As time goes on advancements are made. Laws are created to keep the advancements in check because not all advancements are robust. Ideas, technology and people adapt in many different ways but not everything can be altered. Fortunately, the American Constitution can be altered giving it room to keep up with changing time. The American Constitution is different in many ways from other constitutions in the world: it is broad and short. This allows states freedom to move according to theirs own personal societies. This is why laws are put in place to give every state the freedom to work on there specific issues. An example is the second amendment of the constitution. The second Amendment gives American Citizens the right to bear arms; the problem with bearing arms is that gives every and anyone the right to have and carry a firearm. Though, throughout the years, with the rise of gun violence in the country, Congress has yet to pass a law that enforce the second amendment in a strict way, which is understandable. The issue that constantly occurs is that gun control laws would give the federal government power over the state which would cause the checks and balance system to be asymmetric. America is a democracy which means the people rule; majority at least, but there is no majority or minority on people’s opinion when it comes to gun laws. There’s a line that must be made on gun control that will make most Americans happy but the only way to properly do it is to correct the federal laws that are in place now. There are 4 changes that can be made to better gun control laws. People never truly understand something until it directly affects them. So the side you choose for gun control would come from a direct affect on your life or the life of someone one close to you. An example would be if a family member was part of a mass shooting and the police catches the suspect. Then during the arraignment the person pleads insanity. Now this would make you pro gun control because if the person was mentally ill then why were they allowed to own a gun in the first place. Then there is the example of if your house is getting rob and you had a gun you could stop the person before the robber hurts you. So this scenario would make you against gun control. Yet the question that would arise is, why is there a need for police if you are constantly ready to defend yourself? When the constitution first came into place the police were not around, so it was understandable to have a gun to protect yourself, but with excessive police presence in most to all states of America the gun presence for individuals should be lowered. Out of all 50 states only a few require a license or permit when owning a gun. This brings up the first proposition to make gun control arguably something 80% of American can be content with. Federal law allows for “open carry”, which is gives permission for citizens to carry their firearm wherever they publicly go. However with the flexibility of the this law, certain states laws prohibits people from carrying certain firearms or requires a permit or license to be able to carry it (Law Center). According to the graph on gunlawscorecard.org, there are only 20 states with “open carry” regulations and half fall in the top 25 states with a low death rate. The statistics show that having a legal permit or license should help lower death rates by controlling exactly who gets a firearm. But before you get the permit you should need to undergo a background check from the FBI’s, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This FBI background check is a federal law, but the gun control act of 1968 backfires on the background check law creating a loophole. The law stated anyone “engaged in the business” of selling firearms must be licensed. The issue with this is that the term “engaged in the business” applies to people who sell firearms to establish a way of profit and livelihood in the business sense. This is a loophole because the term doesn’t apply to people who sell once in a while or has a hobby of selling firearms. This means that if the person doesn’t pass the background check from trying to buy in a business, they can go to individuals who sells firearms and acquire the firearm legally ( Law Center). So by forcing licence and unlicensed firearm sellers to do background checks on their customers, firearms would be harder to acquire legally. The second course of action would be making the background check stricter. “Federal law prohibits certain people from owning firearms: those with certain kinds of criminal records or mental illness; drug addicts; immigrants without legal status; veterans who left the military with a dishonorable discharge; anyone with a permanent restraining order keeping them from a partner or a partner’s children. And there are others barred as well…(Nytimes).” The strictions already in place are first-rate but do not cover enough to be strict in the cases where you live with someone who falls into any of the categories listed above. For instance, the case of Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre. Adam Lanza was already diagnosed to have anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. So if he tried to purchase a firearm he would be denied from the NICS. Still he was able consume a legal gun because his mother had a gun at home. At home the mother legally obtained her gun and sometimes took Lanza to the shooting ranges. This gave Lanza knowledge of how to use a gun and was easily able obtained it. He ends up going to into Sandy Hook elementary school killing his mother, 20 children, 6 staff members and himself (Nytimes). So not allowing people who live with the restricted people would make it safer and harder for others to acquire a firearm. In addition to living with the restricted, if you have a child under the age of 10 you should have to undergo visits from the police. America does not have any Child Access Prevention laws (CAP). Each state has their own version of CAP but it doesn’t fall under a version of a federal blanket. Federal law does state that if you purchase a gun you should be “provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (law center).” According to the graph on gunlawscorecard.org, 27 states do have a Child Access Prevention law in there state. This means that depending on the state, person who negligently places their firearm where a minor can access it can be criminally liable. This is a stricter form compared to giving liability to the persons who knowingly put the firearm in an easily accessible place. Since American doesn’t give a Federal law the third proposal is to make every state under America’s control have a Child Access Prevention law, where they would not be allowed to purchase a gun if they have a child at home, under the age of 10, and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for intentionally or negligently placing a firearm at easy access of a minor. Now if you have a job that requires gun use then leave it at work because children safety is a big concern. To keep them happy, the fourth change that needs to be made is the bringing back up the Provision Ban Act of 1994.