What Should government do to protesct society from mass shootings - Research Paper Example

? Day Month Year Gun Debate Introduction From the founding of America, guns have seemingly been the center of a bitter national debate. Rather it was the Revolutionaries being afforded to protect themselves from invading British soldiers, or the mother who is armed today to protect her family while her husband is at work, guns have played a central part in the lives of millions America for centuries. The debate rages on. In recent years, the debate has become increasingly vocal, as mass shootings have begun to invade the American landscape. Some argue that such shootings are the very reason why the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. Others, however, argue that society has changed in the past 300 years and the time for strict gun control has come. There are valid points to both sides and this paper will highlight some major positions, while arriving at the conclusion that the right to own and maintain a gun must remain a part of the American fabric for now and the foreseeable future. The Argument for Gun Control Individual freedom and liberty is a cornerstone birthright that comes with being an American citizen. There are certain rights that are written into the Constitution in an effort to prevent any future government from taking that liberty away. As time goes on, however, and society develops, the language written into the Constitution can become muddled and filled with doubt and uncertainty. There are some, for example, that claim the right to own a gun is not actually a fundamental right guaranteed under the second amendment. Much of this opinion involves cause and effect, and examining that actual reasoning behind the second amendment. There are multiple reasons a person might own a gun. Some may own a gun to hunt wild game, while others will maintain a functioning weapon for purposes of self-defense. Still others might have a gun due to military or police service, and some might own a gun to commit a crime such as robbing a bank. The modern day argument in support of gun control, then, largely centers on this issue. Since the Constitution does not possibly permit the right of a gun owner to use such a weapon in the commission of a crime, then it certainly does not permit the right of every individual in the country to own a gun. Guns are permitted under the second amendment for purposes of military service. Few would argue that point. Many would argue, however, that the Constitution does not inherently protect the right of gun ownership for other reasons (Stevens para. 4). The center of this debate is on the language in the Second Amendment. While it seems so clear to some, it is far from it to others. While the courts have generally upheld the principle that Americans have the right to gun ownership, there is a growing movement in government circles to have the courts take another look at the language and to issue new rulings. On this side of the issue, the opinion is that gun ownership is a right for some, but not for others. The distinction comes in the language used to write this part of the Constitution. The actual purpose governing the inclusion of the Second Amendment into the Constitution was to allow citizens to protect themselves from a well-regulated militia. In other words, if the government took away the rights of the people, the people had a right to fight back, or to defend themselves. In this vein, people have argued for gun control on the basis that gun control, and the limiting of gun ownership, is permissible under these guidelines (Faria 133). In recent years, there has been an unfortunate rise in violence on school campuses, particularly colleges and universities. Some have used this as an argument for gun ownership and the permissibility of students to be able carry guns on campus in order to better protect themselves against threats, such as mass shootings. Others, however, have argued that this is the very reason we should have gun control. By taking guns out of the hands of all individual citizens, they claim that violent events will actually decrease due to the lack of accessibility of these weapons. Darby Dickerson is the Dean of the Law School at Texas Tech University. She is also a gun control advocate and recently stated “allowing guns and other weapons on campus will not advance [student safety]. Indeed, it will have the opposite effect and lead to additional deaths and injuries” (Para. 18). Her summation is to allow the nations colleges and universities to remain gun free. As a basis for her conclusion, she does not make several points of interest. Studies have shown that most university age students, while being physically mature, are still not fully developed emotionally. They are prone to mood disorders, bouts with stress, and often exhibit other signs of mental instability. Dickerson’s argument is that, if students were allowed to bring firearms on campus, the mental instabilities present in many could actually lead to unintended consequences in the form of further violence (Dickerson para. 15). This brings about another issue in this debate. While many gun ownership advocates adamantly quote the Second Amendment in their right to maintain such a weapon, the Constitution itself does not speak as to where that weapon can be located. In fact, it seems to indicate that the