Gun Control

Political Science 1333
Dr. Garrison
December 3rd, 2009

The Gun Control Debate Gun control and the supposed right to a gun have been at the war for many decades. The term gun control refers to policies which seek to regulate the manufacture, sale, ownership, and the use of guns. These policies or the lack there of, are reinforced and intensified ever so often when an unfortunate tragedy occurs. For instance, after the April 16th, 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech University, in which left thirty-three persons including the gunman died, many persons were of the opinion that such an incident could have been avoided through effective gun control measures. However, the issue of gun control is a very sensitive topic in the American society. Many Americans view control gun legislation and policies as an attempt to refute and violate a constitutionally enshrined liberty, which guarantees them a right to own a gun. This liberty to own and possess firearms stems from the Second Amendment which many believe affords the ordinary citizen the right to be armed. On the contrary, there is the other sector of American society who argues that the Second Amendment does not afford or protect and such a right. Moreover, members of this group also argue that if the Constitution does in fact afford such a right it needs to be revisited or repealed since it is not applicable to the present American society. Both sides of the spectrum are heavily represented by influential lobby organization and political action committees which challenge, or support the implementation of new gun legislations or the revising of existing ones. For instance, Handgun Control Inc. also known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is one of the largest gun control lobbying organizations in the U.S. This organization and its influential PAC, seek stricter gun control legislation as a deterrent to gun violence and other gun affiliated crimes. On the other hand, opponents of gun control are represented by powerful lobbying organizations such as the National Riffle Association. The presence of these organizations makes the legal process of enacting gun control legislation a very difficult and sensitive one. These organizations lobby both the democrats and republicans in both houses of Parliament. These organizations exert so much pressure that many senators and members of Parliament are averse to any gun control policies. Furthermore, as with the rest of the American society, these influential persons are also divided on their stance on the entire issue. Consequently, these diversities in opinion and the presence of influential pressure groups make the issue of gun control a very heated and controversial one. Nevertheless, regardless of this diversity of opinions, there is a growing call for Americans to appreciate the dangers that guns present and the subsequent need to protect the rights of the entire society and not just those of a particular group of individuals.

History of Gun Control The right to own or possess a gun is an American freedom which is as old as the country. It is a freedom which many believe is as important as the right to breathe, to protect oneself and one’s property, or even the basic right to enjoy a life free from any means of persecution, or threats to one’s life. Nevertheless, this supposed right has been the object of legal legislation for more than 200 years. According to Stephen P. Halbrook (1989), it was first threatened in 1768 during Britain’s colonial rule of the American colonies when she sought to disarm the colonists of Boston, Massachusetts. Bostonians were openly defiant of all British strategies and regulations which sought to implement increased taxation on the colonies in an attempt to increase British revenue. For instance, the defiance was expressed in response to the Townshed Acts of 1767, which levied duties on imported products such as lead, paper, tea, and glass.1 Bostonians refused to comply with these duties and sought to remove them by terrorizing and threatening the lives and property of custom official who executed the wishes of England. Consequently by 1768, Britain was determined to discipline Bostonians once and for all. In light of possible military actions, Bostonians decided to arm themselves as they sought to protect their interests. Nevertheless, when the British soldiers arrived they were greeted with little or no resistance, but Britain had not taken the colonists’ desire to arm themselves likely. Rumors of an order requiring citizens to declare or turn in their weapons son spread throughout the colony. For example, one report stated that “the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms, which in general they had complied with; and those in possession of any after the expiration of the notice given them, were to take consequences.” (Halbrook, 1989, p. 4) However, according to Halbrook(1989), whether or not such reports held any measure of credibility, there was evidence to suggest that Britain was considering disarming the citizens. He draws support from a London report which declared that “order will soon be given to prevent the exportation of either naval or military stores, gun powder…to any port of North America.”2 This early attempt to disarm the colonist propelled many states to secure this right on their Bill of Rights. For instance, section 12 of the 1790 Pennsylvanian Declaration of Rights declared the following: That the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, and to assemble peaceable together, and apply in a decent manner, to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, shall not be questioned. ( Halbrook, 1989, p. 27) Gun ownership was further protected on a National level through the Second Amendment of 1791 which proposed 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.”3 Nevertheless, throughout the decades, this supposed right has been the subject of much legislation. For example, the use of fully automatic firearms like submarine guns was regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, while the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 placed the first limitations on the sale of ordinary firearms. This act required the sellers of firearms to obtain a Federal License and to maintain records of the buyers of firearms.4 Such measures were not met with mush public resistance. However, many historians argue that the unfortunate assassinations of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Junior, led Americans to question their relaxed attitude towards the ownership of guns and the corresponding need for increased gun control. Additionally, many believe that it was this realization and the thought provoking consequences that gave rise to the heated gun control debate which currently exists. The Federal government responded to these violent acts with the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act which sought to keep guns out of the hands of those “not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.” Furthermore, this act also implemented increased regulation on the importation, manufacturing, and sale of firearms.5 These legislations were followed by many others in subsequent years and the passing of each new of legislation only aided the fire of the gun control debate. Many countries besides the U.S. has experimented with gun control policies such as Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and Great Britain. In each of these countries the success of such legislations differs. However, it must be noted that no others country’s gun control debate is as heated and diverse as that of the American.
