Gun Control

A. No matter how they are looked upon, guns will be, as they always have been, dangerous. Every time a gun is fired, negative, more often than positive, effects follow. One way or another, gun use must be governed.

B. Many demands exist which a law abiding citizen must meet in order to gain possession of a handheld projectile weapon.

C. Gun control is a definite necessity. Saying "let's get rid of all guns," will not work; reality dictates this will never happen; in today's world it is not an option. However, problems which have been until now only monitored can be controlled. Pressure can and must be applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership.

A. Proposed and implemented laws and bills are often opposed not only by individuals, but by huge organizations. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is against the Brady Bill.

B. Guns in the hands of incompetent individuals (juveniles, for example). Suicide, intended and not intended homicide statistics.

Requires a waiting period during which personal checks are run on a person purchasing a firearm.

D. Different states require one or more or all the following - a permit, gun registration, a license to own, and a permit to carry (separate ones for concealed and unconcealed). The requirement of the documents varies from state to state since it is based on a particular state's crime rate.

C. In the wrong hands guns are a serious threat to the society. Control is required.

Gun control is one of the most debatable topics today. Thirty-three million Americans own firearms for hunting (Aitkens 9). But hunting is not the sole reason for which many individuals buy firearms. Of all countries, the United States is the one which is troubled most by a large number of criminals who are in possession of guns. The U.S. has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world (Aitkens 5). Where is the country going wrong as far as gun control is concerned? An immense number of laws have been created by the legislature. All were made in order to be sure guns remain in control of the right hands, yet the problems seem to prevail. All three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) are involved in desperate attempts to improve the situation. Getting rid of guns would not work; it would be an impossible task. But, if pressure was applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership - a majority of problems could be controlled.

Since there are two sides to every debate, the antithesis of this position views gun control as unnecessary. This view is strongly held by the National Rifle Association, a very powerful organization, which has nearly 3 million members and an annual budget of 88 million dollars. The NRA is highly effective in motivating thousands of gun owners into action against gun control legislation. Lobbying, advertisements, letter-writing campaigns, and contributions to political candidates who oppose gun control have been some of the establishment's most effective strategies in its fight against tighter firearms laws. Most members of the NRA believe that restricting firearms to prevent gun-related deaths is ridiculous. Allen R. Hodgkins III, a spokesperson for the association, once said, "If you follow that logic, we should also ban the use of motor vehicles. More than 47,000 people die each year in motor vehicle accidents. If we ban their use, no one will ever have a motor vehicle accident and no one will ever die" (Aitkens 11). The whole idea of restricting firearms can seem absurd when contrasted with information published by the National Rifle Association which states that in reality over 99.8 percent of firearms and 99.6 percent of handguns will never be involved in criminal activity. This means that gun control laws would restrict law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to reduce crime (Aitkens 13-15).

The following twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment have caused quite a bit of confusion for the past two hundred years:

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 (Landau 44).

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But to whom does it guarantee the right? Everybody? Whom exactly did the people who wrote the amendment have in mind? Let's not forget, this was written over two hundred years ago when life was different. At that time hunting was a major means of getting food and guns were required to protect oneself and one's property from hostile Native Americans and other intruders. In other words, what a car is to an American today, a rifle was to an American back then - a bare necessity (Gottfried 26-31). Another problem about this Amendment is that there are many interpretations of what several of the words in the short text mean. For example, people , according to many, refers to all individual American citizens. Others believe that people is simply avoiding the use of the word militia again, but the two are used in the same sense. In other words, people , used here does not indicate a right of all individuals, but only of those selected few who belong to a militia (which at that time included almost all the males living in a colony). Also, many argue that the Amendment gives states the right to form well-regulated militias or a National Guard and that people as individuals have the right to keep and carry certain types of guns - namely, the kinds of guns used by soldiers in state militias. Those would be for no other purpose but to defend the state. All other guns, such as sawed-off shotguns (short-barrelled guns and handguns), can be regulated by the government because such guns have never been used by the military and, therefore, do not have a military purpose (Gottfried 31-33).

The number of people murdered by firearms rose 160 percent between the years 1960 and 1980, comparing to an increase of 85 percent for people who were murdered by other means.

Every day in the United States, 10 children ages 18 and under are killed by handguns, mainly by accident.

