Some people validate the right to bare arms for protective reasons while others negate this idea. The opposition states that statements in the constitution remain unchanged, that our right to keep and bear arms to feel safe and protected shouldn’t be taken away. However, supporters of gun control claim that those who wrote the constitution wrote it according to their era and that we should evolve and amend the constitution to reflect to the current era. At the time the constitution was written it was commonplace for citizens to carry rifles in their home as a means of protection, and to be ready for the moment should the situation to protect their country arise. As of this moment, some say, it is unnecessary for citizens to own weapons which were originally for military protection. Background checks were not of importance back then, but are critical these days so a deadly weapon is not put into the hands of a person who would not use it responsibly or an individual who is not mentally capable. Furthermore, it is also possible that stricter measures on gun control could prevent future crimes from happening.Laws for stricter gun control and background checks should be implemented because it would keep unnecessary assault weapons off our streets and most importantly, keep the mentally ill from possessing such weapons. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics, 37.4% of prisoners who “used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence” obtained a gun from close by resources like family members and friends. This raises the debate of whether or not citizens should be allowed to keep weapons in their houses if it gives others easy access of doing wrong. Moreover, this makes it much easier for young family members to get a hold of it. Legally owned guns are usually stolen and used by criminals. Between 2005 to 2010, more than 1.3 million guns were stolen from people’s homes. Ian Ayres, a professor at Yale, says “with guns being a product that can be easily carried away and quickly sold at a relatively high fraction of the initial cost, the presence of more guns can actually serve as a stimulus to burglary and theft.” Conclusively, owning guns causes more harm to the public through easy access.Of the 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of those shooters illegally obtained guns. Looking at the statistics on the Chicago ban of weapons, there have been 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders in the year 2014. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. Looking at this information, the ban of riffles and weaponry won’t stop opponents from executing their plans or causing destruction. This proves the other end of the debate, where even if we have stricter gun laws, people will do wrong so it wouldn’t have any effect other than people not being able to defend themselves. Most people argue if a ban on guns won’t stop criminals from doing harm, why ban them when a fraction of citizens can use them to protect themselves. Federal law has done put stricter rules regarding gun ownership based on their records and background. For example, the federal law has prohibited certain people from owning firearms like; drug addicts, immigrants without legal status, veterans who left the military with dishonorable acts, anyone with a permanent restraining order. Federal law requires gun owners to have license, in some states, and those who they acquire weapons from must have a background check done by the FBI before doing so. Major loopholes in this system still remain. It contains incomplete listing of criminals and often show them as regular small-scale sellers who don’t require background checks. Among these, mentally ill citizens are prohibited from acquiring guns. Most mentally ill never receive such adjudication and petition courts to have it reversed. Many mass shootings have occurred by people who were recognized as being deeply disturbed, yet were able to own guns legally. In conclusion, there is no consensus over as the debate over gun control continues to be disputed. In general, big city police chiefs would most likely support gun control due to the constant need of security. Small city police chiefs are more likely to oppose it. It is critical for the public to be familiar with the statistics on how guns have affected the public. As we continue to see threatening images on the news that trace back to lenient gun rules, we must question the laws placed on in our society. We cannot stand idle by and allow more people to get hurt. It is clear that gun control laws are justified and have been set in place for the greater good of not only the American public, but also the human race.