Excessive Guns Laws And Gun Crime Statistics - Term Paper Example

Excessive Guns Laws And Gun Crime Statistics Abstract This report is the perspective of excessive guns laws, its impact on weapon possession and usage for legalised and security measures. This report elaborates the views and opinions on the impediments that excessive guns laws create on the hassle free carrying and usage of fire arms by authorised individuals and groups. It is an argumentative discussion on the inefficiency of too many and too stringent gun’s laws, its failure in curbing gun related crime and the fact that it hinders efficient execution of security measures for the people of a Free State. The research is based on the existing guns laws and its contradiction with the second amendment. The report takes a “Pro-gun” or “Pro-gun user” stand and points out facts that support the relaxation of guns laws. It elaborates on the need to shift the focus to other restrictive measures as for example: stricter registration procedures, stringent tracking and recording, background check etc instead of exercising excessive laws on weapon possession. The backdrop of the prevalent gun crime scenario of the United States and the United Kingdom have been taken into consideration in preparing the data, literature review and facts and figures. The report concludes that excessive guns laws is ineffective in curbing gun related crimes and is against the second amendment. Introduction: The Second Amendment: The second amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the larger US Bill of rights and is concerned with protecting the individual’s right to bear and keep arms. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. (“Second Amendment to the United States Constitution” 1) The Second Amendment says 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.” (“Guncite” 1) The interpretation of the second amendment of Guns Laws clearly states that the affiliation of a person to a militia (well regulated military establishment) preserves, guarantees and protects the pre-existing right to possess arms in view of their responsibility for the security of a free state. It however doesn’t grant an individual the right to keep and bear arms. During the discussion, tabling and ratification of the 2nd amendment to the Guns Laws there was a clear intention to prevent jeopardising the rights of individuals invested with the safety and security of a free state, to posses and carry fire arms (e.g.: Guns). This is in clear accordance with continuation of fire-arm possession of individuals already doing the same and barring any individual from possessing or bearing fire-arms without the need of protecting a community. As can be seen from the interpretation and wording of the second amendment, it guarantees the continuation of fire arm possession by individuals and groups already doing the same for the purpose of the security of a free state, and preventing the unauthorised possession of weapons by people who do not have the need to use it or not a part of a militia. Therefore the enforcement of excessive gun’s laws, tightening the noose on hassle free weapon possession and usage by authorised personnel is absolutely unnecessary. This in no possible way has shown reduction in gun related crimes, a decline in the crime rate primarily involving guns and fire arms as well as an overall decline in the global cases filed at law enforcement agencies and security agencies on threats by guns and fire arms. Moreover according to the second amendment of guns laws the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is for a collective purpose. This however doesn’t translate into a collective right, but is a facilitation or empowerment of a group of people in a well regulated militia to be able to efficiently carry out its responsibilities of protecting and providing security to its people. Evidences of Excessive guns laws contradicting the 2nd amendment: The Second amendment clarifies the fact that weapons can be possessed by individuals to protect the interests if a larger community and for the primary purpose of self-defence. Noted legal scholar, lawyer, militia officer and later a US district court judge St. George tucker famously interpreted the Second Amendment as follows: “The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” (“Guncite”, 1) From Tucker’s interpretation of the second amendment it follows that the clause : “Well Regulated militia” was kept to not just authorise a group of people affiliated to a military establishment but to ensure protection of the interests of a larger community and ensuring individual’s primary need for self defence. St. George Tucker in one of his commentaries explains that the need for self defence is a fundamental human right and at any point if it is thwarted or suppressed, then that would lead to the beginning of destruction of liberty. He says that the right of self-defense is the first law of nature. In another interpretation of the second amendment, jurist contemporary to the founding fathers of the US constitution, William Rawle is quoted as: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” (“Guncite”, 1) In his understanding if the second amendment it is clear that the rule is not just restricted to the select few (i.e.., member of a militia). Rawle writes that neither the state nor the national government has the right to disarm its people. He goes to say that according to the second amendment, no clause gives power to the “congress” to disarm its people. It can only be made under some general pretence by the state legislature. He also states that if any blind pursuit of inordinate power attempts to exercise this restriction then the second amendment would apply on both: the state or government and its people as well. In another interpretation of the second amendment by Justice Story he