Outlawing the Ownership of Handguns - Essay Example

Any gun control debate typically focuses on two arguments. The argument favored by those who advocate outlawing ownership of handguns is supported by the theory that a restriction on gun ownership reduces gun related crimes. Arguments against gun control laws are predicated on the theory that it deprives innocent victims of a formidable defense mechanism. For Americans, any firearm represents equality and individualism. (LaFeber, 1989) In the United States, any discussion relating to arguments in favor of gun control is purely for academic purposes as the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution provides 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.’ (Rights of the People) All fifty of the United States have laws recognizing the right to bear arms as contained in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. By virtue of the Second Amendment and the Constitutions of at least 44 US states recognize ‘the right to use arms for defense.’ (The War Against Handguns) Moreover, a survey conducted by Lawrence Research in 1998 reveals that ‘by an 8:1 margin, Americans believe you have the right to use a handgun to defend yourself in your own home. By a 3:1 margin, people believe that to fight crime, getting tough with criminals is more effective than banning guns.’ (The War Against Handguns) This trend and ideology within the American legal culture to recognize a right to armed self-defense has been criticized for many reasons. The most obvious relates to the incidents of handgun related crimes and the potential for accidental death and serious injury Professor Friedland of the University of Toronto does not feel that the protection of life, liberty or property is sufficient to justify possession of a handgun or any type of firearm. He maintains that ‘Citizens should rely on the police, security guards, and alarm systems for protection.’(Friedland 1975-1976 pp 50-51) This argument is patently flawed when one considers the ruling in Warren v Districk of Columbia where it was held that ‘official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . [there is] no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.’ (Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981) Gary Kleck maintains that the contention that most homicides are committed by other-wise law abiding citizens is false. In fact, he says that more than half of the homicides are committed by persons with previous arrests records usually for felonies involving some kind of violence. (Kleck, 1986). An FBI report on crime indicates that ‘53% of homicides in 1997,’ were committed with the use of handguns. (The War Against Handguns) Another report by the FBI in 1973 reflected that ‘a firearm kept in the home for self-defense is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide involving a relative or a friend than against a burglar or unlawful intruder.’(Drinan 1976) This argument is easily countered by a survey conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck. The results of this survey revealed that ‘handguns are used in about 2/3 of 2.5 million annual defensive firearm uses.’ (Kleck 1989) The survey also demonstrated when firearms are used for self-defense methods victims ‘are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other or non-protective methods.’(Kleck 1989) The results of Kleck’s survey can be summarized as follows: Individuals injured using guns as a means of protection-- 17.4% Individuals injured using a knife-- 40.3%, Individuals injured using another weapon -- 22.0%, Those using physical force -- 50.8%, Individuals who tried to get help or dissuade the criminal -- 48.9%. (Kleck 1989) A survey conducted by the National Crime Panel Survey reveals that having conducted an analysis of eight cities, ‘only 3.5% of those owning guns even had the opportunity to use their firearms when they were assaulted or robbed either at home or on the street.’ Among the eight cities surveyed were Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Newark, Portland, and St. Louis. (Drinan 1976) An estimate released by the FBI indicates that 99 percent of residential burglaries were conducted at times when the home was not occupied. Drinan explains that ‘it would seem that the presence of a gun in the home, if this is known to a prospective burglar, would probably constitute an inducement, rather than a deterrent, to the commission of a crime. A gun in an empty house is a lure.’ (Drinan 1976) Another study conducted by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council of New York estimates that over a half million handguns were stolen during the commission of residential burglaries in the year 1972. (Drinan 1976) Be that as it may, history reveals that banning handguns or firearms generally only operates to increase homicide rates. In the 1960’s, Washington D.C. passed a series of laws designed to control and regulate possession of handguns. Prior police approval and registration was required for ownership of handguns. As a result of this restriction on handguns, homicide rates more than tripled in the state. (Drinan 1976) President of the Police Foundation and former police commissioner of New York City, Patrick V. Murphy said that ‘Ive always recommended to shopkeepers that they not have guns because, in my experience, what happens more often than not, is that violence begets violence. When we look at the total picture, I think that shopkeepers are killed more often or injured more often when they draw a gun. . . . I think youre safer as a small store owner not to have a gun.’ (Drinan) However, history and facts prove this position wrong. In April 1982, the Kennesaw, Georgia government passed the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 8: Civil Defense and Disaster Relief, Section 8-10. The Ordinance stated that ‘every head of household residing in the City Limits of the City of Kennesaw is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition’. (Drinan) The intent was that the publicity generated by this new Ordinance would serve as a warning to criminals and would-be criminals alike. The message was that private citizens had the government’s permission to protect themselves by the use of firearms. The results were astounding. Following the Ordinance ‘violent crimes in Kennesaw dropped 71%; burglaries dropped 65%. Between 1981-1993, Kennesaws population doubled, but burglaries dropped 16%.’ (Drinan) One of America’s most influential anti-gun lobbyists, Marvin Wolfgang, a criminologist stated in 1995, that ideally, all forms of guns should be eliminated, from the civilian population and maybe even from the police.’ (The War Against Handguns) Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy indicated back in 1999 that he doubted that the American public would be supportive of an all inclusive ban on handguns.(Ariel 1999) Patrick Kennedy’s sentiment reflects the pervasive attitude within the American culture toward the possession of the firearm. Dr. Katherine K. Christoffel, founder of the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan in a letter dated 28th September 1993 to Dr. Edgar Sutter of Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Policy, said ‘that the groups purpose is to ‘work toward changing societys attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns.’ (The War Against Handguns) The general attitude is that the handgun maintains the balance of fear. More particularly, the fear of becoming the victim of a crime is offset by the criminal’s fear of retaliation from an armed victim. This balance of fear however, threatens the survival of civilized communities. The idea of ‘a society in which everyone goes armed in the interest of self-defense’ compromises order and organization.(Drinan 1976) However, the balance of fear restores order and protects civilization. Whether or not outlawing possession of handguns can and will reduce gun-related crimes is by all means not the only rationale for imposing a ban. It symbolizes a condemnation of violence. The symbolic message that such a ban conveys is another rationale, and perhaps the best one. But statistics discussed reveals that permitting homeowners to possess firearms for self-defense serves as a deterrence against violent crimes. Walter McCaffrey, New York City Council Member, when participating on the assault weapon’s ban said ‘to those who question the words of symbolism, we live an a world filled with both substance and symbolism. It is my belief that this is an important piece of legislation to send a message, as a piece of symbolism .’ (Committee on Public Safety, 1991: 67). It is difficult to disagree with this statement in light of the message sent and received to the criminal community in Kennesaw, Georgia. The idea that the government indorsed the use of handguns against criminals was enough to decrease the crime rate in Kennesaw. The most productive argument in favor of outlawing the ownership of handguns is founded on pure common sense. If handguns are not available, we simply can not avail ourselves of them. The ease with which they can be concealed and used makes them a far more dangerous weapon than any other firearm. Common sense dictates however, that if a would-be criminal is confronted with a gun, he is less likely to complete the commission of the crime than he is if an unarmed victim merely gives the criminal what he wants and offers no meaningful resistance. Works Cited Ariel, Sabar. Kennedy joins effort to pass gun-control measures. The Providence Journal, 1/4/99 Committee on Public Safety. Walter McCaffery, City Council of New York. July 24, 1991 http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/IDEOLOGY%20OF%20GUN%20OWNERSHIP%20AND%20GUN%20CONTROL.htm Viewed December 7, 2006 Drinan, Robert F. (1976) Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Drinan1.html Viewed December 7, 2006 Friedland, M. L. 1975-76. Gun Control: The Options. Criminal Law Quarterly. 18: 29-71 Kates, Donald B. 1990. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco: Pacific Institute. http://www.2ndlawlib.org/related/katesreal.html Viewed December 7, 2006 Kennett, Lee and James LaVerne Anderson. 1975. The Gun in America: The Origins of a National Dilemma. New York: Westport Press. LaFeber, Walter. (1989) The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad since 1750. New York: W. W. Norton. Rights of the People. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/arms.htm Viewed December 7, 2006 The War Against Handguns. http://www.handguncontrol.net/war_against_handguns.htm Viewed December 7, 2006 Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d1 1, D.C. App. 1981   Read More