The Right to Bear Arms Is a Constitutional Amendment - Essay Example

One of the most hotly contested issues of the current era is with regards to whether or not the second amendment should be literally understood to mean that citizens have the right and privilege to own and bear arms or whether or not it was somehow generally meant to be related to the time in which it was written for specifically to the militia which it references. As a means of understanding this argument and informing the reader with regards to the benefits of gun ownership in the intangible right which the second amendment imbues the citizen with, this particular analysis will take the form of strongly supporting and advocating the right to bear arms as well as presenting analyzing several powerful statistics with regards to how guns are used in defensive means as well as the overall level of deterrence that they provide with regards to crime. Whereas advocates on both sides of this issue oftentimes rely upon emotional appeals to engage the audience, the overall intent of this particular research will be to provide there are final and substantive statistical facts that point to an strongly underscore the important and deterrent role that firearms play with regards to crime and its prevalence. Accordingly, it is the hope of this author that upon a thorough reading an understanding of the statistics and inference that they provide, the reader will come to a more informed opinion with regards to the highly politically charged and emotional issues relating to gun ownership within the United States. Firstly, current rhetoric within the left would have the individual believe that an increase in supply of guns within the market necessarily equates to a direct increase in overall prevalence of violence/homicide within society. Although such an approach seems logical, the fact of the matter is that the statistics most certainly do not support such a point of view. With regards to providing firm and substantive statistics on this topic, figure 1.0 illustrates the lack of correlation that exists between the overall supply of guns within the United States system and the overall prevalence of violent crime. Figure 1.0 Whereas one might assume that murder rates and overall violence/homicide directly tracks with the number of guns, the figure above illustrates the exact opposite (Somma 6). For a brief time span between the years 1967 and 1973, one might infer that there was something of correlation between these two statistics. However, upon viewing a larger time span of the graph one clearly notes that rather than relating to one another, it is likely that overall gun ownership and gun supply within the United States is most likely inversely related to the overall level of homicides as well as suicides. In such a manner, rather than providing concrete evidence and a general appeal for reducing the supply of guns in favor of simultaneously reducing the prevalence of homicide/suicide within the system, the above graph illustrates that an increase in supply of guns within the United States might be argued to be a preventive measure with regards to homicide/suicide (Gius 1680). Although seemingly a strange conclusion to draw, the reduction in homicide as a result of the increase in overall gun supply is actually rather logical. As the preceding section will discuss, the rate and prevalence of violent crime is ultimately deterred by the understanding that the individuals upon which the violent crime is directed may very well have a means of illegally protecting themselves against such an occurrence. Dating as far back as the year 1993 a series of studies and surveys have noted that between 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) are experienced within the United States annually. As a means of defining DGUs, this author, as well as many scholars previously, define such an occurrence as a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen utilizes a firearm as a means of either protecting their own life or the lives of others within a situation in which violence is threatened. Perhaps the most notable of all of these surveys took place in 1994 in the Department of Justice survey which was entitled “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms” (Ioffe 6). As such this particular survey noted that there were at least an estimated 1.5 million DGUs annually. Although it would be unfair to assume that each and every DGU was effective in preventing crime, it can and should be understood that a broad majority of these DGUs have doubtless reduce the overall prevalence of violence within society by means of providing an effective and realistic deterrence through which criminals oftentimes reconsider the use of violence and exhibition of crime (Goldberg 69). Ultimately, this study, as well as many others before it, have indicated that even a percentage of these 1 ½ million instances would represent a valuable deterrent through which crime is lessened within the system. Moreover, approaching the issue from a different perspective, advocates of gun control oftentimes pointed the fact that the founding fathers did not originally intend the Second Amendment to mean specifically what it literally denotes (Schwartz 41). As a means of restructuring and redefining the Second Amendment, gun control advocates oftentimes pointed the fact that the second amendment was specifically intended and directed towards the ability of state militia (understood now in terms of National Guard) to bear arms on behalf of defending their region (Gun Control 4). However, an analysis outside of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution with regards to the historical statements that the founding fathers made on such topics quickly denotes that this is patently false. For instance, one of the most progressive and liberal founding father, Thomas Jefferson had the following to say with regards to gun ownership the inherent rights of bearing arms: “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks” (Corlin 67). Likewise, in another context Benjamin Franklin said, “hey that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Corlin 67). Finally, in his response to the draft of the Virginia Constitution Jefferson said, “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms” (Corlin 67). As can be seen from the preceding analysis on the topic, the founding fathers most certainly meant what they wrote in the Second Amendment as relating to the right and privilege of all citizens to possess arms; both as a means of protecting themselves from crime and violence as well as placing a corrective level of pressure upon a government that might seek to become overbearing. The recent events in the theater shooting in Colorado or the horrific events of Columbine and/or Sandy Hook illustrate the fact that guns can ultimately be used to horrific ends. It is not the point of this analysis to argue that guns in and of themselves are a perfect deterrent to crime. Rather, they are merely a tool; a tool that is guaranteed protection under the rights of the United States most sacred Bill of Rights. As was demonstrated but a few weeks ago within the horrific bombings in Boston, tools such as pressure cookers can be used in heinous and unpredictable ways. In such a way, a much more reasonable and logical approach to the evidence of crime within society is to punish the criminal himself as compared to stripping the rights guaranteed by law from the very foundations of the United States system of governance. Works Cited Corlin, Richard F. "The Secrets Of Gun Violence In America." Vital Speeches Of The Day 67.20 (2001): 610. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2013. "Gun Control Overview." Congressional Digest 92.3 (2013): 3-7. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2013. Gius, Mark. "The Effect Of Gun Ownership Rates On Homicide Rates: A State-Level Analysis." Applied Economics Letters 16.17 (2009): 1687-1690. Business Source Premier. Web. 6 May 2013. GOLDBERG, JEFFREY. "THE CASE FOR MORE Guns (AND MORE GUN CONTROL)." Atlantic Monthly (10727825) 310.5 (2012): 68-78. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2013. IOFFE, JULIA. "Crackpots And Kalashnikovs." New Republic 243.18 (2012): 5-7. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2013. Somma, Ryan. "Never A Magic Bullet." Humanist 73.2 (2013): 6-8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2013. Schwartz, Emma. "In Congress, The Uphill Battle For Gun Control." U.S. News & World Report 144.8 (2008): 41-43. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2013. Read More