Recent tragedies have sparked a national outcry against firearms. As a result, President Obama and others are aiming to tighten restrictions on guns and ammunition, measures that will prove to be ineffective.

Obama previously stated his position in 2008, long before the recent incidents. “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms,” he said in the Democratic Primary debate. “But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right.”

And in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling the same year that a proposed absolute gun ban in Washington, D.C., would be unconstitutional, Obama reiterated that though he believes that the Second Amendment does protect the right of individuals to bear arms, he also identifies with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.

Fast forward four years, and you have Obama once again proving his status as a proponent of firearm restrictions with proposed legislation that would include limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.

The downside of such a law, however, would be precisely that it is a law — a rule designed for honest and abiding citizens, not those with malicious intents.

For instance, according to the most recent survey by the BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics), 53 percent of all “stranger homicides” such as the recent tragedies of Connecticut and Oregon are linked to another crime or criminal. And with 21 percent unidentified, this leaves a measly 26 percent of such murders as crimes of passion — once again, the only crimes that law-abiding citizens are capable of committing.

Also according to BJS records, 64 percent of stranger homicides were committed with the use of no weapons; on the other hand, only 10 percent of them used firearms.

This means that even if the ownership of military-grade assault weapons or any strong, high-capacity handguns were prohibited, it would not hinder the offenders who are capable of attaining the firearms with other methods but those who need to defend themselves.

The country’s law-abiding gun owners would be unfairly punished for the actions of irresponsible criminals. Obama has also proposed a sort of background check, but there is no guarantee a criminal will submit to one.

“In this age of technology, we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show,” Obama said.

In his response to a gun-reducing petition, Obama said that an unbalanced man can obtain firearms but should not be able to “so easily.” He uses this as another reason why gun restrictions should be tighter.

However, this also shows how dangerous these supposedly “unbalanced” people can be with guns that already exist in the country and will continue to exist even after any type of gun control.

Now is not the time to gut the Second Amendment, a right implemented to protect the people, not harm them.