Arguments Against Gun Laws

With the recent increase in gun-related tragedies, politicians have adjusted their stumping to address America's gun laws. Taking a strong position on the gun laws is understandable, as a majority of the American people find themselves on one side of a political dichotomy; the two sides of which seek either to preserve the current gun laws, or to restrict the American people's right to bear arms. The answer to the current hysteria surrounding gun laws lies not on the side of restriction, but on the side of preservation.

The common argument used in favor of gun law preservation is one of constitutionality. It refers to the fact that the second amendment of the U.S constitution states that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Constitution). This is significant, as the negative and positive rights detailed by the constitution are guaranteed to everyone with U.S citizenship, and are therefore not to be infringed on in any case.

Beside the constitutional argument, there is also an argument to

The recent attack by an Islamist on Orlando's LGBTQ community occurred in a nightclub. Before that were the attacks on Umpqua Community College, the black church in Charleston, Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine High School, and many more of the like. What is the common trait of all of these shootings? It's that they all occurred in gun-free zones. The fact is that a person seeking to do harm to large groups of people would not target a place where he or she knows that the people will be armed. Rather, he or she would target a place such as an elementary school or a bar, where it is certain that there will be no resistance of equal proportion to his or her weapon. This is not to suggest that kindergarteners and drunk people should arm themselves with machine guns. Rather, it is to suggest that taking away guns and creating gun-free zones is not a viable solution to the