The Gun Control Laws in America - Term Paper Example

? Should America Have Stronger Gun Control Laws? Tracy Neal Informal Logic Anthony Biduck May 2 Thesis The reasons guns have not been outlawed are many. This action would violate the Constitution, impair hunter’s rights and take away the right to protect one’s family, property or self. The topic of Gun Control is controversial and the debate surrounding it often emotional usually centering on differing interpretations of the Constitution. Most American’s agree that the Second Amendment does allow law-abiding citizens to own guns for protection and hunting. The debate seldom applies to hunter’s rights. However, outlawing handguns outright would affect hunters as well as people that simply wish to protect themselves. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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). This, as were all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was added by the Founding Fathers so as to provide a more clear definition of the specific rights guaranteed to Americans. Gun control advocates consider the Second Amendment to be “obsolete; or is 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). However, they only question the need for people to own firearms that are not primarily designed for sporting purposes such as hunting. Obviously, the right to own arms was of supreme importance to the Founders given that it was listed second only after the freedom of religion and speech was documented in the First Amendment. The Founders knew that by ensuring the right to own arms, citizens would have the ability to protect themselves from that which might endanger their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. This could include bodily protection from persons and animals or from an oppressive government that threatened the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. “The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution’s framers” (Reynolds & Caruth III, 1992). Attempting to disarm criminals is a great plan in some fairy-tale land but is a fruitless venture in the real world. “The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400; that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminals supply would continue with barely an interruption” (Department of Commerce, 1986: 171). The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated (Kopel, 1988). Gun-control advocates argue that handguns serve no purpose except to shoot people. Any hunter will tell you that this is untrue. This underscores the lack of knowledge these advocates possess concerning the activity they denounce. Handguns are bought mainly for reasons of self-defense but nearly 20 percent buy handguns to use for sport-shooting, target practice and about 15 percent buy handguns as collector’s items. Hunters regularly use handguns as a protection against snakes and to hunt game animals (Aagard, 1987: 32). Anti-Thesis The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated. 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. (Wright & Rossi, 1994). Guns in the home are more likely to kill or injure an unintended victim than they are an intruder. When in the hands of irresponsible gun owners are potentially dangerous if children reside in the house. In addition, if the owner does possess the confidence or adequate training required to use it effectively, the weapon could still prove useless in a stressful situation. “Many people have been seriously hurt in violent encounters with a potential gun in their hand. In the stress of the moment, they didn’t think to use it or doubted its’ ability to impact the situation” (LaHaie, 2000). The suggestion that more guns in the community would reduce gun violence, that if everyone, evidently including high school students, carried handguns, everyone else would be afraid to use theirs. This is such a twisted and dangerous manipulation of logic and common sense, it is not worthy of rebuttal. In addition, outside of the banning of handguns, hunters have little cause to worry that gun-control advocates will try to take their rifles and shotguns away. According to a report by the National Institute of Justice, recreational use is the most frequent reason given for the purchase of a firearm. (Cook & Ludwig, 1997). Gun enthusiasts 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. In 2002, the Violence Policy Center study conducted a study a 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. More than 30 million hunters purchase permits or licenses and nearly 20 million take part in sporting activities involving firearms each year according to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Vickery, 1994). The Gun Control Act of 1968 states that, “the purpose of federal firearm regulation is to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in the ongoing effort to reduce crime and violence” (Zimring, 1975). Hunters can take comfort in the fact the Act also states, “the intent of the law is not to place any undue or unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens in regard to the lawful acquisition, possession, or use of firearms for hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity” (Zimring, 1975). Hunters should be concerned that handguns are constantly debated but the sport of hunting itself is not under serious threat from gun-control advocates. 