Federal Gun Control and Regulation Debate

I ambivalent towards the federal governmental control and regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms: rifles, pistols or other portable guns (Oxford, 2005). While I am for the constitutional right to own firearms (2nd amendment), I do not consider it an absolute right which allows convicted criminals and other troublemakers (i.e. fugitives from justice, those convicted of a felony, those addicted to controlled substances, illegal aliens, or those committed to mental institutions) to lawfully own firearms (Schmittrof, 2003). I think that the existing gun regulation laws should be reinforced, but I also believe that regulation should not be the main focus of people who wish to reduce gun violence, because it is not the guns but the people behind them that are the real problem.

I believe that regulation laws should be reinforced, because there are advantages to them. They make firearms harder to obtain with waiting periods, strict background checks, and high prices, so that kids and irresponsible people will be less likely to get their hands on them, which should reduce the number of accidental deaths, suicides, and homicides by firearms. More kids who attempt suicide succeed nowadays because 60 percent use guns. Guns also account for the most teen homicides, one of the leading causes of adolescent death (Glassner, 1999).

Contradictory with these findings are studies that show how keeping a gun at home increases the probability that a member of the household or friend will be killed 43 times more than an intruder (Kellerman & Reay, 1986). In this sense, keeping a gun to defend oneself and one's family backfires. In fact, fifteen members of America's youth are killed by guns daily, mostly in or around their homes. For instance, in Jacksonville, Florida, a 3year-old boy shot his two-year-old sister with a handgun from his parents' bed. While Florida state law requires gun owners to store their weapons out of children's reach, this home held nine other guns, two of which were loaded, and five of which were in the bedroom alone (Squires, 2000).

This example may also be looked at as negligence on the children's parents' parts, however, since the children were not being watched at home. In this sense, it is not guns but people who are the problem. Perhaps the parents could not be at home because they were juggling work to make ends meet. If the parents' poverty is one real problem behind gun violence, then believing that getting rid of guns will get rid of the gun violence problem is foolish (Gale, 2003), just as believing that having easier access to guns will do the same. If having more guns meant being a safer place, then America would be the safest place on earth, which it clearly is not. In 2001, "firearms were used to murder 6 people in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great Britain, 168 in Canada, and 331 in Germany," while they were used to murder 11,348 in the U.S. (The Brady Campaign).

Going back to the advantages of non-regulation, responsible people who do keep guns safely may be able to use them for self-defense or to protect another person from harm. People never know when an emergency will come. Take the recent events of 9/11 and the hurricane Katrina looting, for instance. This occurred just last year, and it serves as a reminder that there may be an unforeseen need for guns in the future, so it would be good to be able to purchase guns and to be prepared. If people had guns handy, then perhaps they could have protected their families from robbers.

Another advantage is that the 2nd amendment, "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," (The Bill of Rights Transcripts) will not be tossed out. If you interpret "Militia," however, to apply only to the state's right to maintain a militia - not to the individual's right to bear arms, then people cannot really claim that the constitution expresses the individual's right to possess a firearm (Stevens vs. U.S., 1991).

Also, money spent on expensive serial number tracking of guns could be used for other things instead, like fighting poverty, which would probably have a more direct effect on reducing crime than regulating guns, as criminals who can't get their hands on guns can use other weapons. Non-regulation would also prevent unequal treatment of people who are qualified to purchase guns but are unable to afford them because of the high taxes associated with guns. For instance, $200 is taxed for each gun made (National Firearms Act, 1968).

As for the issue of federal versus state control, the advantages I see to the federal government controlling and regulating the sale and ownership of firearms are that national regulation would allow uniformity in the kinds of firearms sold, which could be more effective in preventing gun violence than varied state control, which can get confusing (i.e. it will be hard to tell if a person who owns a certain gun purchased it illegally locally or in some other state where the gun was sold legally). With federal control, people who want to commit crimes with guns will not be able to just go to another state to purchase them. One reason for the large number of guns in criminal hands is that many are sold legally. Perhaps national regulation would lower the number. With less guns on the street, less victims of robberies and assaults will be as likely to die, as risk increases when a criminal is armed than when he/she is unarmed or has another weapon (Kellerman & Reay, 1986).