explains that the military establishment is responsible for protecting a free state during sudden invasion or in times of domestic insurrections or domestic usurpations by its rulers. The existence and upkeep of a large military establishment during peace-time is against the principles of free people. This reason for this could be manifold; the huge national expenditure to maintain such a militia as well as the “facile means” which they grant to unprincipled rulers to subvert the government and trample upon the rights of its people. Therefore drawing a conclusion from the interpretation of the second amendment of guns laws it can be clearly understood that the right to possess fire arms for the sole intent of self defence (which is a fundamental human right) is protected and taken into account. The preserving and guaranteeing of pre-existing rights of people affiliated to a “well regulated” militia itself is corollary to the law of individuals possessing fire arms for their own safety and security. This is true without any qualification on their condition or degree. The inefficiency of excessive guns law to control gun related crimes: The world in the recent past has experienced several gun related crimes, sometimes individuals falling prey to the massacres and at times larger groups being subject to the atrocities of fire arms. The Virginia Tech Massacre is a clear example of a fearful gun crime threatening the safety of a large community due the carrying and possessing of fire arms. In that particular incident which took place in April 16th, 2007 a man named Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting spree killing 32 people and wounding 25 others before committing suicide. The massacre was the deadliest shooting in US history by a single gun man. (“Virginia Tech Massacre” 1) On more ghastly incident of public shooting was the shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona, that targeted congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords leaving six dead, including a nine-year-old child. (“The Guardian” 1) In another incident in the UK, Manchester, the killing of an Indian by an unidentified man brought to light the vulnerability of safety and security of innocent people to the violence unleashed by criminals with hidden intentions and motives. It opened the eyes of the citizen of the UK to the prevailing situation of safety against fire arms and the failure of weapon laws in curbing weapon related crimes. How are these weapons obtained? Where do theses weapons originate from? On what basis are these weapons purchases? Are there any background checks, verifications, registrations done by the Weapons Departments and Law Enforcement agencies? Another big question is on what basis and how are weapon possession records kept with the government and its authorised agencies? How effective are the weapon registration and data storing mechanisms to find the root cause of a fire-arm crime? How effectively is it able to bring the criminals to justice? These are some open questions that one is forced to ponder on, because the presence of strong and excessive guns laws alone doesn’t guarantee a safe environment free from weapon related crime. Rather the entire process of weapon sourcing, migration, registration, auditing etc has to be beefed up, to ensure that such crimes can be clamped down and perpetrators brought to task at the earliest. The true culprit behind the steady rate of gun crime and its varied course of action in recent past is the free and unhindered passage of these fire arms into community areas, like schools, colleges and universities. There are cases where students and teachers carry small hand guns with them while on campus. Having guns on sensitive and volatile environments where binge drinking and drug use are too widespread would increase the risk of suicide, gun thefts, misuse, genocide and numerous other gun-related crimes. Instead of having a blanket law on gun possession and usage there should be separate specific laws on the possession of fire arms in certain areas and premises. Places like: colleges, institutions, schools, libraries, amusement parks, social gatherings etc should be sanitised from fire arms. There should be a federal law in the United States that prevents people from entering with fire arms in their possession. Only law enforcement officers and retired law enforcement should be allowed to possess concealed fire arms while in side local or state government premises, government establishments according to the National Rifle Association’s Las known as LEOSA: Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act Improvement Acts of 2010. Here it doesn’t apply a blanket ban or a ruling against possession of firearms, but it is a reasonable law that allows law enforcement officers of the nation to carry firearms provided they comply with the clauses of the act. (“NRA”, 1) The biggest target of gun related crime is students and minors: essentially the youth of the nations. States should have stronger legislations to allow colleges and districts to impose a restriction on carrying of firearms within the premises of the institution. Students are at the greatest risk for suicide, with 1,100 successful suicides and 24,000 attempts every year (Brady Campaign, 1). Instead of having excessive guns laws the colleges and universities should be sanitised from fire arms. It has been seen that college gun owners having concealed licences are most likely to engage in gun related crime, indulge in binge drinking, administer drugs on themselves, get involved with scuffles and fights with police officers, vandalise property and be arrested for a driving under influence. Also sanitising college campuses and school premises is not sufficient in curbing gin related crime. It has been found from a statistical survey that 93 %of gun related crime