Federal Gun Laws in the United States are always claimed as being inadequate or not sufficient. Thanks to the increase in mass shootings and crime, many argue that more must be done. Although that may be true, we must also look closely at the laws themselves. In an article entitled, “Gun Rights Debate” by Barbara Mante we get an inside look into the Guns debate. In her article Mante puts in facts by other people. One of which include Stephen P. Halbrook, where he lays down the argument that, “Criminals don't register guns. That's why, even where registration is required, the police don't check registration records before responding to crime scenes. Canada just abolished its billion-dollar gun-registration system because it never solved a single crime.” Halbrook lays down the argument that even if we tighten down on guns criminals will still use them. Criminals don’t abide by the law, so creating stricter gun laws to punish regular citizens is wrong. Adding anymore laws and legislation would only waste money and time. Which is exactly what happened to Canada as Halbrook pointed out. However, some will still argue we need more gun laws to help deter crime. They themselves need to realize that crime will never truly end and even if stricter gun laws are imposed, criminals will still acquire weapons. There will always be people who will break the law. Stricter gun laws will not stop them. Besides, instead of trying to pass new legislation we should focus on the one’s we have. In David DeGrazia’s article, “ The Case for Moderate Gun Control,” he takes a look at laws that are already in place and breaks them down. In his writing he talks about the second amendment. He points out that, “...the court is explicit that the assertion of a right to bear arms does not imply the assertion of an absolute or unlimited right. In fact, the court suggests several limits on gun rights that would pass constitutional