Present View Points on Gun Control There are many diverse view points on the issue of gun control. Additionally, on each side of the spectrum there are varying arguments which can be provided to support each view point. Proponents in support of gun control argue that there is a corresponding linkage between violence and the availability of guns and firearms. Their stance is rooted in the belief that without guns there will be no violent crimes especially those associated with guns. To support their claim, proponents for gun control draw reference to countries which have experienced reduced crime rates due to the implementation of gun control policies, or which have less violence due to the presence of fewer guns and stricter gun laws. For instance, a 1996 study undertaken by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence revealed that the U.S. gun related murder rate was more than 100 hundred times greater than that of Great Britain, Canada, and Japan. Furthermore, in that same year twenty-two persons in Great Britain died in gun related incidents while eighty-seven died in Japan, sixty-eight in Canada, and a staggering 11,719 in the U.S. (Bijlefeld 1997) The study consequently attributed this discrepancy to strict gun control legislation which bans handguns and assault weapons from the general public. Moreover, a study conducted by Arthur Kellerman which compared rates of firearm related crime in Seattle, Washington with that of Vancouver, Canada, it was argued that an individual was five times more likely to be murdered by a handgun in Seattle that in Vancouver. Therefore, in accordance with such evidence, gun control advocates argue that gun control is necessary to reduce violent crime. On the other hand, opponents of gun control argue that such views and claims are misleading. For instance, many opponents are of the belief that gun control legislation has little effect upon the murder rate in these countries since the rates were already low before the enactment of such legislations. Furthermore, gun control opponents argue that one cannot simply compare crime statistics of foreign countries with that of the U.S. since each country compiles crime data by different means. Additionally, crime rates in each country are influenced by specific factors such as politics, culture, race relations, and religious orientations, which are unique to each country, Consequently, opponents of gun control argue that these statistics are not credible due to the diversity in data collection methods and influential factors on crime which vary from one country to another.(Bijlefeld, 1997, p.119) Moreover, the credibility of such statistics have been further undermined by evidence which support the underreporting of crime statistics in an attempt to improve national and international image. Headlines such as “Crime figures a sham” and “police figures under-record offences by 20%,” in many British papers serve as proof of the British authorities’ manipulation of crime data.6This practice is also widely common in Japan where police distortion of true crime rates are mainly done to achieve a higher more favorable efficiency rates and consequently derive a greater sense of worthiness for the citizens’ respect.(Bijlefeld, 1997, p.119) Proponents of gun control also argue that the availability of guns aid the occurrence of crimes which would not have occurred without the presence of a gun. Gun advocates further claim that the presence or availability of a gun can transform a simple confrontation into a deadly one. Additionally, it is believed that the presence of a gun can have one of two effects on an argument. First, it can give the confronter a false sense of security or empowerment which the individual may otherwise lack. This realization can influence the confronter to agitate the other individual involved in the argument beyond the reasonable degree that he would have ventured without the possession of the gun. If such measures are executed an otherwise simple argument can escalate to a point of no return. Second, the presence of a gun may encourage the confronted individual to take extra measures to protect him or herself. These measures are not always the best, and consequently they may result in an unfortunate end to a rather simple confrontation. Moreover, gun control advocates also argue that the presence of a gun facilitates crimes since the possession of a firearm makes an otherwise daunting activity a very easy job. For instance, if a criminal decides to rob a convenience, such as task will be difficult to execute without a gun which immediately conveys a death sentence to the store owner. Therefore, without some form of firearm such a desire simply remains as a desire. (Freedman 1989) On the contrary, opponents of gun control argue that the mere presence or availability of a gun does not aid the occurrence of crime. Instead, it is ineffective socialization or the lack thereof that contributes to crime. In support of this view opponents draw reference to countries such as Switzerland which enjoy a very low crime rate despite the fact that handguns can be easily acquired by a simple permit to purchase, and which by 1994 had over 3,000 shooting ranges. Furthermore according to Kopel (1994), the difference between the Swiss and American crime rate is not “the presence of firearms, but is the