Gun Control
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to oppose the right of having guns. The paper explores how the guns kill innocent people, the carelessness of the people who own them, and how innocent children get their hands on them and kill. This paper concludes that though the Second Amendment has be differently interpreted, the outcome of the controversial issue, gun control measures, lies within the criminal, societal, and political aspects.
Thesis statement: I oppose the right of having guns as they kill innocent people, are carelessly handled, and innocent children get their hands on them and kill
Introduction
Gun owners exude an aura of authority both socially and physically. Guns are effective weapons which can be used for defense, intimidation or killing. Thus, guns have been used for both constructive and destructive ways and in turn, made gun control laws controvertible. It is estimated that 80 million American homes possess over 223 million guns. Gun control is the regulation of the manufacture, sale and shipment, ownership and use of both rifles and handguns. The debate on gun control by the Congress has been a controversial issue. As early as 1934, several federal laws on gun control have been enacted. Both the proposers and opponents of gun control have tried to outdo each other in their arguments and to some extent, politicizing the issue. The following are the arguments that have formed the basis of the proponents and the opponents.
View of opponents
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1791) states 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.” A report posted on the website of The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRAILA) in September 2006, argued that ‘the right of the people’ translates to ‘the right of the State’ and that ‘militia regulation’ meant the ‘National Guard.’ John Ashcroft, a opponent of the gun control and a former U.S. Attorney General wrote in a letter to NRAILA stating that “the Second Amendment clearly protect[s] the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.” Opponents of gun control opine that a legislation repealing the Second Amendment must be passed before their right of gun possession can be taken away.
The second argument is a history of tyrant governments. This argument is based on Thomas Jefferson’s, the third U.S President, famous words that “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government”, his other oft cited words, “What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms” and Mahatma Gandhi’s quote, “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” One of the examples cited by the opponents are that of Nazi’s tyrannical rule whereby after it had garnered power, it unarmed the populace and then started murdering specific people such as the Jews.
The third argument is alleviating crime. Here, there are arguments that possessing a gun reduces the possibilities of being a victim of an attack and that therefore is vital in self-defense. Opponents cite the ironical case of Chicago’s Mayor Daley, a firm proponent of gun control, and how despite his bodyguards being paid by the taxpayers, opposes the same taxpayers defending themselves.
The forth argument is that if the gun control is enacted, it will make it harder for a large number of victims defend themselves against an attacker who is armed. According to a 1994 study that was done by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guns are used to scare intruders for around 498,000 times a year. Similarly, Professor James D. Wright and Peter Rossi carried out a report on 2,000 inmates in state prisons (F.B.I., 1995). They found out that: 34% were “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% stated that they were aware of another criminal who were in such a circumstance; 34% stated that they “often/regularly” contemplated on being shot by a victim; and 57% agreed that “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”
Lastly, is the relation of the gun control and crime rates. Some proponents have argued that among the list of the nine states with the least crime reports is composed of the states whereby guns are not controlled. In a report on the Washington Post (The Daily Post, 2011); Senator John Ensign said that the District of Columbia has the strictest gun control laws and it would be presumed to be the country’s safest place, yet, ironically, the thirty years following the ban on handguns saw it have highest gun violence.
Analysis of the opponents’ arguments via Critical Question
“The violation of our Second Amendment rights” is an oft repeated phrase by the newsrooms. Therefore, if the rights are violated the NRAILA should challenge the front-line proponents in a Supreme Court basing their argument on the Constitution (Lee, 2001). However, the NRAILA lobby group is reluctant because to challenge in a court of law because Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has been not to “individuals”, but to “well-regulated militias” as specified by the first portion of the Amendment; and that the “militias” refer to forces that are regulated by both the federal and state governments. The Supreme Court’s recognition of the well-organized militia are the citizens who were fighting for America’s independence and were allowed to keep the arms with them such that they could be convenient within a short notice— the armed citizens became the National Guard.
Despite the fact that offenders who use guns to commit violent crimes such as murders and rapes are arrested, its only one out of every twelve offenders who is sentenced. There have been an increment in the statistics of the gun-related deaths. It’s estimated that of the more than 16, 200 murders committed in U.S., in 2008, as many as 10, 800 were committed using a gun. Elsewhere, a 1993 FBI report showed that out of the 24, 526 murders committed: 13, 980 murders were committed with handguns, however, of these handguns murders, merely 251 murders were justifiable civilian homicides (F.B.I, 1995). There was also a news report run in the Atlanta Constitution involving two young Atlanta brothers: five days to the 1993 Christmas, the brothers saw a curious toy in their mother’s bedroom which happened to be a .25 caliber semiautomatic pistol; despite the fact that they removed a bullet magazine from the pistol, one bullet remained and the brothers didn’t know; assuming that the chamber was empty, one young brother (twelve-year old), aimed the pistol at his other brother’s head and pulled the trigger and fatally wounded him.
Domestic violence cases are relatively higher (five times more) in homes whereby there are guns than in homes where there wasn’t according to a report by Arthur Kellerman. As he observed, even though he grew up “around” guns and that viewing the guns as “fascinating equipment…as a clinician, as someone who is committed to emergency medicine, it is equally evident to me that firearm violence is wreaking havoc on public health” (John, n.d.). On his opinion, he quips, “It’s time to move on, to try to tell various approaches to preventing firearm violence.” He opined that where there was an easily accessible gun, the possibilities of domestic disputes and a crime of violence leading to a serious injury was relatively higher than in a situation where under the same circumstances, there wasn’t a readily available gun.
Arguments
This brings up some questions that the opponents of the gun control measures should answer. Under what circumstance did the Atlanta brother injure his other brother? How would the Atlanta boy in the aforementioned case have known that the chamber was loaded? If the citizen rights of owning arms is being infringed, then why doesn’t the NRAILA lobby group challenge the proposers in a Supreme Court? If the Second Amendment grants the rights to arm oneself, wouldn’t it seem weird to own a nuclear submarine and defend oneself using the Amendment? The 2,000 criminal surveyed who were in one or the other deterred by the worry that their victim may be or was armed, didn’t they alleviate the criminal offenses?
The Atlanta young brother shooting case portrays the innocent gun users who commit the crimes unknowingly or without premeditation. Ready availability of guns increases the chances of crimes of passion which is a smaller wheel in a larger that is the domestic violence. If there’s gun regulation, it would be a positive sign in the society and crimes would be relatively lower. Thus, I vehemently oppose the right of having guns. In conclusion, the gun control issue has been a controversial issue and it has garnered different views, both opponents and proponents. But what causes the gun control measures? It is because of criminal issues which mete out a mighty blow on the society in general and compel the political. The three, that is, the criminal, societal, and political aspects hold the ultimatum of the controversial gun control issue.

References
FBI. (1995). Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1994. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Bernac Assoc.
Nisbet, L. (2001). The gun control debate: you decide. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
The Daily Beast. (2011). Conservatives Make Inaccurate Arguments Against Gun Control. Retrieved on April 3, 2012 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/18/assault-weapons-ban-would-not-violate-second-amendment.html
Thomas, J. D. Emory University. Homepage. Accidents Don’t Happen: Arthur Kellerman addresses gun violence and injuries as preventable public health problems. Retrieved on April 3, 2012 from http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/summer95/kellermann.html