right to gun ownership is largely relegated to private homes. Entering a public space with a gun does not appear to be protected by this clause of the Constitution. Some would argue that it should be, as individuals have the right to protect themselves from all threats, no matter where that might come from. An equally appealing argument, however, is that individuals also have the right to be a in a gun free environment, safe from the worry of having another gun carrying person ‘snap’ and begin shooting innocent people. Both arguments have merit and deserve consideration in any gun control debate (Vernick 2023). So, this is part of the debate taking place in the United States today regarding the right to gun ownership versus the right of the government to implement gun control legislation. It is a hotly contested debate, with participants on both sides being passionate about their beliefs. On the one hand, you have gun control activists arguing the individuals have the right to a society free from the possibility of violence at the hands of gun owners gone ‘bad’. On the other side, you have people arguing equally as passionately that there will, unfortunately, always be violence in the world. As such, individuals have the right be armed in the event that this violence affects them personally and they need to defend themselves or their family. Let us now look at some of these compelling arguments in opposition to gun control measures. The Argument Against Gun Control The first step in this argument is to go right back to the Second Amendment. Opponents of gun control legislation argue that guns are explicitly protected under the Constitution. Current sitting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, has written extensively about this. Scalia acknowledges the rising problem of gun violence in America, and they respect those opinions. They use this knowledge, however, to further their opinion that the wording in the Constitution is designed to protect just the instances of violence. Scalia, and other Justices, argues that the Constitutional rights of the individual preclude states, and the District of Columbia, from adversely limiting the rights of gun owners. He writes “The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home” (Scalia Para. 12). He continue to assert that all law abiding Americans maintain the right under the Second Amendment to own guns, but it does not grant them permission to carry the weapon everywhere and for any purpose. Concealed weapons, for example, have commonly be forbidden in many states, and those laws have been upheld in the courts. This is where the debate must center. The debate should not be about whether or not guns are permitted. They are. End of story. The debate moving forward as a society must center around where and under what circumstances those same guns are permitted. In the gun debate, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is often takes center stage. This organization is powerful and lobbies the government to maintain the right of all people to own a gun. Take, for example, Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The local government attempted to pass a temporary ordinance making guns illegal on the streets in order to prevent people from preying on the destitute. The NRA effectively blocked this legislation and used it to ‘prove’ that government was slowly working to erode the rights of gun owners (Graves Para. 2). While society does have violent individuals, it is precisely because of this that Americans should be allowed to maintain their gun ownership rights. It is also true, and a fact supported by gun control opponents, that some people should not be permitted to own guns. Perhaps they have done something in their past that society deems them not worthy of gun ownership, or they could possibly be diagnosed as mentally unstable. Society has progressed to the point of trying to enact measures to prevent such people from being able to purchase and own a gun of any sort. Such measures, however, must not encroach on the average citizen, and this is the problem with the current background check system that has been put in place. It was recently argued that an updated background check system is needed in order to help prevent gun violence. The key here is that the author does not advocate for gun control measures. If a person is rightfully entitled to a gun, and they have done nothing to demonstrate that this right should be denied him or her, then such a background system should not hinder them in any way. At the same time, the current system allows many people to purchase a gun that should not be permitted to do so. This has resulted in a broken system and it frustrates society to the point of re-opening this debate. The first step towards fixing this system is to get the names of all the people who should be prohibited from buying a gun into the background check system. This system should then be continuously updated. The second step towards updating the background check system is to close the various loopholes in the current system by requiring a background check for each and every gun sale. This might be cumbersome, but it serves to benefit both sides of this debate (Applebaum 652). Arguments against gun control measures are quite strong. Nobody would argue that guns, when used improperly, benefits society. It is unfortunate when anyone