degree to which young people are effectively socialized into non-criminal, responsible behavior patterns.” (p. 153-155) However, such an argument, though true, can be very deadly. In the present American society, the relatively solid family structure, values, and norms which existed fifty or even a mere decade ago no longer exists. Additionally, the present American society is extremely liberal in comparison to its former counterparts. Hence, what was previously definitely unacceptable is warmly welcomed with open arms. Furthermore, the socialization process formerly executed by institutions such as the family, the school, and the church ado not exert the influential force that they once did. Additionally, due to the cultural diversity of society which is rapidly and consistently altering, norms and values which are upheld by one cultural sect may not be applicable to another. Consequently, due to all these factors it will be totally illogical to rely on mere socialization as the sole deterrent to crime. Moreover, wouldn’t it be safer to have more than one safety features or nets so as deter unwanted behavior? Then why can’t gun control policies be granted the ability to act as such safety features? Consequently, gun control advocates argue that the above mentioned position on socialization is similar to that of walking off a cliff with no safety features and still expecting not to be injured. As mentioned previously, the Second Amendment and its supposed right to be armed are at the centre of the debate. Throughout the decades both sides of the spectrum has advanced many credible arguments in support of their point of view. Gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment is a “relic’ of an era in American history where the idea of a nationally organized army or National Guard was non-existent. Thus, the present military and National Guard were replaced by a militia system which was inherited from England. This militia system was not regulated along the same lines of the present army and National Guard. In accordance with this militia system, in times of peace every adult male was obliged to acquire and maintain his own firearms since there were no police and standing army to provide law enforcement or military service. Thus, the maintenance of law and order was vested in the hands of the common man who came together to form these state militias. Consequently, the structure of this system therefore required the average men to be armed. (Freedman 1989) Gun control advocates therefore argue that the right of the ordinary citizen to be armed was only upheld if such an act was a necessity which ensured the existence of an effective state militia. Furthermore, gun control advocates argue that this right has been nullified through the establishments of a federally regulated army and National Guard. Hence, gun control advocates conclude that the establishments of these forms of law enforcements therefore refuted the need for the common man to play an active role in law enforcement and therefore arm himself. Additionally, it can be argued that since there is no present linkage between the possession of arms and the existence and maintenance of state militias, which presently don’t exist, the supposed right enshrined in the Second Amendment bears no weight on legislations which seek to regulate the ownership, or even the usage of firearm by the average citizen. (Bijlefeld, 1997,p.23) Consequently, it can further be argued that since the common man is no longer required to be armed, the Second Amendment cannot be applied to the present American society which has experienced many cultural changes and advancements from since the time of its frontier era. On the other hand, gun rights advocates argue that the present army and National Guard are not the form of militia that was originally intended by the writers of the Second Amendment. This stance is rooted in the belief that the original militia was established to serve as another check on government as a deterrent of its possible tyranny. Such advocates believe that the militias of old armed the common man and therefore enabled him and the states to rise up in rebellion and overthrow a tyrannical government. Gun rights advocates therefore argue that gun control legislation and the establishment of the army and National Guard deprive the common man of the right to arm oneself, assemble, and overthrow a tyrannical government. Furthermore, they believe that the Federal government regulation of the National Guard and army deprives these forms of law enforcement of independence and their subsequent ability to effectively protect and serve the rights of the citizen from government tyranny. (Bijlefeld, 1997, p.23-24) Nevertheless, according to Entran and Henijan, such arguments are faulty since they are steeped in the assumption that the Second Amendment’s definition of militia embraces the concept of “an anonymous armed citizen” rather than “some form of state-oriented, state trained unit.” (Bijlefeld, 1997, p. 24) Moreover, according to Freedman (1989), the belief that an unorganized militia is necessary to serve as an additional check on government is unfounded. (p.21) He believes that the structure of the Constitution and its system of checks and balances prevent and deters excessive government power and the possibility of tyranny. Thus in light