Gun Control
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
The Second Amendment of the United States constitution has long been the topic of major controversy and heated debate. Its ambiguous phrasing has led to numerous individual interpretations and has distorted the true meaning of the Amendment. This has made the passing of any meaningful federal legislation with regards to firearms nearly impossible. Fire arms present a very real and present danger to society, and lenient federal firearms regulations and restrictions have done little to nothing to help prevent the thousands of gun related deaths and injuries that occur in the United States each year. It is for this reason that strong Federal regulations regarding firearms are necessary to help ensure the safety of each and every American and establish a safe, productive, and non-violent society.
The topic of gun control has two primary arguments surrounding it; that of the gun activists, such as the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence, who are in favor of strong regulations and restrictions to promote public safety, and that of Gun rights supporters such as the National Rifle Association and its members who prefer more lenient regulations and restrictions. Another major point of interest in the argument on gun control is the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many gun control activists interpret the Amendment as a constitutional right to bear arms as a collective one, intended primarily to help protect the right of the states to maintain a “well organized” militia to assure their own freedom and security against the central government (American Civil Liberties Union, “Gun Control,” March 4, 2002). The Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence quoted the American Civil Liberties Union’s “Gun Control” on the topic of gun control and the collective right to bear arms stating, “In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The [American Civil Liberties Union] therefore believe that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.” (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) While many gun activists support this interpretation of the Second Amendment, numerous Gun rights supporters argue that the constitutional right to bear arms is that of the individual and not as a collective. Robert A. Levy, a strong supporter of the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment, argues that “Second Amendment protections were not intended for the state but for each individual against the state – a deterrent to government tyranny.” (Levy, 174 )
Let us briefly discuss some of the facts about gun control. In one year in the United States, there are 12,179 gun homicides (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control); 44,466 gun injuries from assaults treated in emergency rooms (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control); 337,960 firearm victimizations reported in crime surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 8); 138,403 gun assaults reported to police (Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Table 15); 128,793 gun robberies reported to police (FBI, Table 15); 232 legal “self-defense” killings by private citizens with a firearm (FBI, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 15); a gun in the home was 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assaults or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a “self-defense” shooting (Kellermann, 1998, p. 236). Also guns are used more to intimidate and threaten 4 to 6 times more often that they are used to thwart crime (Hemenway, p. 269). Many Gun rights supporters suggest that the high number of crimes, injuries, and deaths caused by firearms in the United States is not relevant to the strength of Federal restrictions and regulations, and that such restrictive federal legislation would be a threat to the individual rights of all Americans. Gun rights supporters insist that firearms present no major threat to society. How can they ignore the staggering number of injuries and deaths caused by the irresponsible use of firearms?
Gun rights supporters claim that the gun is not the criminal and that the way to prevent crime is to punish more severely the criminal who misuses the gun. Though I concede that criminals found guilty of blatantly misusing a gun (murder, homicide, robbery, etc.) should be more severely punished for their actions, I still insist that if stricter gun control laws were in placed and enforced, the number of gun related crimes and deaths would lower drastically (Gun control: recurrent issue, 1972). If anything, it should be this increase in crime and violence that makes it necessary to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Many gun rights supporters claim that citizens need guns to adequately protect them selves and their homes from criminals. While it may seem that keeping a gun in the home would help individuals protect themselves from potential crimes, this will only lead to more violence; whether it be through a child playing with the family gun or a jealous husband temporarily blinded by emotion, a gun in the home is a fatal accident waiting to happen. Is it better to kill a criminal on the spot, in the heat of the moment, or to allow real justice to take place through the judicial process? It has been shown time and time again that guns in the home greatly increase the risk of fatal accidents and crimes of passion.
