Gun Control in the United States - Research Paper Example

? Gun Control in the United s < > < > < > February 28 Thesis It is obvious that the existing legal framework for gun control in the United States is weak and failing to address the serious and devastating effects of gun violence in our communities. The statistics for gun violence in the United States are staggering and deeply concerning, and a new approach is needed. What form this approach should take, whether stricter, nationwide controls on gun sales, or a complete ban on the sale of handguns to private individuals, is uncertain, but it is clear that a renewed public debate is essential. Sugarmann (2001) found that between 1962 and 2001, an astonishing 670,000 Americans were killed by handguns, and that ‘Our nation leads the industrialized world in firearms violence of all types’ (p. 177). Spitzer (2008) agrees that in recent years, ‘more than 30,000 Americans have been killed annually as the result of the homicidal, accidental, and suicidal use of guns’ (p. 7). This problem takes on even more worrying proportions when the American statistics are compared with those of other democratic and industrialized countries. In 1995, for example, the United States firearms death rate was 13.7 per 100,000, in Canada it was 3.9 per 100,000 and in England and Wales it was just 0.4 per 100,000 (Sugarmann, 2001, p. 178). The perhaps surprising gulf between the statistics for the United States and for other countries prompted DeConde (2001) to ask, ‘Why…with all its wealth and power, has the United States failed time and again to establish a legal structure that…would confine gun violence within bounds at least comparable to those of other advanced democratic countries?’ (p. 6). Guns in America are relatively cheap, readily available, and not regulated to any effective extent. In the other countries mentioned above, tighter gun laws which mainly keep weapons out of the hands of private citizens are an effective safeguard against firearms violence, but in America no effective regulations exist. The gun control debate is regularly intensified by appalling examples of unrestrained gun violence, as has recently occurred with the shootings at Tucson, Arizona. By taking another of these events as an example, we will see how existing gun control regulations are failing. In 1998, Russell Weston, Jr. managed to smuggle a gun into the Capitol building in Washington D.C., and killed two police officers and wounded a bystander before he could be stopped. Weston had previously spent time in a mental hospital in Montana, a fact which should have excluded him from purchasing handguns, but he was still able to obtain an Illinois gun license. In this case, it was the lack of an effective national system for sharing records which was to blame, but in other cases it has been the scarce legislation in some states, and the lack of comprehensive and effective background checks. Furthermore, there appears to be strong popular support for great controls on guns in the United States. Canter (2006) examined the findings of polls by Gallup and Harris, among other national surveyors, and found that they ‘consistently reveal strong support (85-90 per cent)for the Brady Law, even among gun owners (75-80 per cent’ (p.36). The Brady law was passed in 1993, and introduced a 5-day waiting period for handgun purchases, during which background checks were to be conducted to ascertain if the purchaser was suitable. Brady, incidentally, was wounded when defending President Reagan from gunfire, and has since been a prominent campaigner on gun controls. Anti-thesis Several anti-gun control groups, and notably the National Rifle Association (NRA) have long claimed that tighter gun control laws would not be the best approach to tackling gun violence in the United States. As the prominent NRA slogan states, ‘Guns don’t kill; people do’ (Canter, 2006, p.3). It should be noted that organizations such as the NRA use their considerable financial influence to lobby politicians in Washington D.C., and some consider that its actions have made a complete ban on handguns in private hands a practical impossibility. Furthermore, many feel that a gun is a right if it is to be used solely for self-defense. No doubt many Americans, and especially those living on isolated rural properties, beyond the effective reach of rapid response from law enforcement authorities, feel much safer for having firearms to hand. It is often claimed that it is the right of the law-abiding citizen to own firearms should they so wish. For anti-gun control groups, this right is supported by the Second Amendment of the United States constitution, which reads, ‘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’. However, even over the meaning of this statement there is little agreement, as Henderson (2000) outlines (p. 17). There is some question over whether the reference to the ‘Militia’ states the purpose of the amendment, or whether it is limiting the rights to bear and use arms to a context of communal civic defense. Similarly, different groups argue over whether ‘the people’ means that the whole community has a right to maintain the militia, or whether each individual has a right to bear arms. Those who move for stricter gun control claim that the Second Amendment only applies to using arms as part of a state-controlled militia, the equivalent of which today would surely be the National Guard, but the meaning of ‘militia’ is itself contentious, with it sometimes being defined as all able-bodied citizens. When