A teenager intentionally takes his or her own life with the use of a handgun every three hours. In general, as the years go by, guns tend to outweigh all other methods of suicides, and this includes adults, as well. (pg. 6-7)

These misfortunes are just a few examples of the power of guns to kill. Tens more can be thought of in a matter of seconds. Even though Mr. Hodgkins' opinion seems to make a lot of sense, it is not without flaw. Susan Whitmore, a spokesperson for Handgun Control, Inc., sees things a bit differently. During an interview she said,

"We have laws for people who drive cars, including who can drive, how they drive, and under what circumstances. People are required to pass a test, obtain a license, and register their vehicles. They're prohibited from driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol - when most car accidents occur - and these laws are strictly enforced. We're not calling for a total ban on firearms. We're calling for national laws that stop criminal access to handguns and ensure the appropriate use of firearms - the same way laws require people to use an automobile appropriately. In a country where cars, dogs, and even bicycles must be registered in most areas, shouldn't we have at least similar laws for something as dangerous as firearms?" (Aitkens, 11-12)

According to Whitmore, no one from Handgun Control, a non-profit organization, believes gun control laws alone will stop all handgun violence. She goes on to say "We're not that naive. The fact is, gun control is only part of the answer - but it's a very important part. We believe it will make a significant dent in the number of needless handgun and other firearm deaths in this country." (Aitkens, 12) Thus, Handgun Control favors what else? - gun control! Handgun Control works to pass federal legislation, to keep handguns out of the wrong hands. Claiming more than one million supporters, the organization's central goal is to establish an effective national gun policy (Aitkens 15-17). In summary, the difference between the two sides is that Handgun Control believes that enacting more gun control laws and enforcing stiffer penalties for criminals who use guns will help reduce gun-related crimes in America, while the NRA believes the solution to violent crime lies solely in the swift, sure punishment of people who use guns to commit crimes. Although both favor crime reduction, Handgun Control employs a strategy which addresses the problem of gun-related accidents, suicides, and crimes before they happen by requiring a background search. This background search is opposed by the NRA because they believe that the assumption of innocence makes this unnecessary. Although one should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, there is nothing wrong with being cautious about gun possession.

In the United States, the controversy over federal gun control legislation did not really begin until the early 1900's. Since then, 20,000 plus gun control laws have been ratified at all levels - federal, state, and local. Do gun control laws actually work? This is the question most often posed in the never ending controversy. Some people believe gun control laws keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and, thus, prevent violent crimes. Others insist that criminals simply find other ways to obtain weapons, and gun control laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to own guns (Bender 68). In a way both statements are true, but they clash and both have flaws. And this is exactly what makes it obvious that something must be done in order to correct the situations. Since there are many laws on the books already, more laws is not the solution. So what must be done? The laws must be applied. Only by enforcing the laws can we make them useful; otherwise, government officials wasted a lot of time creating them in the first place. Enforcing means keeping very strict documentation of all actions, starting with manufacturing at the base and ending with licenses to carry at the peak. (But more about this further on.)

Gun control laws are usually passed in reaction to an increase in crime. Gangsters started using sawed-off shotguns and automatic weapons in the 1920's, causing a lot of problems. People needed to somehow protect themselves against being constantly threatened of getting caught in gang-to-gang cross-fire. Laws concerned with this particular problem weren't passed until 1927 in the form of the Miller Bill. Mandatory registration of the most commonly used weapons in the previously described crimes did not follow until 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The assassinations of the '60's, including President Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., and presidential candidate Senator Robert Kennedy provoked further action with the Gun Control Act of 1968.

A constant complaint is that gun control works against people who obey the law. This is unfortunate, but people should learn to cope with this. Why is that? Some people simply have to lose or give up what they want for the sake of the majority. Since picking a criminal out of a crowd is impossible, it should be assumed that anyone and everyone could be a criminal. Laws of prohibition or control must be set up for everybody, including those individuals who would not present any problems. Criminals have easy access to guns, and the only way of stopping them from obtaining them, is by unfortunately restricting easy access of guns for everyone.

