Handgun control - Research Paper Example

Handgun Control There are several issues that are looked at while reviewing handgun control. This is because some people perceive handgun control as a crime issue, while others perceive it as rights issues. Handgun control can be said to be an educational issue, political issue, safety issue, and racial issue, among other issues. Within each category, there are people who have called for more gun control legislation, while others require less. Considering both sides, this issues opinions and debates ranges from moderate to extreme points. This paper, thematically, describes handgun control legislation that have been laid down to investigate and regulate how people posses and handle handguns. Handguns are not meant to be possessed and used by everyone. This is because not everyone can handle firearms safely, while others choose to handle firearms inappropriately. The federal government has passed laws regulating the use and ownership of firearms, as more legislation is still being considered (Gunter 1). This legislation usually restricts, to some extent, the rights of individuals to use and possess firearms. Some restrictions have been considered of importance, while some are considered to have applied double standards (Gunter 2). The society benefits a lot when the firearms are handled by some responsible individuals. Disarming these people does the society more harm than good. In order to understand gun control legislation, it is necessary to understand the phrase’ a “responsible citizen”. According to a local police officer, Steve Rusiecki, a responsible citizen is one who is a law-abiding citizen, does not abuse alcohol or drugs, has no felony records, has renounced U.S. citizenship, is legally in the U.S., is not mentally sick, and has not been dishonorably discharged from the military (Savage 1). This description entails all the elements from the Arizona’s concealed carry law and Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The founding fathers made the second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and it 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” (Savage 2). It was then included into the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers feared the federal government was going to oppress its citizens if they had no means of defend their nations and themselves. The right to possess and use guns was facilitated by Algernon Sidney, Aristotle, John Locke and Cicero (Savage 2). According to Samuel Adams, the militia that is described in the United States Constitution does not only refer to the National Guard or the Army. He suggests this group is comprised of free citizens. In addition, George Manson argues that a well managed militia comprises of Freeholders, Gentlemen and other Freemen (Squires 77). The American Revolutionary War was won with the help of an armed population consisting of militias, continental army, partisans and independent companies. It is, therefore, evident that the Founding Fathers realized that the society can benefit from firearms that are handled by responsible citizens (Squires 77). Many years later after the Revolution War, the government began to introduce regulations on the possession and usage of firearms. The initial measure was concerned with the way in which citizens could carry guns (Harrold 5). For example, in 1850 the Louisiana Supreme Court gave a ruling that the constitution does not guarantee any citizen to carry concealed arms. However, earlier courts’ rulings asserted that the constitution protected the right of citizens to possess and use concealed weapons (Harrold 4). Just some time before Civil War, most Southern States, passed laws that denied the freed blacks and slaves from possessing firearms. This decision was initially made by Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott argued that blacks, and slave had no rights to citizenship and they, therefore, have no right to possess and carry guns. The current gun control legislation takes into account all race of people. The legislation took effect up to the beginning of the Civil War (Savage 2). Most modern gun control legislation are made on the rationale of “Crime Control”. An example of an outstanding bill is the Brandy Bill. This bill is named after James Brandy, who was accidentally shot during the attempted assassination on President Reagan in 1981 (Gunter 1). Most people took advantage of this incident and supported the bill, claiming it reduces crime in the society and saves more lives. The problem is that the regulations presented in the Brandy Bill would not have prevented Mr. John Hinckley from purchasing the gun he used to shoot Jim Brandy and President Reagan. The check he used to purchase the gun indicated that he was not mentally ill and had no felony in any jurisdiction (Harrold 2). A further limitation of Brandy Bill is that it only has effects on the legal transactions. A criminal is defined as someone who breaks the law. Criminals have several ways of acquiring weapons without following the processes that are stipulated in the Brandy Bill. This may include black market purchases or theft. A report released by FBI indicated that only one out of six guns used in criminal activities are legally acquired (Doherty 71). Since the Brandy Bill effected only four felons have been identified trying to purchase guns. Steve Rusiecki on Brandy Bill argues that, this bill is emotionally directed to reduce criminal activities, and it is not drafted based on legitimate facts. Therefore, Brandy Bill is not an appropriate crime prevention tool (Doherty 71). The Brandy Bill