advocates on each side of the debate cannot even agree on basic facts or definitions, there is little room left for compromise. As well as considering the case against introducing stricter gun control laws, we might look at whether regulations and laws are the answer the gun violence crisis. Attempts at regulation, such as Brady’s law, have been tried before, and have had very limited success. To a great extent this is because of the limitations of the government systems, whereby each state has very different gun laws, and then there is just a scattering of federal statutes on top of this. The patchwork of legislation that results has not worked, and perhaps the problem with gun violence is more endemic, and needs a more drastic solution. Perhaps, therefore, a case should be made for a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms, except where they are necessary for a person’s livelihood. Synthesis The federal government, as Henderson (2000) notes, first began to regulate firearms in 1927, and there has since been a national debate on various proposals for controlling gun sales in the country. In the 1960s, this debate was fuelled by a series of high-profile assassinations, as well as violence between different racial groups, and in the 1980s, violence related to drugs crimes continued the debate. Since the mid-1990s, a series of mass shootings, sometimes in educational institutions, have put the issue firmly back on to the political agenda. For example, at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, two students killed themselves and 13 others. As well as the human and emotional cost of gun crime every year in the US, which is very considerable, there is also the large financial toll. This includes the medical costs of treating the wounded, which may need to be continued over the course of many years, as well as the large amount of work left to law enforcement agencies. Even conservative commentators put the price of immediate medical care for gun victims at $4 billion, while the overall cost may be in excess of $20 billion annually. As Sugarmann (2001) puts it, ‘The gun blithely passes this bill on to the rest of us’ (p. 179). In reply to the issue of self-defense, while many people might feel safer having guns, the reality is quite different. Having examined the statistics, Sugarmann (2001) could state that for every time a handgun was used to kill an attacker in an act of self-defense, there were 109 Americans killed by guns in homicides, suicides, or accidents (p. 180). It is clear that the use of firearms as a self-defense provision is not effective enough to justify allowing large numbers of them to circulate in private hands. Stricter gun controls are one thing, but at present, it is striking that the guns industry, alone of US sectors, is exempted from whole areas of federal law. Health and safety regulations apply to every other area of life across the whole country, but the powerful influence of the gun lobby, and particularly groups such as the NRA, have secured the gun industry’s exemption. We should recognize that even if there were no guns in private hands in the United States, there would still be violence in American society. However, the prevalence and accessibility of guns surely exacerbates existing problems to an extent unknown elsewhere in the developed world. For those contemplating suicide, for example, the presence of a gun does not perhaps lead to having such thoughts, but its availability makes suicide attempts easy, and ensures that they will usually be successful. In violent crime, likewise, guns are efficient killers, and their availability makes fatalities where perhaps there would be none. Spitzer (2008) sums up the situation well when he writes that ‘the presence and easy availability of guns magnify the violent stream in the American character, multiplying its deadly consequences’ (p. 7). Of course, as noted above, this issue polarizes American opinion like few others. This is partly because, for some people, the idea of great controls, or even of banning handguns, strikes at the root of what it means to be an American, given that many consider that firearms have been an essential aspect of the national culture from the very beginning. Weir (1997), for example, wrote of ‘a long and, in many cases, glorious tradition of gun ownership and gun use’ (p. 157). On the other side of the argument, many who are less attached to the historical associations of guns in America are acutely aware of their destructive effects on the social fabric. It is fitting, therefore, to conclude with Vizzard’s (2000) observation that ‘These conflicts, rooted in the very fiber of American culture and values, will not soon abate, even in the unlikely eventuality that more orderly and rational policies are adopted’ (p. xiii). References Canter, G.L. (2006). Gun Control in the United States. California: ABC-CLIO. DeConde, A. (2001). Gun Violence in America: The Struggle for Control. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Henderson, H. (2000). Gun Control. New York: Facts on File. Spitzer, R.J. (2002), ‘Background Checks’ in Carter, G.L. (Ed.) Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. California: ABC-CLIO. Spitzer, R.J. (2008). The Politics of Gun Control. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. Sugarmann, J. (2001). Every Handgun is Aimed at You. New York: New Press. Vizzard, W.J. (2000). Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Weir, W. (1997). A Well Regulated Militia. Conn.: North Haven. Read More