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. Synthesis 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 guns has become a detriment to the safety of society which is in opposition to the intentions of the Founders. Though on the surface a somewhat valid argument, the underlying rationale for the right to keep and bear arms remains an essential element for the protection of individual freedoms, which the Founders foresaw. An example can be found the first time gun control was enacted in the U.S. Following the Civil War, many Southern states passed a law that forbade blacks from owing firearms. Because of this, they had no means by which to protect themselves from radical white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Today, minorities of all descriptions including Muslim and homosexuals are better able to protect themselves from hate groups because of their constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms. Many examples of human rights violations have been documented in all parts of the world following laws that banned citizens from owning guns . In 1911, Turkey enacted gun control legislation which led to the extermination of 1.5 million unarmed Armenian citizens of that country by 1917. In 1929, the Soviet Union enacted gun control. From that year until 1953, over 20 million unarmed people identified as political non-conformists were murdered by the state. Approximately 20 million citizens in China were killed for the same reason from 1948 to 1952 following gun control enacted in 1935. Gun control was enacted by the Nazi regime of Germany in 1938. From that time until the end of World War II in 1945, untold millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, politically-defined mentally ill people, political non-conformists and others considered less than ‘normal’ were exterminated. In 1956, Cambodia enacted gun control which led to the eradication of more than a million of its ‘educated’ citizens from1975 to 1977. Similar genocidal events occurred following gun control laws enacted in Guatemala in 1964 and Uganda in 1970 (Fuller, 2005). Safety and security is dependent on the right to bear arms. Police departments are under no legal obligation to protect anyone or any group and usually are only able to react to a crime that has already occurred, take a report and investigate. Gun-control proponents decry the evils of gun ownership every time a tragedy such as Columbine High School or Virginia Tech occurs and though they would like to see every gun taken out the hands of law-abiding citizens, seldom is an enforceable, workable plan offered that would curb gun violence. Disarming citizens would be next to impossible because there are more than 140 million guns in the U.S., a third of which are handguns (Wright et al, 1983: 25). Gun control proponents make a reasoned argument and some valid points worth serious consideration. What they fail to understand is that freedoms come with consequences and responsibilities but having freedom is worth taking the responsibility for your own actions and enduring the consequences, both as an individual and in the context of society. Alcohol, tobacco and automobiles kill many more persons than firearms but Americans are uniquely free to own and use any of these potentially dangerous products. The hallmark of American society, in which its citizens have historically taken great pride, is the fact that they are self-reliant and strongly defend personal liberties. Gun control is but one case in point of an American society that is moving away from these attributes which have defined the nation’s ideals and towards the belief that the government can best deal with its problems. Some people choose to accept threats to their well-being as their fate then depend on the justice system to make everything right. Others, however, choose to defend themselves and their property. References Aagard, Finn. (February 1987). “Handgun Hunting Today.” American Hunter. Cook, Philip J. and Ludwig, Jens. (May 1997). “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.” National Institute of Justice. Accessed April 30, 2011 from Department of Commerce (Bureau of Census). Statistical Abstract of the United States 1986. Washington: Government Printing Office. Fuller, Al. (July 23, 2005). “Gun Control Revisited.” Odessa FactSheet. Vol. 44. Los Altos, CA: The American Horse. Accessed April 30, 2011 from < http://peterverhoeff.com/guncontrol2.htm > Kopel, David B. (July 11, 1988). “Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control.” Cato Institute. Cato Policy Analysis No. 109. Accessed April 30, 2011 from Krouse, William. (October 3, 2002). “Gun Control.” Congressional Research Service. Accessed April 30, 2011 from LaHaie, Randy. (December 2000). “Should You Carry a Personal Safety Device?” Protective Strategies Self-Defense Newsletter. Vol. 1, I. 5. “More Guns Equals More Gun Violence, Not Less” (2006) Gun Guys Accessed April 30, 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 April 30, 2011 from “Statistics: Gun Violence in Our Communities” (2005) National Health Administration Health Information Network Accessed April 30, 2011 from < http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm> “(The) Constitution: The Bill of Rights.” (2006). Cornell Law School. Accessed April 30, 2011 from Wright, James D., and Peter H. Rossi. (1994). Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Aldine de Gruyter. Zimring, Franklin E. (1975). “Firearms And Federal Law: The Gun Control Act Of 1968.” Journal of Legal Studies. Accessed April 30, 2003 from Read More