Gun Control: Law vs Rights

"Gun violence in the United States has become an epidemic. From the Civil War to the present, 567,000 Americans have died in combat; but since 1920, over 1 million American civilians have been killed by firearms (Pacific Center, 1994). "Among teenagers 15 to 19 years old, the problem of gun violence is particularly alarming: one of every four deaths is attributable to a firearm injury" (Bilchik 1). In researching the subject of gun control and legislation to stop the incidence of violent crime as well as accidental killing with a fire-arm, the library shelves are filled with opinions and statistics on both sides of the argument. However, no matter how serious gun rights adherents are in their cries that citizens' rights are violated, gun control is necessary. And yet, we have to admit that those who believe owning guns is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution, have validity to their arguments. REGULATION FOR GUNS?

First, let's examine why many believe there needs to be gun regulation: "In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S." (Anon 1). A very large percentage of these deaths were caused by criminals. Of course, the strongly conservative National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful lobbying group[s in Washington, claims that nevertheless, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits the citizens to bear arms. To generalize, the NRA claims that guns don't kill people, evil and unlicensed gun users do. The idea of hiding behind an amendment more than two hundred years old bears examination. The right to bear arms was enacted during a time when there was still a wild frontier and many people had to protect themselves not against their neighbors but against marauding Indians or greedy people wanting to take the land from its rightful owners. That was still a lawless time in our history. However, civilization- everything from shopping malls and Interstates to suburbs and improved law enforcement agencies- has now advanced to the point where this sort of anti-vigilantism is no longer a necessity. In a careful examination of the Second Amendment, the idea of bearing arms was to be limited to the militia. "Americans have bought into the myth that we not only need guns, but have a constitutional right to bear them. However, a thorough review of the Second Amendment reveals this right was not intended to be administered broadly: "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 frequently distorted Second Amendment only protects the right to bear arms for members of state militias, not for everyday Johnny Machismo with an urge to assert his manhood" (Barrera 1).

It would be fair to agree that sportsmen should be allowed to bear arms: normally certain type of rifles but not automatic weapons nor. The NRA seems to insist that a gun is a gun and that no one ought to be able to tell a private citizen that he cannot legally own one. This idea of "legality" is one sticking point, since different states have different gun control laws.

IN FAVOR OF GUN RIGHTS

The NRA puts up some arguments against gun control: "Gun-rights supporters claim that gun control contains a 'slippery slope' that gradually but inexorably results in erosion of civil rights. They point to the USSR, China and Nazi Germany as examples of disarmament preceding government-sponsored genocide against the people living in those countries" (Nemerov 22).

While there are those who claim the Second Amendment was only meant for militia in the early history of this country, courts now say differently: "In April, a U.S. District Court judge in Texas, Samuel R. Cummings, ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that the Second Amendment does indeed grant individuals the right to own guns. It is the first time that a federal court has ruled in favor of individual gun ownership for law-abiding citizens" (Infobits 1).

Of course, the courts ruled on very narrow points of law. There will be many more cases in years to come. But, unless the gun is bought and used for some criminal purpose, or illegally bought, citizens have- and should have- every right to own a gun.

GUN CONTROL LAWS:

While Columbus, Ohio, has not backed off from a strict new gun control law, that caused the NRA to cancel its national convention there, other states and cities have also followed up with the idea that gun control is necessary.

In Illinois, "-After a decade of work by gun-control activists, Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Friday plans to sign a new state law requiring background checks for all buyers at gun shows, closing what police say is a wide-open avenue for gangs and other illegal purchasers to get firearms" (Parsons 1).

In California, new legislation now states specifically that "Some weapons or items, such as assault weapons and machineguns, require a separate DOJ-issued dangerous weapon permit or license" (CA Atty. Gen. 1).

New York led the way with strong legislation 5 years ago: "New York State Gov George Pataki signed stricter state gun-control legislation into law on Aug 9, 2000. Under the law, New York becomes the first state to require background checks for buyers at gun shows. It also requires gun retailers to include a child safety lock with all purchases, bans assault weapons, raises the legal age requirement for gun permits from 18 to 21 and established criminal sanctions for criminal purchase of a firearm. It also requires gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to the police" (Cockfield 28).

New York provides another interesting lesson in gun control- suing gun manufacturers: "Closely examined by all parties in the debate was the verdict handed down on Feb. 11 by a Federal jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., which found 15 of 25 handgun manufacturers liable for negligence because their marketing practices fostered illegal gun trafficking. The suit was brought by relatives of six people killed with illegally obtained handguns in New York City and Yonkers, and by a seventh victim who survived with a bullet lodged in his brain...In an effort to stave off inclusion in a potential suit by the State of New York, Colt's Manufacturing, the nation's largest gun maker, and another, unidentified gun maker, entered into negotiations with New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to see if concessions could be worked out" (Law Enforcement News 1).