The advantages to state control, on the other hand, are that a person who hunts for sport, collects antique guns, or desires guns to protect his or her family will not have difficulty purchasing guns. With states that vary in regulations, people can have choices as to where they live in relation to what degree of control they are comfortable with. For example, a person can live in California if he or she likes strict gun control laws (New California Legislation, 2004), while another can live in Vermont if he or she likes to hunt or wants to own a handgun (Firearms Laws for Vermont).

I have mixed-feelings about this issue, because my own values are a mix of contradicting conservative and liberal views. I was raised Roman Catholic, belonging to a conservative family, but my bisexual older sister and agnostic boyfriend got me to question my faith and broaden my perspective. My values tend to change depending on the issue. For instance, I am against suicide, because my Catholic faith tells me that suicide sends a person directly to hell, and I would not wish such fate on anybody. I am pro-mercy-killing, however, because I also do not wish for someone to suffer unnecessarily before dying. My Catholic beliefs tell me that homicide is wrong because killing is a grave sin, but my liberal views tell me that one should be able to choose how to defend oneself in the event of a robbery or attack.

I am ambivalent toward the control of guns, because I don't like the idea of children or irresponsible people getting their hands on firearms, but I like having the option to buy a gun if I feel the need to defend myself.

If this issue gets solved one way or another, I do not think I will really be affected. I do not expect the crime rate to drastically change if firearms are regulated more strictly, because 80% of criminals get their guns not from retail stores, but from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source (Bureau of Justice). If the crime rate does increase or decrease, then it will not be such a change for me, because I currently live in West Vermont, Los Angeles, which is not a very safe place to live in. In fact, almost everyday I get Crime Alerts in my e-mail about robberies that have taken place in my area. For this reason, I take the Campus Cruiser home whenever possible and carry pepper spray. I have never felt the need to purchase and own a gun, and I guess this is why my opinion is not strongly in favor of firearm regulation. I am aware of the dangers that exist, like rape, burglary and murder, but I think it would be silly to live everyday in paranoid fear, holding a gun in case of an emergency.

If a person were to argue with me on this issue, then he or she would probably say that guns are the cause of gun violence or that the 2nd amendment should be absolute. Depending on his or her opinion, the person could then proceed to defend his or her side, and the person would probably be able to find evidence to support whichever stance. The person could also say that this issue affects the lives of many and that I cannot afford to feel ambivalent about it. I would counter this by saying that whether guns are regulated or not, crime will still exist and dangers will still exist. Maybe solving this issue could reduce the crime rate, but then again, maybe it will not. Instead of focusing efforts to resolve this issue, I would rather that people spend time tackling more important issues like poverty and racism, which could reduce the need for people to resort to crime. As Barry Glassner mentions in his book, "The Culture of Fear," people too often have misplaced fears (guns in this instance), and lack the insight to see what is really worth worrying about (1999).

Bureau of Justice Firearms and Crime Statistics. Retrieved January 29, 2006 , Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Firearm Facts (2005). Retrieved February 3, 2006, from The Brady Campaign, Web site: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf

Firearms Laws for Vermont. Retrieved January 29, 2006, Web site: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=VT

Glassner (1999). The Culture of Fear, (p. xix; 55). New York: Basic Books.

Kellermann, Arthur & Reay, Donald (1986). Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home. The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24 (pp. 1557-60).

New California Legislation, http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2004bills.htm

Oxford American Dictionaries (2005)

Schmittrof, Linda (2003). Gun Control Restricting Rights or Protecting People?. The Information Series on Current Topics (p. 117).

Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, (1971).
The National Firearms Act. Retrieved January 29, 2006 from Web site: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfireact.pdf

Squires, Peter (2000). Gun Culture or Gun Control : Firearms, Violence & Society, p 1. Florence,
KY, USA: Routledge, 2000. Web site: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uscisd/Doc?id=5002097&ppg=16

The Bill of Rights Transcripts. Retrieved January 29, 2006, from Web site: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html