Many gun rights supporters insist that regulations on gun ownership and any real federal intervention are both unrealistic and impractical; arguing that under an unfettered Second Amendment, all Americans have the right to bear arms unrestricted by the federal government for the purpose of keeping a well regulated state militia. While it is true that the Second Amendment does guarantee these rights to all American citizens, it does not necessarily follow that this right follow past the task of preserving a “well regulated state militia”. Saul Cornell is a former Professor of history from Ohio State University and the former director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute, as well as a prominent gun control activist. Cornell discusses this issue during an interview with Scott Vogel over his new book, A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Cornell asserts that guns have been regulated in the United States for as long as guns have had their place in this country. He contends that the Founding fathers were fearful of a standing army and in turn established local and state militias to defend the country if necessary. It is under this logic that Cornell insists that states may pass any form of gun control regulations, as long as they do not place any restrictions on the arming of militias; stating that ,“As long as there have been guns in America there have been regulations governing their use and storage. Without government direction there would have been no body of Minutemen to muster on the town greens at Lexington and Concord. If the Founders had imbibed the strong gun rights ideology that drives today’s gun debate we would all be drinking tea and singing, “God save our gracious Queen.” (Saul Cornell, page.) Cornell continues to discuss that gun rights activist are correct in asserting that outlawing and banning all firearms is an absurd notion. Instead, Cornell insists that guns are ingrained in American history and culture, but gun regulation is just as American as gun ownership. Cornell, like many gun control activists, hopes that both sides of the issue can move forward and find a middle ground which will allow for reasonable gun policies that will achieve the goal we all want, to reduce gun violence. (Tamara Roleff, 87.) Finding this middle ground is possible, and reasonable gun control regulations are within reach if both sides of the argument are willing to compromise. Laws such as those proposed by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which would require background checks, ban specific assault weapons, and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, would reduce violence as well as meet the goals of both gun control and gun rights activists alike, still permitting all Americans the right to bear arms and gun ownership while simultaneously protecting the American public through federal restrictions and regulations. While many gun rights activists, such as those at the National Rifle Association, argue that such legal action would be useless because the “bad guys” only get their guns illegally on the streets in the criminal market. While this statement may hold some truth to it in that a substantial number of weapons used in violent crimes are obtained illegally, it does not mean that proper legal regulations would not help to limit crime and gun violence. Laws such as the “Brady Law”, passed in 1994 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, would place reasonable regulations (a five day waiting period on all firearms purchases, the banning of high powered assault weapons, required background checks before any firearms purchase, etc.) on firearms and help to protect the public.
The topic of gun control has two primary arguments surrounding it; that of the gun activists, such as the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence, who are in favor of strong regulations and restrictions to promote public safety, and that of Gun rights supporters such as the National Rifle Association and its members who prefer more lenient regulations and restrictions. Another major point of interest in the argument on gun control is the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many gun control activists interpret the Amendment as a constitutional right to bear arms as a collective one, intended primarily to help protect the right of the states to maintain a “well organized” militia to assure their own freedom and security against the central government (American Civil Liberties Union, “Gun Control,” March 4, 2002). The Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence quoted the American Civil Liberties Union’s “Gun Control” on the topic of gun control and the collective right to bear arms stating, “In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The [American Civil Liberties Union] therefore believe that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.” (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) While many gun activists support this interpretation of the Second Amendment, numerous Gun rights supporters argue that the constitutional right to bear arms is that of the individual and not as a collective. Robert A. Levy, a strong supporter of the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment, argues that “Second Amendment protections were not intended for the state but for each individual against the state – a deterrent to government tyranny.” (Levy, 174 )
Let us briefly discuss some of the facts about gun control. In one year in the United States, there are 12,179 gun homicides (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control); 44,466 gun injuries from assaults treated in emergency rooms (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control); 337,960 firearm victimizations reported in crime surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 8); 138,403 gun assaults reported to police (Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Table 15); 128,793 gun robberies reported to police (FBI, Table 15); 232 legal “self-defense” killings by private citizens with a firearm (FBI, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 15); a gun in the home was 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assaults or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a “self-defense” shooting (Kellermann, 1998, p. 236). Also guns are used more to intimidate and threaten 4 to 6 times more often that they are used to thwart crime (Hemenway, p. 269). Many Gun rights supporters suggest that the high number of crimes, injuries, and deaths caused by firearms in the United States is not relevant to the strength of Federal restrictions and regulations, and that such restrictive federal legislation would be a threat to the individual rights of all Americans. Gun rights supporters insist that firearms present no major threat to society. How can they ignore the staggering number of injuries and deaths caused by the irresponsible use of firearms?