Gun legislation does work. Some recent research proves it. "Our research indicates that states with most comprehensive gun control legislation experienced on average one to almost six fewer gun-related fatalities than those states with the most lax laws. Gun control laws are a deterrent; however, they only address one aspect of individual behavior regarding the use (and abuse) of firearms" (Kwoon and Baack 64).

One of the problems involving the subject of gun control is that is has become tremendously politicized. For this very divisive political reason, the law on banning assault weapons has been allowed to lapse." Republican congressional leaders say the ban was allowed to lapse because gun control advocates in the House and Senate did not have enough votes to extend it. They may be right. Most Republicans in Congress oppose an extension, and Democrats were far from united in support of preserving the ban. Democrats representing rural areas kept mum on the issue, perhaps mindful of their constituents' sensitivity to gun control measures. In addition, some Democrats believe their support of the assault weapons ban cost them control of the House and Senate in 1994, and that the gun control issue hurt Al Gore's standing in key states during the 2000 presidential election" (Open Secrets 2).

The strength of the anti-control lobby has been proved again in a recent vote in Congress which "saved" gun manufacturers from some of the lawsuits brought against them by litigants claiming the company's guns killed or injured family members: "The Senate voted Friday to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, a measure opponents said had been ordered up by the gun lobby. The 65-31 vote passed a bill that supporters said protects the industry from financial disaster and bankruptcy caused by damage lawsuits" (AP 1).

To place the control of guns as a debatable point between "liberals" and "conservatives" is a disservice to all citizens. The fact remains that guns, whether illegally bought, stored, stolen or used- or even when left unprotected in the family home, kill thousands of Americans annually. We should consider, among many other topics, what guns do to children and teens. And, let's face it, what kids do to other kids and their parents and neighbors with guns.

KIDS AND GUNS:

"Nationwide for 2002, gun violence killed 2,893 American children and teens ages 19 and under, a decrease of only 1% from the nationwide 2001 total of 2,937. While these numbers have been steadily decreasing over the past five years, an average of 8 young people killed each day by guns in the U.S is still too many...The firearms used in 72% of unintentional firearm deaths and injuries, and in firearm suicide attempts and completions, for people ages 0-19 were stored in the residence of the victim, their relative, or their friend." (Anon 2).

Of course, the headlines of the Columbine school massacre, and similar events at schools in Kentucky and Oregon and Minnesota demonstrated that getting a gun is easier than ever for youngsters determined to do harm. It is the availability of guns that is a clear and present danger as a recent nationwide survey shows: "There is a gun in 43% of households with children in America. There is a loaded gun in one in every 10 households with kids, and a gun that's unlocked and just hidden away in one in every eight family homes. These are the homes where children live and where they go to play or visit - homes in "safe" neighborhoods and dangerous neighborhoods, the homes of preschoolers and homes of teenagers" (Brady Campaign 1).

LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES:

Great Britain passed a law in the 1990s banning handguns. Has it worked? "Britain's intolerance of firearm violence has impacted on its gun crime trends. Figures from the British Home Office reveal that there has been a substantial decline in gun crimes involving weapons other than air guns since new laws were introduced in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, there has been an overall drop of 17% in gun crime involving shotguns, handguns and other firearms" (Anon 2).

It is always easy to accuse Americans and being "gun crazy" by those in other countries. And incidents like Columbine High school massacre, and even the crime movies exported from Hollywood see Americans as trigger happy.

Germany is even stricter about guns. "Described in the Library of Congress report as 'among the most stringent in Europe,' Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her 'need' and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home" (NRA 5).

One can check the Internet for regulations in country after country. In each case, gun laws are far stricter than in the U.S. Of course, it's easy to say that no other country has the same sort of "democratic" government and the freedom it provides. Maybe so. But no other country has the same percentage of shooting deaths as America does.

SOME CONCLUSIONS:

"Virtually no one today is seriously arguing to take away all guns from homes. (And actually trying to do so would be a nightmare for anyone who cares about liberty and privacy, given that guns are stashed everywhere and may well outnumber people in America.) Instead, most proposals seek to regulate rather than prohibit--limiting the amount and type of ammunition, restricting the number of guns one can buy in a given week, and so on" (Amar 24).

