Why Should Gun Laws Be Strict

The debate about gun laws is a highly discussed and controversial topic. There are people that believe that gun laws should be more strict, and there are people who believe that there is no need for it to be more strict. Gun control is an issue that divides the country, and the two major parties. The Republican Party tends to be more pro-gun, than the Democratic Party. Recently, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act debate has been brought up in New Jersey, after the deadliest mass shooting in American history happened in Las Vegas. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman stated that it,"will make it easier for people -- including those with dangerous histories -- to carry hidden, loaded guns across the country," adding that this topic shouldn’t even be discussed

after the deadliest mass shooting. New Jersey is one of the 10 states that do not allow concealed carry permits issued outside its borders. In Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." However, concealed carry permits do not apply to this clause, which seems unjust to me. Yes, I believe that possessing a gun should be very difficult, but I also believe that if a person has a gun permit, they should be allowed to use it in other states and that it should be under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” because it explicitly states that each state needs to respect other state’s laws and judicial decisions. I think that almost every argument a pro-gun person uses is that they relate it to the second amendment, the right to bear arms, and state that it was the decisions of the Founding Fathers. However, they need to comprehend the fact that, when the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment, guns shot one bullet per minute. Whereas, nowadays they can fire 600 or more rounds per minute.