Gun control does not reduce violence - Thesis Example

? Gun control does not reduce violence Indeed violence is a social malady that needs to be eradicated. It is a mark of barbarism and modern society should strive to remove it from its practice and consciousness to become truly civilized. Violence takes many forms from assault to life and property, to simple bullying that uses brute force to assert its will over another. One of the solutions that are seriously considered in ending violence in society is to control both the use and possession of gun or fire arms. Gun control is seriously considered as one of the solutions 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. This concern is not without basis because there are incidences of crimes and violence that are gun related. The proponents 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. The Second Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States exegetes that “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” (U.S. Const. amend. II). Since the wording of this provision in the Second Amendment is not self-evident, it has given much commentaries and interpretation due to relatively few Supreme Court decisions that should have elucidated on this constitutional provision. For example, we can cite the U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) case whereby it was often cited out of context with the claim otherwise that Second Amendment is "is not a right granted by the Constitution" (Guncite.com, 2010). This becomes problematic because this runs counter to the Amendments in the Bill of Rights which is the very foundation of United States Constitution. This out of context interpretation also resulted in other flawed state regulation such as a provision in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 law in the District of Columbia that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 also contained a provision that prohibits the residents of the District of Columbia from owning handguns except those that were registered prior to 1975. As expected, the law was challenged and was elevated in the Supreme Court. Until finally on June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court made a decision to affirm the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals had initially made a decision to remove two provisions in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. The provisions that were removed as unconstitutional were the provision that prohibits the residence of District of Columbia from the ownership of handguns except prior 1975 and the provision that requires all firearms to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" at all times. The decision elaborated that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to bear arms” further stating its decision was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government” (Library of Congress, 2012). Further, this right help preserve a citizen militia “the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." (Guncite.com, 2010). With regard to handgun ownership, the Supreme Court thus decided that the District of Columbia cannot prohibit its citizen from owning such as guaranteed by the right enunciated in the Second Amendment albeit subjected to restrictions. The specific provision of Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 that specified that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" was also struck down as unconstitutional. Although the District asserted that there are exceptions to this provision, it still meant to a total prohibition on functional firearms that would be used for self defense. The court further exegete; Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional. Further, in the original U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1876 case which is often misinterpreted as a court interpretation that do not protect an individual to keep and bear arms, the misinterpretation stems from the fact that the Court considered this right to be exist even before the formation of the Constitution and therefore not granted by the Constitution. Furthermore, the case also involves the questioning of the First Amendment which the Court also acknowledged to be pre-existing even before the Constitution was created. It is therefore proper to put in perspective that a statute cannot grant what already existed. It can merely acknowledge the existence of such as in the case of the people’s right to keep and bear arms and to peaceful assembly and redress as contended in the U.S. v. Cruikshank case in 1876 (Guncite.com, 2010). To remove any room for misinterpretation, the court explained that; The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police” (Guncite.com, 2010). Gun ownership as viewed by the state under the guidance of the Second Amendment furthered the conclusion that all citizens capable of bearing arms or the gun owners, constitute a reserve military force of the United States as internal security measure against external threat. This was explicitly stated in the Presser v. People case of Illinois in 1886 whereby the court opined in dicta for the purpose of precedent that; It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government (Guncite.com, 2010). Having stated these facts from the official transcript of government Courts as it articulates its stand and view on gun ownership, Court records and in a manner of speaking, the official government stand on gun ownership and control, clearly states that it view guns and firearms not as a source or tool of violence but rather a means of self-defense of one’s abode, life and property, but as a country and society as a whole with the gun owners taken as a reserve militia or military force of the government in case of a threat. It is therefore the stand of government that gun owners are not violent people but a reserve force that it can call on when the country is under external threat with the addition that the gun owners can also protect themselves, their loved ones, their homes and properties. The argument that disfavor gun control as a means to reduce violence is not only limited to government policy as articulated by its Courts and Constitution but also by concrete study based on empirical experience. Experience in fact 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). Inferring from this figure, it seems to show 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 includes 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. The reduction of violence is not posited on the regulation of guns. It is 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. Gun itself is a neutral tool. Just like fire, it only becomes depending how it is used. Just like fire that can warm and do many wonderful things but can also set things ablaze and destroy. Guns in the same manner can protect and maintain peace and order when used responsibly but can also become a tool of violence and crime when used wantonly. Firearms neither kill, nor harm, nor inflict violence nor defend or maintain peace. It only becomes an instrument of peace, violence or crime depending on the individual who used it. Violence therefore comes from the individual who used it and not the gun itself. It is people who get violent and violence will still persist for as long as there are people who are predisposed to violence. In the absence of guns, other weapons can be used in carrying out violence and the number of alternatives