Shold gun be legal or illegal - Essay Example

? Gun Control The topic of gun control is controversial and the debate surrounding it often emotional usually centering on differing interpretations of the Constitution. It has been argued that the citizens of the country no longer have a need for arms such as they did 230 years ago. No hostile Indians and little threat from wild animals; the government is stable and elected by a democratic process and the citizens of the country have the most powerful armed force ever assembled by humankind in addition to several levels of law enforcement that protect it. It is also argued that the right to own handguns has become a detriment to the safety of society which is in opposition to the intentions of the Founders. The Second Amendment 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 Constitution”, 2006). Those who advocate limited types of gun control conveniently forget to consider the “militia” part. The Second Amendment was intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements” (Krouse, 2002). Gun control advocates generally want the weapon that kills the most people, handguns, to be illegal but are willing to compromise on rifles and shotguns. In this way, the right to bear arms is protected and so are the thousands that die from handguns every year. Of course, when reading the Second Amendment in context, only armed militias have the right to keep and bear arms. However, given the current strong emotions tied to the issue and the popularity of guns in this country, a compromise is the only solution. Ideologies are formed by a person’s innermost beliefs, cultivated by years of thought and shaped by life’s numerous experiences. An ideological debate causes a more emotive response in individuals than does any other. Political ideologies can never die and in politically turbulent times, such as these, are very much alive. The 9/11 attacks, abortion, the war in Iraq, the loss of civil liberties, global warming, health care, gay marriage, stem cell research and many other politically motivating subjects have ignited emotional ideological battles. Gun ownership ranks high among these political ideologies and to attempt to ban all guns would make these feelings even stronger. To make the case for upholding the widely perceived ‘right’ to bear arms by allowing rifles and shotguns of a certain length while banning handguns and assault rifles seems the sensible solution and a fight that could be won. This tactic has proven effective in other countries such as Britain and many other European nations. Those countries that ban handgun use have a much lower homicide rate than does the U.S. (Reynolds, Caruth, 1992). The concept that the easy access to firearms has an important impact on the homicide rates in this country is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Nearly two thirds of all homicides taking place in the United States involve a firearm. Yet, changes in handgun laws were seen to have little to no impact on crime rates. This is not surprising based on fact that most violent criminals do not obtain their firearms through licensed sources (Wright & Rossi, 1994). Other programs, such as gun buy-back programs have been proven to be similarly ineffective for a variety of reasons including intention for use, ease of replacement and probability of use for crime. Earlier gun control policies enacted in 1976 and 1982 had similar disappointing results. Concealed weapons laws have actually been shown to have a positive effect on crime rates, that is, they contribute to an escalation in crime (Loftin, McDowall, Weirsema and Cottey, 1991). Laws that attempt to control handgun ownership for law-abiding citizens do not work and have been shown to actually escalate gun crimes. A total ban accompanied with stiff penalties for violators is the only hope for reducing the carnage caused by them, again, while keeping rifles legal to placate the strong political ideologies of those who interpret the Constitution out of context and likely always will. This compromise must be struck before this nation will ever be considered a civilized society. For those who believe that handguns are not a serious threat and should not be banned because of a misconstrued interpretation of the Constitution, consider the statistics. In the year 2002, more than 3000 American children died as a result of guns, mostly handguns. That breaks down to 50 children being shot and killed each week or eight per day, one every three hours. Four to five times this many are wounded from gunfire. These numbers are startling enough. Now insert the more than 5000 kids under 18 killed by guns in 2005 and the figures jump to nearly 100 per week, 15 per day and 1 every hour and a half. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. Compare this with Britain where 19 children were killed by guns in 2005 and Japan where none were killed. Both of these countries have enacted strict gun control laws. The children of America are dying every day so that those who insist they have a right to own an arsenal of weapons and misconstrue the Constitution to justify this desire will not vote against those in the government who could end this senseless massacre (“Statistics” 2005). Ninety thousand Americans under the age of 18 have been killed by gunfire in just 22 years (1979-2001) and the numbers have been escalating since. Death by handguns is by far the greatest danger facing America’s children. “In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined” (“Statistics” 2005). In the U.S., 12 times more children 14 years old and younger are killed by guns than the combined total of 25 other industrialized nations. “American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined” (“Statistics” 2005). More than 3000 children died from gunfire in 2007 “2007—a number nearly equal to the total number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq and four times the number of American combat fatalities in Afghanistan to date” and more than 17,500 suffered gun wound injuries. (Childrens Defense Fund, 2010) Gun enthusiasts, as they are politely referred, mimic the concept that more guns will lead to less violence, that if everyone were carrying a gun, criminals would be too scared to commit crimes. The more is less philosophy. This doesn’t square with reasonable logic or the facts. “Whenever you have more guns in a society, you’re going to have more gun violence, period” (“More Guns” 2006). The State of Texas is known, quite deservedly, as having an open policy regarding guns. Texas citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns once completing licensing requirements. Then Governor, George W. Bush signed a law that specifically permits Texans to carry guns in church, the most sacredly peaceful of all places. In 2002, the Violence Policy Center conducted a study regarding concealed guns in Texas and found that, among other disturbing revelations, from 1996 to 2001, “concealed handgun license holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the state’s general population aged 21 and older” (“More Guns” 2006). Lawmakers in Texas responded immediately to this situation by passing legislation that forbids the release of gun-related information. Statistics have proven what simple logic tells us, more handguns lead to more violence and fewer guns, as in Japan and Britain, lead to far fewer instances of gun violence. When read in total and in proper context, the Constitution does not allow any one individual to own a gun. In fact the word ‘gun’ cannot be found in the Constitution. It refers to arms. Does that mean we have the right to bear nuclear or chemical armaments? Most would say no, the others should get back on their medications and strapped into bed. A line must be drawn somewhere and other countries have shown us where it should be. Works Cited “(The) Constitution: The Bill of Rights.” (2006). Cornell Law School. Accessed May 2, 2011 from Krouse, William. (October 3, 2002). “Gun Control.” Congressional Research Service. Accessed May 2, 2011 from Loftin, Colin, David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Talbert Cottey. “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia.” New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 325, N. 23, (1991), pp. 1615– 1620. “More Guns Equals More Gun Violence, Not Less.” (2006). Gun Guys. Accessed May 2, 2011 from “Protect Children Not Guns 2010” Children’s Defense Fund Accessed May 2, 2011 from Reynolds, Morgan O. and  Caruth, W. W. III. (December 1992). “Myths about Gun Control.” Policy Report. National Center for Policy Analysis. No. 176, Accessed May 2, 2011 from “Statistics: Gun Violence in Our Communities.” (2005). National Health Administration Health Information Network. Accessed May 2, 2011 from Wright, James D., and Peter H. Rossi. (1994). Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Read More