The statement argues that laws should be flexible so that the government can legislate for different circumstances, times, and places. While flexibility is undoubtedly a valuable quality in regulations, it is often easier to change or tweak an existing law than create an entirely new one. This is true in almost any sphere of life but is particularly true in politics. For example, when governments must deal with widespread issues or problems that cross national borders, such as climate change, gun control, or terrorism, it is often far easier to modify an existing law than craft a new one.

In the United States, gun laws have become increasingly lax over the years. For example, the 1968 Gun Control Act allowed individuals over eighteen to purchase semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. Still, it allowed gun owners to circumvent the law with permits that could then be used for a variety of purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act removed the Federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce. In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required background checks for gun purchases conducted at federally licensed gun dealers. While the Brady Act was a step in the right direction, it failed to address the problem of gun trafficking, which continues to plague the country. However, in 2007, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from legal responsibility for deaths or injuries caused by their weapons, whether by negligence or malice. The act even allows dealers to avoid liability if the gun was purchased per state laws. With this legislation in place, it is nearly impossible for gun manufacturers to be held legally responsible for firearms that fall into the wrong hands. This is not to say that such laws are needed, but it does speak to the difficulty of crafting regulations that would effectively stop gun trafficking without infringing on the rights of gun owners.

The United States is not the only nation where gun laws are lax. Countries like England and Germany have traditionally had few restrictions on the ownership or transfer of firearms, to the point that many citizens feel that they have the right to own weapons capable of mass destruction. While it is understandable that some people would prefer to have adequate protection from would-be assailants, laws limiting the number of military-style weapons that are legally available are necessary to prevent incidents like the massacre in Las Vegas. In countries like Japan and South Korea, gun violence is sporadic, which is primarily due to the strict gun laws that are enforced in those countries. Even in the United States, though, there are counties that have more stringent gun laws than others. For example, the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in 2015 occurred when two shooters, who ISIS had radicalized, used high-powered assault rifles to kill fourteen people. San Bernardino County has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, and, as a result, no mass shooting has occurred in the county since 2009.

These examples demonstrate that legislation, even laws intended to protect human rights, can become outdated and ineffective as society changes. For example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was designed to control the flow of illegal guns and guns that originated in the black market. However, today, most criminals’ guns are not illegal because they are purchased illegally, but because they are purchased legally from gun dealers who buy the firearms from manufacturers. As a result, any gun law that does not account for this phenomenon is outdated and ineffective. Therefore, instead of attempting to change the direction, lawmakers should work to modify it to reflect the mores of society as it currently exists.