is still overwhelming that ranges from knives to baseball bats or anything a violent person can get hold or make of. Guns therefore if we chose it to be, can be an instrument of peace instead of violence. Critique on gun use and ownership and those who advocate gun-less society argues that not all are responsible and guns could be used by criminal elements. While this argument is partially true, the Courts also provided safety net against the abuse in the exercise of the right to own and bear gun as stated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The Court articulated the limit of this right and delineated as to who could bear arms and those who could not. In the case of Presser v. People of Illinois in 1886, Herman Presser was convicted of parading a group of men without the proper authorization from the authorities in the state of Illinois. Presser in his defense used the Second Amendment and argued that the State violated the provision in Second Amendment of his right to bear arms. The Court however clarified that the state has the power to control and regulate military bodies including its activity of parade. This is important to cite because this case stated control and regulation of the Second Amendment which may be construed as regulation and control of the right to bear and carry arms. The limitation that was set by Court of its power to control and regulate is however on the activities of military bodies and not on guns per se. To illustrate the pragmatism of this limitation, we can use the simplified example of our armed forces regulated by the government on their use of their arms. Without such control and regulation, our arm forces or other militia may run loose with their high powered firearms defeating the purpose and intent of Second Amendment which is for self-defense of home, self, property and state. Another limitation set forth by the Court to avoid abuse in the exercise of our right to bear and carry arms is 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. This is also consistent with the spirit of the law that the Second Amendment was created in light of creating an efficient militia that defends and protects rather cause harm by those potentially dangerous and irresponsible people. It has to be remembered that 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. As reflected in other sections of the Bill of Rights, the provision in the Second Amendment is visionary that regarded Americans not as a gung-ho’ who would run amuck when issued a gun but rather as responsible citizens who could be trusted to own and bear a gun to defend his/her home, life, property and ultimately his/her country through the right entrusted by the government to carry and bear arms through the Second Amendment. 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 Benjamin Franklin’s struggle to end slavery when his army did not have the firearms to assert his political will to end slavery against the discriminating Southerners. 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 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 and in effect them 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. The logic also of controlling gun to reduce violence in state policies has impractical implications. To illustrate, we can cite for example the State of Oklahoma which recently implemented SB 1733 which enhanced the citizens of Oklahoma to exercise their Second Amendment rights by allowing them to carry their weapons without concealment. Assuming for the sake of argument that gun control is directly related to violence – that the frequency or intensity of its use is directly related to violence that the more it is used, the more violent people would get and its control or reduction would also have corresponding inverse effect of reducing violence, then Oklahoma is potentially to become chaotic because the right to bear and carry arms is enhanced, this time -it does not even have to be concealed. The development of implementing SB 1733 in Oklahoma that gun can now be carried openly in addition to its legal and liberal use may construe an escalation of violence. The state has 142,000 men and women licensed to carry concealed weapons and this development means that guns “will most likely become commonplace as Oklahomans take advantage of the law by displaying their handguns while they shop for groceries, eat at restaurants and walk into banks” (Fernandez, 2012). Under the parameters and guidelines of gun control equals less violence reasoning, this would be a blatant use of gun and it follows that violence will escalate in Oklahoma. But this causality of behavior is not only naive and over simplistic, but impractical as well. It meant that all the decent and law abiding citizen of Oklahoma will become violent just because gun can be carried openly. Assuming again for the sake of this discussion that we will consider this causality possible, it still cannot hold under the scrutiny of science because no study has conclusively reported that a law abiding and peaceful citizen will morphed into a violent person when given a gun. Under the test of reason, this causality of behavior is just implausible particularly in the United States which can be considered as a mature and responsible society when it comes to gun use and ownership because citizens in general are restraint and has aversion against violence. The logic that more guns equate to more violence works in Third World and war torn countries where lawlessness pervades. United States is not Libya which just came from a civil war where guns have to be collected from civilians to establish and maintain peace and order. The civilians on the other hand refuse to hand their guns over to the authorities until they are convinced that peace and order is already established and that they are already secured in their homes (Duncans, 2011). Still, even in the Libyan case, the prime motivation of the people in keeping their guns is not to inflict violence to others but to protect themselves against lawlessness. In a way, they intend to reduce violence by arming themselves from those who would attempt to sow violence where their arms serve as a self-defense and deterrence against violence. Inferring from the above stated reasons that right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America whose intention is to enable its citizens to protect themselves, their homes, loved ones, and property and also to constitute them as an effective militia to be called on during a national threat-, it is now clear that gun control does not reduce violence. Guns do not make people violent and violent people do not need guns to inflict violence. References Duncan, Don (2011). Qaddafi may be dead, but Libyans stick to their guns. Retrieved from http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/qaddafi-may-be-dead-but-libyans-stick-to-their-guns Fernandez, Manny (October 30, 2012). Will Oklahomans Prepare for New Law That Will Make Guns a Common Sight. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/oklahoma-prepares-for-open-carry-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Guncite.com (2010). Supreme Court Cases. Retrieved from http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html Library of Congress (2012). United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Rogers, Simon (July 22, 2012). Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list U.S. Const. (1791). Amendment II. Read More