is, therefore, not an effective tool for fighting crime; however, it directly affects criminal activities. The five days that were set to check on it effects can be referred to as the “cooling off” period that was meant to reduce crime of passion. This five-day wait was waived in states such as Virginia which have constant background check system in place (Doherty 71). The other example of gun control legislation that affects criminals is the “Assault Weapon” ban, which is included in the crime bill of 1994. Supporters of this legislation purport the firearm that are banned by this bill are weapons of drug dealers and gangs, while the FBI still maintain that the content of this information has not been revealed into the public (Harrold 2). During the Congressional hearings of March 31, 2011, several individuals testified that they used banned firearms to prevent crimes and defend their lives. The society was protected by the virtue that these people had guns. Society loses a lot when most of its innocent citizens die in the hands of criminals. It is essential to note that crime is not the only issue associated with the ownership of firearms. Hunting is practiced in the United States as a sport, and as a source of food. Most people, even the federal government, perceive hunting as a threat to the environment and wildlife. However, wildlife biologists have established that hunting is a natural activity that facilitates the balancing of the eco-system, thus beneficial to the environment and wildlife (Savage 2). The rationale is that, when wildlife population grows bigger, the animals’ numbers overcome the available source of food, and food becomes scarce. Wildlife biologists usually determine the number of animals that can be supported within a given region. The numbers of excess animals that are available for hunting are also determined, and hunting days are set. The non-game wildlife is also protected by private individuals and hunters who own guns. Most of the funds that are used to manage state Game and Fish and other wildlife agencies come from the sale of federal duck stamps, exercise taxes levied on the sales of ammunition and firearms, and sales of hunting licenses (Squires 77). Approximately more than three billion dollars have been collected from these sources. The revenue has been allocated to conserve both the game and non-game animals. It is, therefore, evident that gun ownership is beneficial to the environment, which is liked by everyone. Throughout the history of man, violence has been witnessed every now and again. The strong usually overpowers the meek and weak. Laws are often passed to protect the innocent ant their property, but violence has not stopped. Law is meant to change the human behavior but not human nature (Squires 77). Laws alone cannot protect citizens from aggression; therefore, people need to be encouraged to protect themselves. The need for self-protection is the reason why almost half of the Americans own guns. Not all people of the same size have the same amount of physical strength. People sometimes want to defend themselves from strong aggressors or a group of them. This is typically evident from women who are usually smaller than men. Children and older people are also not physically fit to challenge the young adults. Everybody desires to be safe, but not everyone has the energy to defend themselves. Handguns are thus the most effective tools, currently used for self-defense (Gunter 1). However, their usage should be effectively regulated to achieve some standard measures of security. Most murder or robbery victims have been found to fight back against the criminals and their attackers if they possess guns. Self-defense using a gun does not necessarily mean that the attacker is shot. The gun should only be used to scare away the criminals if the attack conditions are not worse (Crooker 106). Guns are also deterrents to crime. A study done on convicted felons indicated that about forty percent of them ceased from committing the crimes, because they knew their targets had guns. Rape cases significantly dropped in Orlando Florida from thirty-six to four Percent a year, following the state’s program to offer a well self-defense shooting program to women (Crooker 106). There were regulations that women should not just shoot or point a gun at anyone. Because guns are deterrent to these crimes, they are beneficial society. In conclusion, gun control problem exists amongst us, and it has both positive and negative impacts in the society. Currently, there are many opinions on the impacts of this problem in the society. However, the most appropriate solution to this problem has never been established. This is because all the positive and negative effects have their advantages and disadvantages over one another. Any newly introduced gun control legislation will likely collide with the American’s gun history, which strongly governs the American’s attitudes towards firearm possession in the American society. Works Cited Doherty B. Gun control on trial: inside the Supreme Court battle over the Second Amendment. Washington D. C.: Cato Institute, 2008. Print Crooker C. E. Gun Control and Gun Rights. Westport : Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Print Gunter L. "The Gun Safety Double Standard." National Post (2011): 1-2. Print Harrold M. "Does Gun Control Save Lives." Vancouver Sun (2011): 1-5. Print Savage D. G. "Revisiting Right to Bear Arms." McClatchy - Tribune News Service (2011): 1-2. Print Squires P. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms, Violence and Society. NSW: Routledge, 2002. Pront Read More