be a factor that will remain for along time in the states if they adopt the use of the firearms by the individuals.
On the flip side, restriction of ownership of guns poses a lot of fear in the individuals who feel that they are the targets of the criminals. In case of attacks, such people would be forced to surrender and may be harmed or even killed. From this point of view, I would vote for a policy that will allow free ownership of guns. This is because life is much important and when people are able to defend themselves from criminals, there will be few cases of murder