After the class debate, Tougher Gun Control on November 12, 1999: I gained a new understanding of the opposing sides views on the issue. They had some very strong arguments, including some very weak points. I'll start with the stronger points and diminish to the weaker arguments throughout this paper.
             I do believe that if gun control laws get even tougher ( to the point of imprisonment ) than they are at this present time in society, our jails, prisons and correctional facilities will soon be overcrowded and we will have a sentencing problem with any issue that arises in the state that assigns the rules on gun control. There are too many conflicts and crossroads that develop when a stand against one issue will cause debates in another subject, such as sentencing of "gun abusers" and the overcrowding of prisons.
             The opposing side also mentioned how the "black market" (a name for an underground organization that is stolen, bought and sold, merchandise) would simply make firearms so much more expensive because they are now all illegal to citizens. Well, I don't think that if their were to be tougher gun control laws, all of the firearms in the United States of America would be banned, tougher gun control is simply the monitoring of guns, making sure they are not as easy to get in the stores as well as on the street. I believe the opposing side was thinking in terms of NO GUNS IN THE COUNTRY...EVER! And that's not at all what this issue is about.
             The other sides weakest argument, in my opinion was how they are now making guns with sensors that will only fire with the owners fingerprints. Even though this may be a breakthrough in technology for some, there will always be others to break the system. What makes the average citizen feel that the suspect cannot get replicas of a fingerprint with all of the technology their is in this world? No matter what new devices are developed in today's time, their is always somebody ...