In addressing new laws of gun control, one has to look at both sides of the
argument. How will new guns laws affect violence in schools and on the streets?
How do loyal, law-abiding gun owners feel about these new laws. These news laws
are set as all sales of firearms must be registered, all purchasers must be
licensed, and no individual may purchase more than one gun per month. There will
always be arguments on both sides on such controversial laws like these. Pros
and Cons can be thrown about every which way from decreasing school violence, to
breaking the law of the second amendment. It can be easy to take sides, but one
must look to both sides' arguments before reasoning. The gun control issue has
really blown up since the Columbine High School Shooting incident. This incident
has sparked a nationwide debate fueled by Sarah Brady and Bill Clinton to
enforce newer gun control laws, and keep these weapons out of the hands of the
wrong people (such as juveniles). One way to help keep guns out of the wrong
hands is just simply not to make them available to young people. A new CAP law
has been set in 16 states already, where the accidental shooting death rate has
dropped by 23%. This CAP law in states all handguns to have trigger locks, and
for penalties to be set for adults selling guns to juveniles. US shooting deaths
are higher now than all of the other 25 industrialized countries combines, the
Clinton administration is trying to crack down on this unfortunate face by
enacting this CAP law along with others. Another law of limiting one purchase of
a gun per month by the California Assembly by Wally Knox in Los Angeles. The
Senate is still expected to approve on upon this law. The purpose of this is to
halt the people who buy large amounts of guns, and then go and sell them on the
black market. These black market sales flood the streets of everywhere from
Maine to Washington, these black market sales also contribute to getting guns
into the wrong hands. Three other states have already enacted this law including
Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina. A study shown has proved that Virginia's
transferring of firearms was more than cut in half. The Brady Bill is another
strong argument for the Pro - side. This law requires a five - day waiting
period for cooling off for purchasing a gun. This law has already expired
though, but President Clinton is reimbursing the law by issuing a minimum three
day wait period before purchasing a handgun. This law is a prevention for adults
who were convicted of serious crimes from ever possessing guns again. It does
this by giving the police force two extra days to check records and backgrounds
of criminals. The NICS does not have all records available, but this two day
extension gives police more time to do checkups. Without such a waiting period,
police would have no time to do background checks giving criminals much easier
access to guns and easier ways to kill. Gun buyers contemplating heinous crimes
or suicide would no longer have time to "cool off" and think over
about protecting themselves and future victims if not for this law. In light of
the Columbine incident, gun control was already in full swing, nothing could
have probably been done from letting those kids from acquiring guns. If Clinton
and Brady just want to continue and enforce this gun control, what will stop
guns from still getting into the wrong hands though. Guns have really gotten a
bad profile from the criminals using them unlawfully, unlike the true law -
abiding gun carriers and owners in the US. Is does not seem fair to limit the
sales of guns when the second amendment allows the right to bear arms. Gun
control may actually be backfiring, and taking more lives in public schools than
they are saving. Juveniles bearing arms in school would be scared to death if
teachers and principals could conceal guns in a briefcase or purse. These new
ban laws founded are only worsening the problem by having juveniles easily
conceal weapons. An assistant principal in Mississippi in 1997 saved the lives
of numerous students by opening fire on a rampant gunman who had already killed
two students. This man was a hero and was forced to go out of bounds on the law
just to save the lives of his students. What if a situation like this had taken
place in Columbine? The two students would most likely have been dealt with by a
teacher with a gun before going on their rampage, and it's likely not that many
people would have been killed or hospitalized in Columbine had a teacher carried
a gun for necessary means like these. These new issued laws bring about much
controversy. The only people who will follow these laws are the ones that bring
about no threat any ways. A solution to this problem is not to abuse the rights
and privileges of the seven million lawful gun owners, but to punish the
criminals. If guns were ever to be outlawed, only outlaws would carry them.
Criminals are the main problem, and have to be dealt with accordingly. US
criminals are only serving half of their sentences, and being freed due to not
enough space. More than half of these criminals freed will go out and commit
more violent crimes. Perhaps the only solution for not enough space is more
lethal injections. Law following Americans must have the right to bear arms for
defense and protection, as stated by the Second Amendment. This is a right, and
cannot be taken away, an NRA spokesman even states the Second Amendment is all
about defense. Limiting the sales of firearms and trying to ban them is not even
a half decent solution to decrease murder rates. The non - gun murder rate is
higher than the entire murder rate of gun - controlled countries of Japan and
Canada. Guns are not even as a big of a murder weapon as society thinks. Knives,
fists, bats, and etc. are the top killers for most homicides. Guns are falsely
criticized by people who do not even look to the facts and stats, if guns were
to be entirely banned, people would still be killed in one way or another. Will
the government make control laws on everything else that has potential to harm
or kill some one? Murders will always occur in America no matter what the
scenario. Murder has taken place since before people could actually conceive
what was actually even occurring, it is an unfortunate way of human nature, and
banishing guns is not a way to stop it. In reaction to arguments of both sides,
it becomes a little harder to decide which arguments is right. In my opinion, I
take the side of the US not having gun control laws. The Second Amendment on the
Constitution proclaims, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed." This amendment has existed since 1791 with gun control
hanging around just as long. The NRA is an advocate of the Second Amendment, and
will willfully oppose anyone who wants to create regulations on guns. Presidents
such as Bush and Reagan were NRA members, so this proves good people can own
guns too. I feel people feel a need to own handguns for a reason of heritage.
For as long as this guns have been around, people have felt a need to defend
themselves and hunt for food. Buying, owning and having a gun does not hurt
anyone in any way. It is until a person commits a crime, this criminal is free
to choose what they want to do with a gun. Even if guns were banned, criminals
would still manage to acquire guns off the black market. Criminals would have
their own way, and there is nothing anyone could do about it. Gun control
appears to be an unconstitutional regulation and limiting of guns to keep crime
rates down in America. Some gun control laws are reasonable, but not the extent
as they were intended. The Brady Law is a bit unlogical, it only makes the
lawmaking bodies and those who are to naive to see the truth fell better. The
Brady Law does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they can get their
guns illegally in many ways and never even get seized. So how can the Brady law
stop criminal activities? Gun control has been around for many years, and none
of these laws have helped decrease crime rates drastically.

Bibliography1. "Consensus Remains Elusive in Nation's Gun-Violence Debate", by
William Carleen 2. "Would New Laws Reduce Gun Violence And Crime?", by
Sean McCollum 3. "The Challenge to Congress: Break the Deadlock; Protect
Children From Guns" (Handgun Control, Inc.) 4. "GOA Defending Freedom
in the Wake of an American Tragedy' (Gun Owners of America) 5. TAKING SIDES,
ISSUE 15, pp. 308 - 331, (articles by Mark Uduluth and James Wright)