and violence against college students occur outside the college campus where there is easy access to weapons and fire arms. Therefore to prevent such crimes laws must be applied to specific territories and specific age groups so that these dangerous people do not have access to such dangerous weapons. Conclusion: To conclude, the second amendment states that any individual bearing allegiance to a militia or a military establishment would have the continuing right to bear and keep weapons because it is in charge of the security if a Free State. Individuals on the other hand are also responsible for their personal safety and security and therefore have the implied right to bear arms. It is imperative that the amendment applies to all parties and in view of a national emergency, a spiralling lack of confidence on the incumbent government, usurpation of power and sovereignty of the state. As interpreted by many jurists, legal thinkers, lawyers and noted government servicemen contemporary to the times of the founding fathers of the guns laws and US constitution, the law is as much for the individuals as it is for protecting and guaranteeing the rights of militia people. It is a individual right for a collective purpose and not a collective right, but on the other hand it is also an implication for the self-defence of the ordinary citizen. The latest data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports state that: there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. California had the most number of gun murders last year, 1257. California over the years has managed to wipe out every single licensed firearms dealer in the city, and has a state legislature that has provided it with some of the most stringent and most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Despite this California still has a murder rate higher than the national average. This is a useful piece of information that shows that gun control laws alone are not sufficient to tackle gun related crimes. (“Officer.coms” 1) The District of Columbia comes on top in terms of fire arm murder rate with 16 fire arm murders per 100,000 people. In the UK on the other hand there were 10,182 firearms offences in the year 2008 to the end of September compared with 9,755 in the previous year - which indicates an increase of more than 400 crimes, or more than eight every week. (Hope 1) These have been mainly caused by illicit purchase of fire arms and illegal trafficking of the same. As discusses earlier, improving licensing and oversight of guns dealers could be one positive step in ensuring legal weapons are not used in crimes. (“John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health”, 1). Proper screening of firearms would also be if great use. In some states purchasing a fire arms from a private dealer doesn’t even necessitate a background check of the customer. Also applying a upper limit to the number of guns purchased per person per month to just one would help. If the records maintenance procedure, licensing and weapon registration procedure is stringent it would help the authorities in nabbing the weapon trafficking racket and also sourcing the root cause of the problem. This way the authorities would be able to trace the source of guns used in crimes. They would be able to tap the nodes of interaction and nodal points where the weapon changed hands from the supplier to distributer, distributer to dealer and dealer to end customer. This would be useful in identifying traffickers and potential problem dealers. Therefore instead of implementing stronger and excessive guns laws preventing the carrying of fire arms for one’s personal safety and self defense, it should be ensured that gun buyers undergo extensive background check by the police, including fingerprinting. The authorities could apply some discretion to deny licenses to people who they deem unfit and a threat to weapon misuse. Therefore stronger registration systems could go a long way in ensuring reduction in interstate gun trafficking. Thus it can be concluded that guns are needed for a person’s safety, and excessive guns laws are not the solution to prevent gun related crime. It is in discordance with the second amendment. Weapon registration processes need to be tightened and particular territories and communities must be detoxified from presence of weapons. This would help in bringing about a decline in gun crimes at the same time ensuring that an individual’s right to safety and possession of a safety gun is not infringed upon. . References: 1. Guncite (2009, Aug 28).Gun Control – Original Intent and Purpose. Retrieved from http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html 2. Brady Campaign (2012, Jan 1st) Brady Campaign – Keep Guns off College Campuses. Retrieved from: http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/publicplaces/gunsoncampus 3. National Rifles Association (2012, Jan 1st) Law Enforcement. Retrieved from http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp 4. The Guardian (2012, Feb 27th). The Guardian - Gun crime statistics by US state: latest data. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state 5. John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (2007, May 14).Preventing Gun Violence in United States. Retrieved from: http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2007/vernick_gun_trafficking.html 6. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (2012, Feb 24) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 7. Officer.COM(2009, Feb 11 ) Case Study- The Failure of Gun Control Laws Retrieved from: http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?133103-Case-Study-The-failure-of-gun-control-laws 8. Hope, Christopher, The Telegraph (2008, Jan 24) 28 Gun Crimes Committed in the UK Everyday Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html Read More