takes such a weapon and uses it for pure evil. The simply fact remains, however, that the arguments advocating the limiting of gun ownership rights simply discard the constitution. The rights are implanted in this document for the express purpose that future governments cannot take away the privilege of every law-abiding citizen owning a gun. By implementing a better system of background checks, most people can quickly and easily buy the gun of their own choice by demonstrating that they will only use it for the purposes that it was designed for. At the same time, the system can work to protect society by prohibiting people from owning guns who have demonstrated that they would become a threat to society if permitted to do so. Conclusion There is no question that this is a heated debate. Whenever discussing personal liberties, emotions are certain to boil over. As mentioned, there are passionate supporters on both sides of this issue, and their arguments have been briefly presented in this essay. In the end, however, the rights of the citizen must be protected from the elite. That appears to be the written intent of the founders of the Constitution, and it is an opinion that has been upheld in the courts for several centuries now. This is not to discount the opinions of those who now feel that Americans should not be permitted to own guns, but there really is no room for compromise on this issue. America has long prided itself on having a government that does not unduly intrude on the lives of its people. There are instances when, for the sake of public safety and order, they must do so. The government, however, is expressly forbidden from intruding on the rights of the gun owners. We must respect the wishes of the Founding Fathers. They likely anticipated and feared the government ever becoming too invasive with the public. To protect against this, and to protect from home invasions, they granted the right to every individual to maintain their guns and that they have the right to bear those arms when they are threatened. The argument will likely continue as to where people are permitted to have guns. As society appears to be growing increasingly violent, it is quite possible that future courts may rule the right to protect one’s self extends outside the home as well. States are already grappling with this issue. Some permit concealed weapons in public palaces, while others forbid them. This is likely to be the next battleground as the country wrestles with the right of people to protect themselves against the right of people to expect a violent free society. Perhaps the latter is not truly possible, so we must focus on the rights of gun owners and hope that society moves to weed out violent people and preclude them from gaining access to weapons. That needs to be the focus moving forward. Works Cited “An Updated Background Check System Will Help Prevent Gun Violence.” Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. From “A Plan To Prevent Future Tragedies.” MayorAgainstIllegalGuns.org. 2011. Opposing View In Context. Web. 19. Feb. 2013. Antonin Scalia and the Report of Decisions. “The Right to Own a Gun Is Guaranteed by the Constitution.” Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt. From “Syllabus, and Opinion of the Court, in Supreme Court Of the United State.” District of Columbia ET AL. v. Heller. 2008: 1-64. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. Appelbaum, Paul., and Swanson, Jeffrey. “Law & Psychiatry: Gun Laws and Mental Illness: How Sensible Are the Current Restrictions?.” Psychiatric Services, 61.7 (201): 652-654. Dickerson, Darby. “Students Should Not Be Allowed to Carry Guns on College Campuses.” Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. From “White Paper – Guns on Campus.” NaBita.org. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. Faria, Miguel. “America, Guns, and Freedom: Part I: A Recapitulation of Liberty.” Surgical Neurology International, 3.1 (2012): 133 Graves, Rachel. “Both Sides of the Gun Debate Would Benefit from Compromise.” Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press 2005. At Issue. Rpt. From “Gun Debate Muzzle the Middle Ground.” Christian Science Monitor (5 Sept. 2007). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. Stevens, John Paul. “The Right to Own a Gun is Not Guaranteed by the Constitution.” Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt. From “Dissenting Opinion, in Supreme Cour of the United States, District of Columbia Et AL. v. Heller.” 2008. 1-46. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. Vernick, Jon S., Rutkow, Lainie., Webster, Daniel., and Teret, Stephen P. “Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: The US Supreme Court’s Recent Second Amendment Decisions.” American Journal of Public Health, 101.11 (2011): 2021-2026. Williamsen, Kurt. “A Weak Cultural Morality Can Be Blamed for Gun Crim.” Guns and Crime. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. At Issue. Rpt. From “Beyond The Gun-Control Debate.” The New American 23 (28 May 2007): 17-21. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. Wright, Stephen E. “Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives.” Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. From “Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense.” StephenEWright.com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. Read More