of the skillfully orchestrated system of checks and balances, there is no for the designers of the Constitution to afford the states and the common man a “right to revolution” against government tyranny, nor “ a license to band together in paramilitary organizations.” (p.21) Furthermore, Freedman argues that the Second Amendment’s inclusion of the phrase ‘well regulated” refutes any idea of an unorganized militia or the individual right to keep and bear arms. This concept was further upheld in the 1992 case of the U.S. V Oaks, which declared that the Second Amendment does not afford individuals the right to unregistered firearms since such weapons bear no connection to the militia. Freedman and gun control advocates alike, therefore argue that the aim of the Second Amendment was not to guard the individual right to bear arms, but to prevent the disarming of the state regulated militia by the national government. (Freedman 1989, p.21-22) In accordance with this belief, gun control advocates argue that gun control policies do not pose any threat to the law abiding gun owners. Instead, gun control legislation seek to protect law abiding individuals and their loved ones by keeping guns out of the hands of inappropriate candidates. Inappropriate candidates can be defined to embrace individuals with criminal records, the mentally challenged, and those who have a history of alcoholic and drug addiction. (Gun Control Act of 1968) Gun control advocates argue that such individual are more prone to commit criminal acts. Hence, if they are disarmed their tendency to injure or cause harm to anyone is diminished. For instance, it can be argued that if effective gun control legislation was adhered to, the unfortunate massacre on April 16th at Virginia Tech would have been prevented. The executor of this crime was a male student who had supposedly tripped over board. If the proper background procedures were followed, it would have been discovered that he was mentally unstable and thus should be disallowed from purchasing a gun.7 On the contrary, gun rights activist argue that gun control policies do in fact poses a threat to the law abiding gun owners since such policies disarms these individuals consequently rendering them defenseless in the face of danger. For instance, consider the case of Bonnie Elmarsi, a battered wife. Bonnie applied for a gun, but in accordance with state law she was required to endure a forty-eight hours waiting period before she could legally purchase the gun. However, during the waiting period Bonnie was murdered by her estranged husband who had fulfilled his promise to kill her. (O’Neill 2000) Gun rights activists therefore argue that had it not been for this legislative requirement, Bonnie would have been able to purchase the gun and subsequently be able to protect herself. Gun rights activists therefore concluded that gun ownership enables individual especially vulnerable citizens such as women to protect themselves. For instance, many researchers have proven that women who are unarmed and are therefore unable to defend themselves are 2.5 times greater to incur serious injury than an armed woman. (O’Neill, 2000, p.27) Furthermore, gun activists argue that criminals are less likely to attack an armed individual than an unarmed one since an armed person presents a greater challenge. (O’Neill 2000). Therefore gun rights activists argue that ownership not only helps to protect law abiding citizens, but also reduces the occurrence of crime against such individuals. On the contrary, gun control advocates argue that an individual who owns a gun are more susceptible to be injured, killed by their own gun, or even injure another individual. Additionally. Gun control advocates argue that in families where children are involved such children are more prone to injure themselves through fiddling with the gun, bring it to school, or use it on someone else. However, gun rights activists argue that the percentage of individuals who are murdered per year in relation to such circumstances is negligible. For instance, in 1995 a mere 4% of gun death were home related, while during the period 1990-1995, only under 200 children died in gun related accidents compared to 2900 in vehicular accidents. (0’Neill, 2000, p. 30) Additionally, gun rights activists argue that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ Thus they believe that early intervention and not gun control is a more effective solution to youth violence. Furthermore, opponents of gun control that if one were to disarm a criminal he would find another weapon with which to unleash his terror. Hence they believe that the disarming of law abiding citizens is not the solution to gun control. This debate for and against gun control is a debate which will be present for decade to come. Additionally, proponents of each point of view believe that their stance and corresponding arguments are the most credible and logical conclusions. However, before one can lend support to either side on e must evaluate the consequences of each argument and his or her ultimate decision. For instance, gun rights activists believe that gun ownership is a constitutional right which should be free of any infringement. However, if such a right actually exists what makes this right so special that it should be free from ultimately any means of regulation? For