Kleck's Argument Against Gun Control

As we look back in time, there has been a change in perspective while talking about gun-control. Even though they all reached the same conclusion, that there is a need for stricter firearm policies, their methodology while researching about this topic has changed over time. In the recent years, scholars usually talked about why people favoured or opposed gun control. But as the years have passed that has changed to them talking about the loopholes in the current firearm laws and how they need need to be stricter. So, has the scholarly conversation about gun control has seen a change in perspective while ending up with nearly identical conclusions?
Gary Kleck, in his article “Why do people support gun control?”, informs us that people do not
He tells us that “ American gun laws today are generally too permissive, rather than too restrictive” (Wolitz, 2014). This is usually because of the fact that the Second Amendment, the main basis of opposing firearm laws, can be interpreted in many different ways according to the situation. But he also highlights one of the facts previously stated by Kleck in his article. Wolitz tells us that he is skeptical about the fact that stricter firearm laws can reduce gun-related crimes throughout the country but he is even more skeptical that increasing the ordinary citizen’s access to guns will substantially reduce gun violence in our country (Wolitz, 2014). Wolitz lays down the whole issue with gun policies and why they are opposed. He tells us that gun laws have not been popular enough to spear throughout the country hence they have been integrated with democratic politics. This resulted in taking power away from the common man in society. Wolitz, tells us that opposition was almost inevitable because of this. “...the opposition, in this case, came in the form of upholding the second amendment” (Wolitz, 2014). This lead Wolitz to analyze the Second Amendment and he reached the same conclusion as Braga and Chemerinsky, that the Second Amendment is too vague to be interpreted in one defined way. “...there are a variety of conventional techniques that our courts employ in interpreting Constitutional text, and these conventional interpretive techniques do channel and constrain the development of doctrine” (Wolitz, 2014). Hence there have been several cases in the recent years that have had different ruling because the judge’s interpretation of the Amendment, according to the situation, were