The United States Constitution reserves the right for all citizens to bear arms.  However, the seeming increase of attacks made with the use of guns, and the prominence of gun violence in the media, the idea of gun control has been a topic of controversy for many years now.  I think that with the issue of gun control being so controversial, it is important to be educated on the stances that the politicians are taking and how each will affect the people.  I believe it is very important that the values the United States of America were built on remain present and in motion for as long as the United States remain a nation.  Does this mean that there cannot be adjustments made to cater to the changing economic, social, and political factors? No, but the adjustments must not alter or hinder the expression of whatever is laid out in the Constitution.  With the lasting spotlight on the issue of gun control, it seems that there should be provisions set to make sure people know how to use them. This is similar to getting a driver's license, assuring there is some regulation in knowing how to use the firearm.  By performing extensive research and finding a large number of sources, I will be able to construct a valid argument regarding the ways that we can make having guns be safer.

In Kennesaw, Georgia, a law has been passed to where it is necessary that each head of household own a gun with ammunition.  In response to this law the crime rate in the city dropped significantly and has remained low ever since this law has been in action.  The article "Gun Ownership  --  It's the Law in Kennesaw" would be in the interest of those who strictly oppose the use of guns, but also those who are in favor of the use and purchase of guns as they would be able to use this as an example that everyone in this town did not end up just walking around shooting everyone. However, to anti-gun activists and others who oppose the use of guns, this article could be argued as not credible.  The crime rate in Kennesaw did go down after the law was enacted in 1982, however, the crime was really not that high to begin with.  Also, it is not a very large town population wise which decreases the likelihood of crime.  This article would be used to exemplify how the increase of gun ownership can provide for a safer environment.  I still believe this source to be credible as it still is a valid example of guns providing safety.

In "Obama's Gun Control Order: Here are 8 Main Provisions," the provision s Obama has planned for his gun control act are laid out and explained.  First, his idea of a background check should not be that big of a deal to have to go through, that is if you don't have anything to hide.  If you are worried about your background check, then that's your fault for not having a clean one.  Also, yes, sometimes these checks can take a little while, but the plan is to hire a few hundred more FBI staffers to conduct these checks, but even with that, if they background check doesn't come back within three days you're allowed to go ahead with the sale.  Like I said earlier, it should be like getting your drivers license, just a normal task where you show you know how to safely use it and then show you're mentally stable to use it.  Of course gun salesmen would be annoyed if they have to wait for background checks to make sales, but with the provision they can sell it without a check if it doesn't come back within three days.  This source would be used as a good way to create a medium from both sides of the gun control topic in hopes of finding a solution.  This source is credible as it is coming straight from what the President is wanting to propose in his plan.

As far back at 1934 Gun Control provisions have been in the talks of politics and since then, provisions have been put in place.  The article "Gun Control in America: How We Got Here" shows what a long road that gun control has been on and how ling its been in the eye of politics.  This may intrigue people who think that Obama is coming out with this new idea about the control of guns and can be used to continue to show how this is an issue that needs to be fixed as it has been going on for so long.  This article is pretty credible as it is written by a respected news source.

This question is arguable because some people may flat out say that the possession of guns doesn't even need to be safer, but also you can argue different ways of going about and making it safer.  I agree that there definitely should be some "hoops" to get through before the purchase of a firearm. However, I don't believe it should be so tight that perfectly qualified people should feel uncomfortable going in to purchase a gun.  With the ranging perspective of the sources, it will help shape my own as I weigh the pros and cons of each.  I may need to make my research question a little narrower in scope.

