Gun control legislation has remained a highly debatable topic for decades. It may be complicated to assess the impact of gun control laws adequately. In most cases, insufficient or unreliable evidence enshrines the controversial position of gun control legislation. There are many who believe that gun control legislation should be less strict or remain the same, as such laws do not deter crime while violating privacy and limiting self-defense options. There are also others who strongly disagree and provide a number of possible advantages of strict gun control legislation. Nevertheless, gun control laws in the United States should not be stricter as they do not prevent gun-related crimes and violate the Second Amendment.
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
First, even though gun control laws are designed to prevent crime and mitigate gun-related risks, there may be no evidence of such correlation. Gun control does not prevent people from buying a firearm if they are determined. History suggests that banning a particular product and making it illegal does not stop the trade. Moreover, inadequate legal frameworks increase the chance that a person with malicious intent will purchase a firearm. Gun control legislation does not solve the root cause of the problem as it only aims at treating the symptoms. It may not prevent violence, social injustice, and criminal activity. Second, stricter gun control laws may violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The main objective of the second amendment is to provide citizens with a self-defense tool (Yorke et al. p. 27). Therefore, it may be essential to address the issues that cause inappropriate use of firearms rather than introducing strict laws regarding gun purchase and possession.
Yorke, Jon, et al. Second Amendment and Gun Control: Freedom, Fear, and the American Constitution. Routledge, 2019.