Gun-Free Zones in the United States Do Not Work - Essay Example

? Gun-Free Zones in the United s Do Not Work Gun-Free Zones in the United s Do Not Work Introduction: Gun control has come to become a subject of great controversy and debate in the United States of America. It is a debated matter which is marked to be important owing to the question of the security of the citizens of the United States. It has been concluded that the mass shootings have greatly increased over the years and this has been upheld by numerous statistics and reports. The Gun Free Zones which were originally created to solve this issue and reduce the number of shootouts and protect the lives of people have failed to serve their purpose (Plumer 2013). Gun-Free Zones provide a false sense of security as mass shootings generally occur in places where firearms are banned. History of Gun Control in the United States: The New York State’s Sullivan Law of 1909 marked the beginning of the legislation of gun control in the United States. This was the period when active discussion and debates were ongoing on the issues of drugs and liquor and their association with crime. The rise in the number of immigrants in the United States was also a prime reason for the passing of this law. The influential and leading residents of the city of New York were the only ones who were granted the right to have guns by the police department of the city of New York. The supporters of gun control consider this as a major step but the opponents greatly resented the passage of this law (Dizard, Muth & Andrews 1999). The next major step in the history of gun control came in the year 1934 when the Congress implemented further restrictions on the possession of arms as suggested by Attorney General Homer Cummings. Cummings had put forward that firearms were only to be allowed for the purpose of sports and recreation and for no other purpose. This proposal came forward after the case United Stated v. Miller in which the offenders were charged for the transporting of firearms weapons that had not been registered (Chambliss 2011). Hindrance to the complete implementation of this bill came owing to the disapproval from the National Firearms Act (NFA) as well as several sportsmen’s associations. To lower the resentment of the associations, the legislation was relaxed and “handguns and semi-automatic rifles” were removed from the ban. Another important act referred to as the Federal Fire arms Act (FFA) came in the year 1938 and was passed in Congress. As per this act, the dealers of firearms were directed to license their businesses and at the same time keep proper record of the purchase of weapons by the customers. This act was proposed by the NRA for putting a stop to further implementing stronger gun control laws by the government (Dizard et al 1999). In the year 1939 another important law was passed as the Supreme Court of the United States, passed a decision making gun control possession illegal (Christian Science Monitor 2007). The State Government kept on working further for improving the system of gun control in the country. The Gun Control Act which was passed in the year 1968 by the government was another major step. The purpose of this act was to limit the provision of guns to the people and dealers of firearms were advised to keep permanent records of the firearms. The stimulant behind this act was the assassination of influential figures in the United States that is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President John F. Kennedy. The ineffective nature of the gun reforms was highlighted by another assassination attempt even after the Gun Control Act on President Reagan by John Hinckley in the year 1981. The President was lucky enough to survive this attempt of murder but James Brandy who was the Press Secretary became a victim of the bullet. Th bullet entered his skull and it led to the crippling of Brady. His wife was greatly affected by this event and she put in all her strength towards the enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act was passed during the tenure of President Bill Clinton and was officially signed by the president on the 30th of November in 1993. The bill became enacted on 28th February 1994 (Kleck 1997). This act was to further strengthen the system of gun control as this act made it a rule that buyers of firearms should be checked and assessed thoroughly and then it should be decided by the dealers whether weapons should be sold to that particular buyer or not (Chambliss 2011). Gun Control and Mass Shootings Gun control has been an active issue in the United States and many steps are basically taken to prevent killings that occur due to guns. Gun free zones are one such step but they have not provided for much help. Mass shootings which are basically defined as occurrences in which more than four people are shot and killed have been a common happening as well and statistics collected from FBI have provided for starting revelations. Ever since the year 2009, every month at least one mass shooting has taken place. 43 shooting events across 25 different states in the country have been reported from 2009 till date. Assault weapons which are mainly the prime focus of weapons being asked to be banned by the Congress were used in only 12 out of the total shootings that took place. The mental stability of the offender was also in question in just 4 of the mass shootings. The most important finding that was revealed by these statistics was that one third of the mass shootings were known to occur in the gun-free zones of the United States. Thirty three percent of the shootings were confirmed to have taken place in the public places which were marked to be areas where gun carrying was totally prohibited. These statistics clearly reveal the fact that the gun free zones in the United States are ineffective and do not serve their purpose (Plumer 2013). Proponents of Gun Control With regard to the firearm injuries many researches have been carried out to ascertain the number of deaths caused by it. The National Vital Statistics put forward that in the year 2001, around 11,001 people died owing to the injuries caused by gun shots. Similarly around 16,455 individuals committed suicide by using guns in 2001 only. This clearly shows the significant impact of guns as it has on the death rate of the United States. Injuries related to guns have been known to be the second leading cause of death in the United