Gun Control Advocates - Essay Example

Article for rebuttal: Gun control advocates march as nation reels from school shootings The reasoning involved in the CNN’s article entitled “Gun control advocates march as nation reels from school shootings” which was published last January 26, 2013 was, to say the least, naive and troublesome. In essence, the march leading to a demonstration basically called for gun control albeit it sugarcoated its approach by citing rhetorics that does sound like gun control (i.e. gun responsibility). It was a knee jerk response to the recent shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead (Martinez and Scmidt). There are several points and reasoning about the article that needs to be straightened out. The most disturbing is the justification that calling for gun control is not about the Second Amendment. They are already contradiction in terms and yet it was still used as a justification. The second fallacious argument that was used that also needs to be refuted is the argument that of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan during the assembly of marchers that "This is about gun responsibility; this is about gun safety; this is about fewer dead Americans, fewer dead children" (Martinez and Scmidt) while it is being hinged on the premise that "More guns? More violence" and "Hey La Pierre. How about this? Keep the Bad guy from even getting a gun!" (in respose to NRA CEO Wayne Lapierre statement as "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun") (Martinez and Scmidt). Gun control was being called upon in the demonstration as the solution to end violence because it is thought of as tool of violence, it being a weapon that can indeed harm, mutilate and even kill an individual. The advocates and marchers of this solution posit that if the tools or weapons that were used in those crimes and incidence of violence did not become available, then violence will be reduced. While this may seem to be a plausible solution to reducing violence, gun control may pose a problem of infringing on our basic rights as Americans to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution of the United States of America which was negated during the march for gun control by saying that it was not about the Second Amendment. It is because the moment that gun control is cited, it already an attempt to abridge a right that is guaranteed in the Second Amendment is disturbing. If one will subscribe to the reasoning of the advocates of gun control, it was as if gun ownership is equated to evil and that it does not do anything good except perpetuate violence. Under this unreasonable onslaught, it would be important to cite how guns played in the creation of America to refute the argument that it evil and that the people we esteemed in history were in fact gun owners. Those who crafted our Constitution and laid the foundation of this country were even said to be gun aficionados. The venerable George Washington, the first President of this Republic was even a general who had guns and men under his command. And he was never accused of violence neither was there a slightest instance that those guns were used to inflict violence and unnecessary force. Those guns that he had were instead and in fact used to liberate and unite this country from the invading forces until our country became what it is today. Without guns, our country would still have been under British rule because we had no weapons to fight and repeal them. And George Washington is not an exception to those who owned a gun that never had the slightest semblance of violence. Most founding fathers of this country were bearer of arms and almost every major historical event in this country that led to what it is today also involved guns. Imagine the Alamo when its defenders are without guns or Abraham Lincoln struggle to end slavery when his army did not have the firearms to assert his political will to end slavery against the discriminating Southerners. This explains why gun ownership is guaranteed as basic right in the Second Amendment because of its significant contribution in creating this country. Even today, most decent, peaceful and law abiding citizens of this country are gun owners. True, there are instances when undesirable elements in our society commit violence through the use of gun. But those violence will neither stop nor be reduced when guns are banned. Violence is in the act and bearing of a person. The gun is merely a tool. Assuming for the sake of argument that guns are removed from everybody through gun control, the violence will still be carried out albeit without guns but through other weapons such as blades because the intent to be violent or inflict harm is still there. And the same works vice versa. More guns do not necessarily mean more violence. Experience manifests that gun ownership or high number of guns available to citizens does not automatically equate to increased violence and crime. To illustrate that gun control does not reduce violence or murder, we can make a comparative analysis between countries that has strong regulation against gun vis-a-vis United States where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution as explicitly stated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. We will use United States as a base of comparison where it has 89 persons out of 100 people owning a gun. Out of these 8.8 individuals, 60% committed homicide using their firearm. Other countries that have a strong gun regulation such as Albania and Zimbabwe show inverse figures. Albania’s gun ownership is only 8.6 per 100 people but it is used in committing homicide 65.9% of the time. Interpreting this figure meant that Albania’s gun ownership is only 10% compared