It is important to understand that the legislators of various states as well as the U.S. Congress are working on restricting the unauthorized use and sale and maintenance of arms, not to bar any from being sold and owned. When the NRA and its members (and they are not all rednecks and the types found in the movie Deliverance) refuse to understand is that restriction does not mean a total ban, only proper and legal means of keeping guns from the hands of those who cannot and will not use them properly. There is a vast moral gulf between killing a deer (however much some even consider that a sin) and mowing down clerks in a convenience store or guards at a bank or murdering a spouse.

There is a need for a compromise. And, one has been suggested: "I know there's something intrinsically American that's inseparable from the fierce insistence on the primacy of the individual that appeals to gun-rights advocates. They are wrong (and intellectually dishonest) about a lot, but they're right that in this country, as perhaps in no other in the world, a person should be able to live by her own lights, provided she doesn't hurt anyone else" (Casteen 221).

This paper has a good many citations- pro and con, conservative and liberal. However, the basic conclusion about gun rights versus gun restrictions comes down to a far more personal, rather than legal, aspect. All too often when someone (government, neighbor, community) threatens the status quo, we tend to wrap ourselves around the flag and the Constitution and find some compelling reason (mostly historical) why we should be allowed to continue doing, or owning, whatever it is that is being challenged.

Every time, though, someone complains about his "rights" being violated, someone else will chime in that rights have privileges. And that gun ownership in the 21^st century should no longer be a "right" but a government-permitted privilege.

We have to stop and think why so many people feel they need guns. Of course, the hunters- and there are hundreds of thousands of them. But, as was mentioned earlier, hunters don't need assault weapons. No one should be out in deer season with an AK-47. Then, there are some people living in dangerous neighborhoods who feel more protected in they have a firearm (legal or otherwise) in their homes. This is a gun for protection. A defensive attitude.

The major problem with gun ownership is that is still leaves us afraid: afraid of friends and children gunned down by some demented fellow student at school. Polls show that women want stricter gun controls, but they would feel safer having one in the house. For men, gun ownership is a macho thing. Having a rifle or a shotgun is a masculine trait. Well, maybe. But, what you do with that weapon is gender-blind.

As children, most of us went to movies where people were getting shot and killed. My parents still fondly remember the "Dirty Harry" movies, where Clint Eastwood said that famous line, as he pointed his huge revolver at a criminal: "Make My Day!" While today most kids now go to play video games instead of "Cowboys and Indians" or even Americans and Arabs", still even the video games have villains and heroes with guns blazing.

Will the fascination with "light sabers" make a difference in the coming generations' fascination with fire arms? Doubtful. The argument will go on. So will the killings.

REFERENCES:

Amar, Abdul: "Second Thoughts--What the right to bear arms really means. (analysis of Second Amendment the U.S. Constitution) The New Republic, July 12, 1999 p24

Associated Press:: "Senate Votes to Guard Gunmakers From Suits"

NewsdMax.com, July 30, 2005 www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Guns!Gun_Control.shtml

Barrera, Melissa: "Guns perpetuate cycle of violence"

The America's Intelligence Wire, Sept 21, 2005 p. NA

Bilchik, Shay: "Reducing Youth Gun Violence:. An Overview of Programs and Initiatives 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention May 1996 www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/redyouth.txt

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: "A Clear and Present Danger"

Kids and Guns: A Nationwide Study www.bradycampaign.org/facts/ research/?page=hart98&menu=gvr

California State Attorney-General's Office: "Revised Gun Control Legislation- 2004"

ag.ca.gov/firearms/

Casteen, John: "Ditching toe Rubric on Gun Control: Notes from a Moderate" Virginia Quarterly Fall, 2004, Vol. 80, iss. 4

Cockjfield, Errol A.: "Pataki signs gun law on LI"

Newsday, August 10, 2000 pA28(1)

Infobitsd: "Gun Control" Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, Sept 24, 1999 v99 i3

Kwon, J. and Baack, Daniel W.: "The effectiveness of legislation controlling gun usage: a holistic measure of gun control legislation" The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April 2005 v64 i2 p533(15)

Law Enforcement News: "Columbine Catalyzes the Gun Debate" John Jay College of Criminal Justice, December 15/30, 1999

www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/1999/12.30/columbine.html

NRA: "Gun Laws....In Other Countries" www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

Nemerov, Howard: "Does gun control lead to further erosion of civil rights?" Handguns, Oct-Nov 2005 v19 i5 p22(3)

No author listed:: "Gun Control vs. Gun Rights" OpenSecrets.org

www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/ -

Parsons:, Chris: "Governor to shore up gun control"

Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News), July 29, 2005 p NA

No author listed: "Gun Violence Statistics"

Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm -

No author listed: "Handguns and Crime in Great Britain"

www.gca.org.za/facts/briefs/23.htm