instance, freedom of assembly is enshrined in the constitution. Nevertheless, does the mere fact that this right is constitutionally enshrined afford citizens the right to gather in the middle of a highway without first seeking permission? Moreover, the right to freedom of speech is also enshrined in the constitution. However, is it just to slander an individual’s, or company’s good name based on the affordability of free speech? Does not the courts and law provide remedies to acts of slander or libel? Therefore, the mere fact that a right or privilege is enshrined in the constitution does not afford individuals the right to do as they please without any consideration for society as a whole. In order for society to exist in some degree of harmony, citizens must be encouraged to exercise their rights in such a manner that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore, the right to possess a firearm should be regulated for the greater good of society. Gun control opponents also argue that gun control legislation do reduce crime. Moreover, they declare that the mere availability of guns do not mane that crime is going to occur. They also believe that socialization is the sole cure to crime and not gun control. In response to such theories, it can be argue that it would be egregious to believe that gun control is the sole solution to crime. Instead gun control activist acknowledge that here are other solutions. Proof of this awareness can be found in institutions and community outreach programs which target the perpetrators of crime so as to reduce rime levels. Nevertheless, every reasonable citizen will agree that in an attempt to solve a problem one must target and eradicate all contributing factors. Therefore, it must be note that the ownership and possession of guns do contribute to crime. Therefore, it is only logical that it must be regulated to reduce the occurrence of crime. On the other side of the spectrum, gun control activists argue that gun control is a necessity which reduces the occurrence of crime, protects law abiding citizens, and keeps guns out of the hands of inappropriate candidates. All these arguments are credible and logical. However, gun control advocates have not fully embraced the reality that there is a black market for everything illegal, and that no law, no matter how thorough, will go unbroken. Thus, the mere fact that an action is regulated does not mean that its regulations will be effectively executed. Thus it is not enough to implement an act since an act is only successful if it effectively targets its main aim. If such measures are not taken the act or law is futile. Consequently, gun legislation has indirectly punished law abiding citizens for the acts of individuals who give no consideration to the consequences of their actions. Thus, the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their livelihood has been diminished. Nevertheless, in light of all these arguments, one must conclude that gun control is a definite necessity. It is a necessity which aids the maintenance of a relatively amicable society by establishing regulations and guidelines as to the purchase, ownership, and use or firearms.

Conclusion As outlined throughout this paper, it has been established that gun control legislation is a necessity which determines the existence of a relatively harmonious society. It is a pre-emptive measure which seeks to protect citizens and the reduction of gun related violent crimes. However, the American society is still divided in their stance on the issue with each side continuously proposing arguments to support its view. Consequently, there is no established common ground on the issue. Hence, this issue can only be resolved through the realization that there is a time for change, and that sometimes some rights must be relinquished for the common good of society. It is only through this realization and the consequent concerted effort of the entire American society that firearms, its ownership, and resulting implications can be effectively addressed.

Guide to raised quotes 1. www.americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/COMP.HTM 2. Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, 1791 3.Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, 1791 4.www.usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm 5.www.usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm 6. www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm 7.www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/07/eveningnews/main4927476.shtml

References www.americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/COMP.HTM www.usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699 Gun Owners of America. Three Common Gun control Myths. www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm Bijlefeld, Marjolijn. The Gun Control Debate: A Documentary History. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1997. Freedman, Warren. The Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms: The Second Amendment and Its Interpretation. New York: Quorum Books, 1989. Halbrook, Stephen P. A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills Of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right. Albuquerque: University Of New Mexico Press O’Neill, Terry. Gun Control. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 2000.