Gun rights supporters claim that the gun is not the criminal and that the way to prevent crime is to punish more severely the criminal who misuses the gun. Though I concede that criminals found guilty of blatantly misusing a gun (murder, homicide, robbery, etc.) should be more severely punished for their actions, I still insist that if stricter gun control laws were in placed and enforced, the number of gun related crimes and deaths would lower drastically (Gun control: recurrent issue, 1972). If anything, it should be this increase in crime and violence that makes it necessary to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Many gun rights supporters claim that citizens need guns to adequately protect them selves and their homes from criminals. While it may seem that keeping a gun in the home would help individuals protect themselves from potential crimes, this will only lead to more violence; whether it be through a child playing with the family gun or a jealous husband temporarily blinded by emotion, a gun in the home is a fatal accident waiting to happen. Is it better to kill a criminal on the spot, in the heat of the moment, or to allow real justice to take place through the judicial process? It has been shown time and time again that guns in the home greatly increase the risk of fatal accidents and crimes of passion.
Many gun rights supporters insist that regulations on gun ownership and any real federal intervention are both unrealistic and impractical; arguing that under an unfettered Second Amendment, all Americans have the right to bear arms unrestricted by the federal government for the purpose of keeping a well regulated state militia. While it is true that the Second Amendment does guarantee these rights to all American citizens, it does not necessarily follow that this right follow past the task of preserving a “well regulated state militia”. Saul Cornell is a former Professor of history from Ohio State University and the former director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute, as well as a prominent gun control activist. Cornell discusses this issue during an interview with Scott Vogel over his new book, A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Cornell asserts that guns have been regulated in the United States for as long as guns have had their place in this country. He contends that the Founding fathers were fearful of a standing army and in turn established local and state militias to defend the country if necessary. It is under this logic that Cornell insists that states may pass any form of gun control regulations, as long as they do not place any restrictions on the arming of militias; stating that ,“As long as there have been guns in America there have been regulations governing their use and storage. Without government direction there would have been no body of Minutemen to muster on the town greens at Lexington and Concord. If the Founders had imbibed the strong gun rights ideology that drives today’s gun debate we would all be drinking tea and singing, “God save our gracious Queen.” (Saul Cornell, page.) Cornell continues to discuss that gun rights activist are correct in asserting that outlawing and banning all firearms is an absurd notion. Instead, Cornell insists that guns are ingrained in American history and culture, but gun regulation is just as American as gun ownership. Cornell, like many gun control activists, hopes that both sides of the issue can move forward and find a middle ground which will allow for reasonable gun policies that will achieve the goal we all want, to reduce gun violence. (Tamara Roleff, 87.) Finding this middle ground is possible, and reasonable gun control regulations are within reach if both sides of the argument are willing to compromise. Laws such as those proposed by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which would require background checks, ban specific assault weapons, and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, would reduce violence as well as meet the goals of both gun control and gun rights activists alike, still permitting all Americans the right to bear arms and gun ownership while simultaneously protecting the American public through federal restrictions and regulations. While many gun rights activists, such as those at the National Rifle Association, argue that such legal action would be useless because the “bad guys” only get their guns illegally on the streets in the criminal market. While this statement may hold some truth to it in that a substantial number of weapons used in violent crimes are obtained illegally, it does not mean that proper legal regulations would not help to limit crime and gun violence. Laws such as the “Brady Law”, passed in 1994 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, would place reasonable regulations (a five day waiting period on all firearms purchases, the banning of high powered assault weapons, required background checks before any firearms purchase, etc.) on firearms and help to protect the public.