A waiting period would prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. The following historical event illustrates this need. On March 30, 1981, in Washington D.C., John Hinkley pulled a .22-caliber revolver from his pocket and opened fire on President Ronald Reagan, White House Secretary James Brady, and two security men. Although he was injured (the bullet hit only an inch from the heart), Reagan recovered. Brady was shot in the head and suffered severe brain injury that left him permanently disabled. Hinckley had done nothing more than present a valid driver's license and purchased his gun (with which he committed the crime) for twenty-nine dollars in a Dallas pawn shop. Even though he used a false address, at the time of purchase he was not a convicted felon. It has to be understood a gun is not a toy, but Hinckley had not gone through any more trouble buying the weapon than people who come into the store to buy, let's say, a newspaper. Some people believe that a waiting period is needed between the time a person applies to buy a firearm and the time when the actual purchase is made in order to do a background check on the buyer. Most gun control supporters say a waiting period and background check would prevent many shootings. Sarah Brady, a lobbyist for Handgun Control and the wife of James Brady, is one of several people who have worked to get Congress to approve a major gun control bill, commonly known as the Brady Bill, that would require a seven-day waiting period. On May 8, 1991, the Brady Bill passed by a vote of 239 to 186 in the House of Representatives. The Senate included a slightly different version in its Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill - a bill that addressed not only gun control, but many other issues as well. A compromise between the Senate and the House of Representatives also set up a program to update criminal records so dealers could eventually conduct instant checks on purchasers through centralized computer system (Aitkens 54-56). A waiting period just might have stopped Hinckley. Currently, the Brady Bill has presidential support. President Clinton called for a strengthening of the Brady Bill during the reelection campaign (Kopel 43-44).

Gun control is necessary in our violent society. Gun registration, permits to purchase, license to own, and license to carry are very important safety precautions. States like New Jersey require all of these, depending on specific uses of the weapon. Vermont, however, requires none, and the minimum age is 16. The requirements are mirrored by crime rates of specific areas of the United States, and Vermont, unfortunately, is a very rare example of a state with a low crime rate. Most states are somewhere in between with requirements, and many come close or match those of New Jersey. The documentation is very important as it monitors transfers between dealer and buyer. Documentation must be enforced to such a degree that it is either unavoidable, or a person simply cannot get a gun.

Although convincing statistics have been cited, they alone are not enough. It is public opinion that shapes the government. Numerous polls and surveys indicate the majority want enforcement of current legislature regarding guns and firearms. Since more gun related crimes are committed in the USA than any other country in the world, the United States needs to improve its gun policies. Keeping people on record would allow strict control of guns. "People" are all involved; manufacturers, dealer, buyers, and most importantly, users.

Aitkens, Maggi. Should We Have Gun Control? Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company 1992. Cozic, Charles P., et al., eds. Gun Control . San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1992. Gottfried, Ted. Gun Control; Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms . Brookfield, CT: The Millbrook Press, 1993. Landau, Elaine. Armed America; The Status of Gun Control . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Julian Messner, 1991. Hawkes, Nigel. Gun Control . New York: Gloucester Press/Watts, 1988. "A New Round For and Against the Brady Bill." U.S. News & World Report 9 Sept. 1996: 8. Kopel, David. "Criminal Record." National Review 2 Sept. 1996: 43-44. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world (Aitkens 5).

Lie#1. I believe Mexico and Russia are democracies. Their murder rates are I believe double ours. Also, it doesn't matter if it is a firearm murder rate. I care about TOTAL murder rates.

But, if pressure was applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership - a majority of problems could be controlled.
How?

5 Million members now.

The NRA is highly effective in motivating thousands of gun owners into action against gun control legislation. Lobbying, advertisements, letter-writing campaigns, and contributions to political candidates who oppose gun control have been some of the establishment's most effective strategies in its fight against tighter firearms laws.

That is correct. It's called politics. On the other hand, all the anti-gun stuff comes from the top down through the Joyce, Tides, and Tsunami Foundations.

Most members of the NRA believe that restricting firearms to prevent gun-related deaths is ridiculous.

It is. It doesn't word. Washington DC is a perfect example.

The whole idea of restricting firearms can seem absurd when contrasted with information published by the National Rifle Association which states that in reality over 99.8 percent of firearms and 99.6 percent of handguns will never be involved in criminal activity. This means that gun control laws would restrict law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to reduce crime (Aitkens 13-15).

The following twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment have caused quite a bit of confusion for the past two hundred years:

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 (Landau 44).

So what? The PURPOSE hasn't changed one bit. Have you read Federalist 46? The second amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical governments, foreign or domestic. That was the words, not from a nut, but from James Madison.

