The debate on whether or not citizens of the United States should legally possess a gun has been an issue present all throughout history. With the ongoing violence and crime involving guns, may people, including political figures, believe stricter laws on guns will lower the rate of gun related violence. But who should be the one to determine these laws? Who is to say these laws and bans would even work? Each state has their own individual law when it comes to owning a gun. Should each state continue to have their laws, or should the government set a national law regarding the ownership of guns? If these said laws were to take effect, would those committing these acts of gun crime obey, or continue to wreak havoc? Which raises another important question; instead of the laws on guns themselves being more firm, what about the sentencing to those who use the weapon in order to harm other citizens? Would a harsher sentencing for gun crimes lower their rate, or simply be another consequence these criminals just deal with?
Gun related violence is a rising issue in America. Putting a ban, or even limitations, on guns owned my citizens would do more harm than good. Many anti-gun groups, like the ones in Connecticut, have succeeded in passing a law that will reduce the amount of ammunition held inside a gun’s magazine. Since the passing of this law, the debate on whether it will bring positive or negative repercussions has been at a constant. The law came into play due to the December 2012 shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, killing 26 innocent people, 20 of them children. This incident has sparked the rise in anti-gun laws throughout the nation. But will lowering the number of rounds held inside a guns magazine be enough to lower the crime rate? “Which is most frightening: A deranged killer intent on mass murder walking into your child's