States where the first cause is that of road accidents. Experts have analyzed the whole situation and found that after the year 1993 a decrease in the rate of gun associated deaths was witnessed owing to the stronger gun control laws. The proponents of gun control put forward that these statistics clearly show that gun control laws should be implemented to save the human lives that are being lost (Gold 2004). In the year 2001 Hemenway conducted another research to find out the opinion of the public with regard to laws of gun control. The research showed that the residents of the United States wanted stronger gun control laws so that they felt more secure and protected in the environment. They believed that private guns or arms should not be issued or allowed to ensure this safety. It has been witnessed that in the last 15 years of the 20th century the gun control laws have been relaxed and people can easily carry weapons to locations where they were previously not allowed. The research also highlighted the response of the Americans with regard to the carrying of guns in public places and 90 percent of the respondents argued that they should be banned completely from the public places. Study revealing the reduction of crime rate with relaxation in gun control laws Amuser carried out a study to find out the co-relation between the gun control laws and crime rate. It was found that the relaxation of gun control laws had a great impact on the crime rate prevailing in the country. The study also took under consideration other countries which included the Commonwealth countries. Amuser put forward that these countries imposed strong gun control laws in their territory but these laws were not able to reduce the crime. This clearly points out that the gun control laws should be relaxed in these countries so that the crime rate is reduced. Stronger gun control laws do not stop crime but rather give an opportunity to the wrong doers to commit the crime more easily. Mauser also put forward that stronger gun control laws increased the burden of setting up independent bodies that could protect the residents and these independent bodies were so far not successful in curbing the crime rate (Mauser 2003). Opponents of Gun Control The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states “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.” The opponents of Gun Control use this amendment to their advantage to state that every citizen of the United States has the right to own a weapon for his/her protection. They put forward that the proponents of gun control are violating the laws laid down in the constitution of the country. Washington can be taken as an example here where the gun control laws are very strong. But the opponents argue that these laws are not able to reduce the crime as the statistics of the state show. The statistics show that 169 people were killed through guns in Washington in the year of 2006 and this when compared to other states is the highest rate of killings by the use of guns. The opponents argue that this clearly shows that a relaxation of the laws would help people to protect themselves and therefore reduce the crime rate (Associated Press 2007). The members of Congress themselves believe that the possession of arms is very essential to survive. The opponents of gun control put forward that the possession of arms allows the individuals to ensure their own safety even if the security personnel are not present. They state that the possession of weapons by individuals who have a clean record, the state can ensure that their residents are safe and living in peace (Nagourney et al 2011). Opponents of gun control laws also explain the fact that even the gun-free zones of the country are not effective and hence personal measures are more important. The gun free zones are described mainly as those places where the offenders can easily bring in their weapons and the victims are at their mercy as they do not possess any weapon for their own self-protection. It is argued by opponents of gun control that in gun-free zones like in dormitories or schools, students should be prohibited from carrying weapons but it would be safer if teachers and members of the staff are permitted to bring along their weapons after they are properly trained on how to use them. This would help them in protecting their own lives as well as the lives of the students (Kopel 1995). Conclusion After reviewing the whole situation one can state that the United States of America should not have strong laws relating to gun control. The constitution itself gives the right to the residents of United States to possess a weapon and protect himself accordingly. The relaxation of gun control laws would help the individuals to protect their homes and families without the presence of the security personnel. References Chambliss, W. J. (2011). Courts, law, and justice. Los Angeles: Sage Reference. Dizard, J. E., Muth, R. M., & Andrews, S. P. (1999). Guns in America: A reader. New York: New York University Press. Gold, S. D. (2004). Gun control. New York: Benchmark Books. Top of Form Kleck, G. (1997). Targeting guns: Firearms and their control. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Mauser, G. A., & Fraser Institute (Vancouver, B.C.). (2003). The failed experiment: Gun control and public safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales. Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser Institute. Kopel, David B. (450) Guns: Who Should Have Them?Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 1995. Print. Hemenway, D., Azrael, D., & Miller, M. (January 01, 2001). National attitudes concerning gun carrying in the United States. Injury Prevention : Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 7, 4, 282-5. The Monitor’s View. (2007, March 16) “Gun laws as a right to safety.” Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0316/p08s02-comv.html Associated Press. (2007, November 12). “SUPREME COURT MAY TAKE ON GUN CONTROL CASE.” Fox News. Retrieved from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310717,00.htmlTop of Form Nagourney, Adam and Steinhauer, Jennifer.(2011, January 13).“A Clamor for Gun Limits, but Few Expect Real Changes.” The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/us/14guns.html Plumer, B. (2013, February 3). “Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/02/study-the-u-s-has-had-one-mass-shooting-per-month-since-2009/ Read More