When I started this paper I was in favor of abolishing all gun control laws in the belief that gun control was a way to get rid of guns and try to keep law abiding citizens from enjoying guns. After doing research and viewing the opposing side, I have come to a conclusion that gun control is necessary and does not try to withhold the freedoms from good citizens. Currently there is a law, the Brady Act, which requires a background check for the sale of any firearm from a licensed firearm dealer. ("Brady Act Background Checks: A"). The Brady Act does not apply to guns shows and leaves a loophole open for criminals to purchase guns, but background checks take time, something gun shows don't have. I am in favor of background checks at gun shows, providing the time it takes to do the check will not interfere with the time of the gun show.
The Brady Act came about in 1993 and was created to try and lower the crime activity involving handguns by keeping them out of the hands of people who would use them in wrong ways and to establish an instantaneous electronic method of searching criminal history. Persons who would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm as a result of the background check include: convicted felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent, illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa, individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, persons who have renounced their American citizenship, persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders, or persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. The Brady Act has done a great job in the licensed sales of firearms. Since its creation it is estimated that, from March 1994 to November 1998 alone, approximately 312,000 handgun applications have been rejected, this is not counting rifles, as a result of conventional background checks (U.
