Gun control
Debate on gun control has for many years elicited mixed reactions from those that support and those that oppose. Gun control is a legislative role and through various bills presented for debate, mixed reactions have emerged as to whether restricting the availability of firearms to the public would help create secure environment. This paper deliberates on the gun control, using the legislative action marred in the Brady Bill passed to help regulate ownership of guns.
The argument on gun control has focused on the constitutional interpretation on gun ownership. Other questions related to control include whether it constitutes crime control, whether it can reduce homicide, robbery, and assaults, stop public attacks on public figures and terrorists among many other atrocities perpetrated in the society (Trotter, 2013).
Even though gun control is a legislative duty, proponents of gun control legislation argue that federal laws can be effective in the U.S in ensuring that there is proper mechanism to control guns. The states have few restrictions hence act as outlets of guns, and therefore it requires strict laws to ensure that this does not happen (Trotter, 2013). They water down the second amendment to the constitution that states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. In support of this argument, they claim that professional police forces have been put in place to provide security and therefore, there is no need for citizens to own a gun if not for the primary purpose of hunting and other recognized sporting purposes.
President Bill signed the Brady handgun Violence prevention act also commonly known as Brady Bill or Brady Act in 1993. This bill agitated or required that any licensed fire arm dealers to carry out a background check on customers to ensure that acts of felon are prevented and to avoid instances where dangerous people gain access to the firearms (Barrett, 2013). This law aimed to ensure that only people of sound mind and eligible to handle a gun were permitted to own one. The reason behind the bill was to help curb cases where guns were used in wrongful ways such as committing suicide, crimes, robbery, assaults, homicides, terrorists among many other atrocities. Since the passage of Brady bill, crime acts have been reduced because a large number of people that do not qualify to own a gun have been prohibited. Regardless of this, the bill continues to receive opposition from a section of conservatists who oppose creation of a registry as it will lead to confiscation of many guns (Trotter, 2013). They also argue that the bill was aimed at denying the rights of Americans as enshrined in the constitution. To them, gun control was not a solution to the problems of crimes but rather it as a legislation that was going to cause inconveniences.
To control the guns, proponents of firearms advocate for changes in policy of different kinds of guns. Some of the firearms or their components are useful for different purposes while some are not. Therefore, it is important that those firearms that pose less risk to public be licensed to the members of the public. This will help reduce the consequences that come with ownership of the guns (Sowell, 2013). Furthermore, most of the proponents tend to believe that the laws have failed to accomplish their objectives. Keeping guns at bay from high-risk criminals is not easy even under federal laws. Hence, a regulatory body of firearms will cause more problems to law-abiding citizens as well cause scarcity of the guns posing a threat to civil rights of the people. Some compare low prevalence rates of crimes in other countries and believe that low rates of crimes are not associated with gun control, but it is because of differences in cultures.
However, opponents of gun control reject the assumption that guns’ sole purpose is for recreation and used in shooting games and hunting. They believe that guns play key role in enhancing security as a person is able to defend him/herself during an attack or when their property are stolen (Trotter, 2013). They further claim that the government has not put in place sufficient measures to guarantee them enough security and safety and therefore, owning a gun is essential to bridge this gap. In addition, cite that constitution gives them a right to own a gun to protect themselves from potential government tyranny to prevent instances such as dissent and in protecting themselves from illegal ascension by the government into power
This debate on gun control in the U.S is therefore an event not likely going to end in the near future. Something needs to be done to help the two opposing sides reach a consensus. The citizens must not use the rights enshrined in the constitution to violate other people’s rights. They must use the rights and the laws for their own good by ensuring that they live and keep peace by remaining responsible citizens. The Brady Act was a good step to ensuring that firearms were not licensed to unqualified individuals, and it helped to reduce various cases of crimes in the U.S.

References
Barrett, P. (2013). Why Gun Control Is Basically Dead. BusinessWeek.com. 16-16.
Sowell, T. (2013). Do gun control laws control guns? Enterprise/Salt Lake City, 42(24):15-15.
Trotter, G. (2013). Should Congress Pass Stronger Gun Laws? Congressional Digest, 92 (3): 25- 31.