LAW: Gun control

Name: Professors` name: Course name: Date: Gun control They have been many arguments on the topic of gun control. Some people support gun control with credible evidence while others oppose it with reliable evidence. However, there are two alternatives on which these arguments can be based. One is the extent to which guns should be abolished. This alternative involves those who are for total abolition of gun ownership and those who moderate abolition of gun control. The other alternative involves the restriction of guns that are owned by private citizens. Therefore gun restriction differs not just in strength but as well in content (LaFollete 263). Gun control may be instituted in different formats. For instance, restricting those who own the guns, restricting the way people obtain guns, restricting where as well as how people store guns and where they carry them. In 1989, America recorded the highest number of people killed using guns. Groups that advocate for gun control Coalition to Stop Gun Violence affirm that guns contribute by a great percentage. Ownership of guns is also considered from a moral point of view and a legal point of view. From a moral perspective, the question that arises is, do citizens have an obligatory right to own arms? On the other hand, the question that may arise from the legal point of view is, does the constitution allow citizens to possess guns? Morally it is not right for people to possess guns because they encourage violence. According to LaFollete (2000) many studies that have been conducted in America indicate that gun ownership should be abolished. Those who are for gun control say that the increase in crime in America has been contributed by the unrestricted gun ownership. On the other hand, those who are against gun control suggest that restricting gun ownership will help in reducing crime. They argue that those people who have intentions of committing a crime will still find a way of committing it even i...