There has always been and always will be a problem with crime and crime prevention. Some say that deterrence is the best solution; others say rehabilitation, and still others think that we should go with harsher punishment. One of the topics that always come up when talking about crime prevention is gun control. Gun control is a topic that is neither clear nor easily defined. It can refer to harsher rules on buying or receiving a gun, it can refer to controlling who owns a gun, and it can refer to restrictions on where a gun can be carried. A more general definition would be "controlled restriction" on guns and ammunition.
Everyone, or at least almost everyone, has an opinion on how we should handle gun control. People who are against gun control believe that we should, we meaning the majority of the American public, be able to own firearms for protection, leisure, and sporting purposes. These people believe that denying ownership of a firearm infringes our Second Amendment right. They think that denying a person to own a firearm is denying part of our freedom as an American. If gun ownership is denied for purposes of declining the crime rate, what are the hard working, loyal, American citizens supposed to do when they want to go hunting, target shooting, or when they want to protect themselves from the ones who the rule is being made for in the first place? It's almost as though the deviance of few denies the privileges of many: "Additional gun control will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, since they do not obey laws, and will merely make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns" (www.nationalissues.com). Criminals do not abide by the law. Gun control infers that a law will be made controlling guns in some way. With this being said, how can someone expect a law controlling guns help control crime? Another thing is that making a Federal law controlling firearms would be very hard to make considering the variety of state, city, and county regulations.