At that time hunting was a major means of getting food and guns were required to protect oneself and one's property from hostile Native Americans and other intruders.

Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. And protection of property is still relavent today as much as before.

In other words, what a car is to an American today, a rifle was to an American back then - a bare necessity (Gottfried 26-31). Another problem about this Amendment is that there are many interpretations of what several of the words in the short text mean. For example, people , according to many, refers to all individual American citizens.

People means a group of persons. It's pretty simple.

Others believe that people is simply avoiding the use of the word militia again, but the two are used in the same sense. In other words, people , used here does not indicate a right of all individuals, but only of those selected few who belong to a militia (which at that time included almost all the males living in a colony).

Federalist 46 explains this again as well. Who is the militia? Look to the founders.

Afore mentioned NRA statistics seem overwhelming, and, perhaps, conclusive. However, they are rather meaningless since they do not manage to explain the damages caused by those mere 0.2 percent (for firearms) and 0.4 percent (for handguns). The following are some statistics gathered by Maggi Aitkens: The number of people murdered by firearms rose 160 percent between the years 1960 and 1980, comparing to an increase of 85 percent for people who were murdered by other means.

It's decreased since 1992.

Every day in the United States, 10 children ages 18 and under are killed by handguns, mainly by accident.

That's incorrect. It's mostly by SUICIDE, which is a choice. It's also not BY a gun, but WITH a gun.

Another 100 children are seriously injured.

So what? It's a person's choice, although a sad one.

We're not calling for a total ban on firearms.

The actions of Handgun Control say otherwise.

We're calling for national laws that stop criminal access to handguns and ensure the appropriate use of firearms - the same way laws require people to use an automobile appropriately.

That's impossible. Criminal will always be able to get a gun. Again, Washington DC has among the highest murder rate in the world, and has a gun ban.

In a country where cars, dogs, and even bicycles must be registered in most areas, shouldn't we have at least similar laws for something as dangerous as firearms?" (Aitkens, 11-12)

Michigan has gun registration, and has one of the higher murder rates in the country.

Again, how?

Although both favor crime reduction, Handgun Control employs a strategy which addresses the problem of gun-related accidents, suicides, and crimes before they happen by requiring a background search. This background search is opposed by the NRA because they believe that the assumption of innocence makes this unnecessary.

The NRA is not opposed to background checks if they are INSTANT checks and the records are destroyed.

That's the problem with the Anti-Self Defense lobby.

Laws of prohibition or control must be set up for everybody, including those individuals who would not present any problems. Criminals have easy access to guns, and the only way of stopping them from obtaining them, is by unfortunately restricting easy access of guns for everyone.

There isn't easy access to guns for law abiding citizens. Not legally.

A waiting period would prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

How? That doesn't even make sense. Background checks take 3 minutes. I know. I bought a gun before.

Gun control is necessary in our violent society. Gun registration, permits to purchase, license to own, and license to carry are very important safety precautions.

It doesn't work in Michigan.

The documentation is very important as it monitors transfers between dealer and buyer. Documentation must be enforced to such a degree that it is either unavoidable, or a person simply cannot get a gun.

Documentation and Registration doesn't work and leads to confiscation, if the majority of politicians are those with views like Dianne Feinstein, Rod Blagojevich, Laura Baird, John Schwarz, and Howard Metzenbaum.

However those that back the Anti Self-Defense lobby generally lose elections in many areas outside of Calfornia and New York. And also, why should Americans in places like Livingston County Michigan be punished with draconian laws, because LA 2500 miles away can't control their murder rate?

Since more gun related crimes are committed in the USA than any other country in the world,

Again, Mexico and Russia say otherwise.

the United States needs to improve its gun policies.

I agree. We have too many gun laws

Keeping people on record would allow strict control of guns. "People" are all involved; manufacturers, dealer, buyers, and most importantly, users.

And the crime would be rising afterwars as it is once again in California.

There is another thing not mentioned. Guns are used as many as 2.5 million times a year in self defense.(SOurce Gary Kleck). Also, states that allow conceal carry have lower crime rates than states that do not allowed concealed carry. You can also compare Macomb County with Wayne County in Michigan. Macomb County had right to carry. Wayne County did not. Macomb County had 10 murders and has a million people. Wayne County had 430 and 2 million people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.