to United States yet its homicide rate that involves gun is higher than United States at 65.9%. The same case also applies to Zimbabwe where it has only 4.4 gun ownership out of 100 people yet its homicidal rate that is gun related is 65.6% again higher than United States despite the fact that gun ownership in that country is only 5% of total gun ownership in the US (Rogers, 2012). Deducing from these figures, it shows that the lower the gun ownership rate, the higher the homicidal rate that involves gun. Clearly, the data only shows that gun control has no relationship in reducing gun related crimes. Interestingly, gun ownership can in fact even reduce crime and to some extent, even violence. While imposition of capital punishment such as death penalty does not deter crime nor reduce murder, gun ownership on the other hand can deter crime against lives and property and that includes violence. The main reason for this is that criminals find their victims an easy prey when they are defenseless. Knowing that a person to be inflicted with crime has a gun will make the would-be criminal think twice thereby averting the occurrence of violence. Thus, the reduction of violence is not posited on the regulation of guns. As stated earlier, the attempt to end violence and murder through gun control is unreasonable and above all, constitutionally untenable and works only to the detriment of those who does not have it; that instead of reducing violence, the absence of the mechanism of self defense as a deterrence against crimes and violence makes crime and violence easier to commit because there will be no deterrence for the would be assailant. Pursuing the direction of controlling gun just to reduce crime would also mean overhauling the entire US Constitution and judicial system because the imposition of such policy would counter the very foundation of which the United States is built, which is the guarantee to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. And to bring peace of mind to those who are bothered by the Second Amendment, this right is in fact has safeguard mechanism and just like any other rights, is also not absolute. When our forefathers drafted the Constitution particularly the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, they did not write without giving that provision much thought. They knew it could be abused and such, security measures were in placed and clarified the purpose of inclusion of such provision. This limitation was set forth by the Court to avoid abuse in the exercise of our right to bear and carry arms as expressed in the Lewis v. U.S. in 1980 whereby a convicted felon is prohibited to possess a firearm (Guncite.com, 2010). This is reiterated further in the Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 whereby the petitioner Lewis was convicted in 1961. Later in 1977 Lewis was charged for possession of firearm in violation of such law. Lewis argued in his defense that the basis for such firearm disability or disallowing him to carry arms was based on a conviction that violated other provision in the Bill of Rights which is the Fourth and Fifth Amendment which guarantees him due process and to seek redress. He argued that it is not just that a firearm disability will be imposed on him since his conviction was out of the deprivation of the right to counsel and redress which is guaranteed in the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. The Court however uphold the decision saying that the basis of depriving Lewis possession of firearm still stands because the remedies to counsel and redress are available to him prior to his conviction in an appropriate court proceeding, yet he did not avail. Also, the Court is empowered to deprive him of such right to possess a gun even if the conviction is allegedly flawed because the law intended for him to clear his status before again obtaining a firearm. This sets a security measure in the use of gun from those who would potentially abuse this right (Guncite.com, 2010). Clearly, the Second Amendment was not naively passed and that it recognize the reality that guns should be put away from persons who are potentially irresponsible and dangerous. This interpretation of the Court about the Second Amendment provides a security measure against abuse and to remind citizens that such right should be exercised responsibly because the state can rebuked that right if one is proven to be potentially dangerous to possess and bear a gun. Such, being responsible about guns is not gun control but rather on its proper use and those who marched to Washington and equated gun responsibility with gun control and that it is not about the Second Constitution is twisting the spirit and intent of the law. And lastly, the logic of the marchers and advocates placards in Washington that bore the signage “Keep the Bad guy from even getting a gun!" (Martinez and Schmidt) is totally illogical because if killers are not deterred by laws against murder, they will definitely be not deterred by laws against owning guns (Levy). Works Cited Guncite.com. “Supreme Court Cases”. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html Levy, Robert. “Gun control measures don't stop violence”. January 18, 2011. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/opinion/levy.anti.gun.control_1_gun-control-gun-regulations-gun-related-crimes?_s=PM:OPINION Library of Congress. “United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court”. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Martinez, Michael; Schidt, Emily. “Gun control advocates march as nation reels from school shootings”. January 26, 2013. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/gun-control-rally U.S. Const. (1791). Amendment II. Read More