Gun Control: What is the Answer?

A634.8.3.RB

Do citizens have a right to bear arms? Answer the question in your reflection blog. State your opinion and follow up your position with supporting documentation. Next, present the opposing side to your stance. Use external sources to enhance your claims.

The question of whether U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms is easy to answer. For this, I point to the United States Constitution, Bill of Right, Amendment II, which 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.” What is not so ease to answer are the conditions and/or limitations of this right.

Gun control has long been a polarizing topic. In fact, organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) which exists to preserve gun owner rights and pro-gun control organizations like The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence which seeks great gun control, continuously jockey to influence voters and law makers alike. For many Americans, because of the high emotional impact of violent events such as Columbine high school shooting, the Sandy Hook elementary shooting, or even the shooting of politician Gabrielle Gifford in Tucson, AZ; they feel compelled to support some form of gun control. Indeed, LaFollette (2007) notes that there are alternative to this topic that include three scales of gun control: 1) the degree (if at all) to which guns should be abolished 2) the restrictions (if any) on those guns available to private citizens and/or 3) the combination of the first two (p. 2766).

Some believe that significant gun control is not only needed, but vital to public safety by limiting the instruments that are used to carry out violent and mass killings. In fact, according to ProCon.org (2016), “Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths topping liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson’s disease, as well as deaths from fires, drowning, and machinery accidents” (par. 5). So, if guns are taken out of the equation, the belief is that there will be less deaths as a result of guns.

Another popular pro-gun control position is that there is no law-abiding need for high-capacity magazines for any gun. Especially since mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 involving guns indicated that, 50% of these violent events involved a high-capacity magazine gun and that when such magazines are used, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate went up 156% (ProCon.org, 2016).

The right for a citizen to bear arms is provided and guaranteed. Having to ability to possess a gun (hand gun/long gun) for self-defense, hunting, or overall protection is deeply rooted in American history. This is one of the reasons why the creators of the US Constitution made it a point to 1) establish this right and 2) prevent the government from infringing on this right. It goes without saying that the conditions that existed when this right was created have long since evolved.

In the wake of high profile mass shooting as noted above, Americans have been forced to re-examine the right to bear arms and how much (if any) limitations should be imposed. Because of instant access to violent acts involving guns, the general conception is that guns are the main cause of such carnage. In fact, often many news outlets constantly publish figures that involve gun violence that can be somewhat misleading. According to Jacob Davidson (2015):

People should also be aware that most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders. There are twice as many suicides in the U.S. by guns as there are homicides and I think most people find that very surprising. Over and over again one reads that 30,000 people have been killed with guns, but what’s not said is that 20,000 of them took their own lives (para. 4).

While the loss of any life as a result of violence (to include suicide) is unfortunate and unacceptable, I believe the focus needs to be directed at the factors of the crime/violence as much (or even more) than just the tools that were used to carry out the crime. By and large, the majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Yet, those with criminal backgrounds or mentally unstable have been known to acquire guns legally and illegally. Thus, in order to address this issue, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System was created in 1998 to identify those unfit to purchase guns from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). Headed by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), this system checks a person’s background such as: criminal history, mental issues, dishonorable discharge from the military, immigration status, any type of warrants, and know drug use (Kohrman and Mascia, 2015). This background check, however, is not required for private gun sales.

I believe that some form of gun control is necessary to identify and prevent those with criminal histories, mental defects, and those under investigations or indictment. While owning a gun is a right, so is the right to public safety. Thus, if a person has shown or is showing that they are not fit to possess a tool such as a gun, then they should have their right to own a gun either temporary or permanently revoked by a judge and not necessarily a politician. Furthermore, I do believe that in order to extend this identification and prevent, background checks should be extended to private gun sales. A system should be established for private citizens to run a timely background check for anyone wishing to purchase their guns. I would be important to not be used in a manner that creates a registry, tracks who is selling or buying what guns, affordable, and easily accessible. If the point is to ensure the suitability of a gun owners status, then a simple background system should assist in keeping guns out of certain people’s hands.

Another important aspect of gun control is the enforcement of existing laws. While introducing new gun control laws to prevent certain grades of guns from entering the civilian population may be warranted and requires greater discussion. However, laws should promote great vetting oppose to outright stopping interested gun owners. In other word, swimming with the current oppose to against it may be more affective. Another angle to approach better gun safety and handling is improving or increasing gun safety courses. Training and education is an important ingredient to responsible gun ownership.

There is no doubt that guns have played a part in violent events, yet they have also prevented events from become more severe. The true issues from my point of view involves the humane being on the other end of the gun. The gun is the tool, people with the intent to hurt or kill others will accomplish their plan whether with single gun or a bomb. Take for example the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995. This event orchestrated by Timothy McVeigh killed 168 men, women, and children without the use of one gun.

Many times, people will fly under the radar of law enforcement (such a McVeigh), but infringing on Constitutional rights because of a possibility is inconsistent with American values. More effort and resources should be available to enforce existing gun laws, improve gun training and education, and create background system available to private citizens wishing to sell their guns to other law-abiding citizens.

Resources

 Davidson, J. (2015, December). A Criminologist’s Case Against Gun Control. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4100408/a-criminologists-case-against-gun-control/

Kohrman, M. and Mascia, J. (2017, March 14). Everything You Need to Know About Federal Background Checks. The Trace. Retrieved from https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. [Kindle edition]. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

ProCon.org. (2016). Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted? Retrieved from http://gun-control.procon.org/

United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment II.