Regulating Gun Control & Public Safety

Carrying firearms has always been a sensitive issue in America. At present, the American people have a divided opinion on this and this difference is growing day by day. In Missouri, the first ruling on carrying guns has recently been implemented, and with this, the question of monitoring firearms has once again gained precedence. Hence due to all this, the threat of giving up personal autonomy and innate privileges tends to exist more than ever compared to the past. Those who believe in curbing common carrying of firearms should be communicated in clear terms that firearms regulation is not actually the deterrent to crime but rather restrains the rights of decent citizens who want to conform to the law (Poe, 2001).

It would be pertinent to identify the various kinds of arms regulation, put forth by those who advocate them before we understand the dynamics of arms regulation issue. Gun controls are of various kinds, but we shall discuss the most recently executed methods which the scope of this discussion encompasses (Poe, 2001).

Presently, in most of the cities and states of the country, an obligatory waiting period is enforced which is one the most common kind of gun control. This period is usually from three to seven days and the purpose is to slow down the purchase of a gun in order to harness an impulsive desire to execute a crime. Waiting period is often advocated by its proponents due to the reason that in case a person was not happy with someone else and wished to harm that person, he or she could satisfy his or her frustration more easily in case of quick access to an available source of firearms (Poe, 2001).

A popular notion about waiting period is that it delays people wanting to arm themselves, and hence this way their negative emotions for others subside. However, this reasoning can very well be rejected. A killer would not pass up his decision of terminating someone just on the ground that he had to wait a week. In his hurry to commit a crime, the person would simply go ahead and grab a weapon illegally in order to carry out his plan (Lott, 2000).

Some people opine in this regard, that a common person would not know how to get a gun unlawfully and only real criminals have such access. However the same people suggest that there should be restriction on arms access since criminals have an open access to guns. Also waiting periods do not ward off crime. A prospective criminal could still exercise patience and let the waiting period pass after which he could kill the person. He could either get hold of a gun unlawfully, or he could just make use of an atypical weapon altogether. In reality, this has been proved that waiting intervals and the occurrences of crime have little correlation (Lott, 2000).

According to a very complex statistical research, the study conductors Lott and Landes discovered that the factors such as waiting intervals, background checks and granting one gun a month had little impact on mass murder rates and no effect on ordinary murder rates. Economics is a major compeller for the drive behind liberals to promote waiting periods (Lott, 2000).

It should be taken into account, that on the average, people are driven by impulsive needs to purchase firearms. Hence, the liberals believe that when a waiting period is enforced, majority of the people will go back on their decision to purchase a firearm during the waiting period, and that way lesser people will equip themselves finally (Lott, 2000).

It is the claim of the campaigners on the left-wing that the waiting periods on guns should be validated along with preliminary checks. These checks render people with a previous history of crime and those with psychological disturbances ineligible to possess firearms. Though these preliminary checks appear quite convincing, yet they have little feasible application as analyzed by Lott and Landes in their study (LaPierre, 2003).

People with past criminal standing, are most susceptible to buy weapons through illegal means, and will tend to avoid legal ways. Ironically, background checks are not free of significant errors which have always been there. The fact is that the check has to undergo processing within a specified timeframe, and therefore the whole data of potential buyers is not possible to be searched. Hence, this gives rise to generation of imprecise or deficient data which might permit a criminal to pass a check (LaPierre, 2003).

The real incentive of the applying a background check is similar to that of waiting intervals, and that is to deter people who are contemplating to buy the firearms by compelling them to wait longer to buy. The irony is that these people who are scrutinized are not those who want to offend the law so they should be denied access to guns; on the other hand, they are ordinary citizens who respect the law in its entirety (LaPierre, 2003).

The firearm regulation parties have a valid concern that if people are required to possess a licence to drive cars then why the same condition is not applied on people having guns. It is very apparent, that their attempts to endorse gun safety are merely weak efforts to employ a nation-wide gun listing program. Their major reasoning is that if the governing authorities have a record of people carrying guns, they will be able to track their use, and thus more efficiently solve and avert crimes. Still, their actual purpose underlines a continuous maintenance of listing of all people who own guns for use in the ultimate confiscation of all firearms (Mauser, 2001).

The logic of this practice is nullified when one reflects on the truth that such registration of firearms is unable to record criminals who use guns obtained through illegal sources. Also, it is not possible to maintain records of those who obtained the weapons prior to implementation of registration. Things are further complicated when those who fear confiscation of firearms by the government are often reckoned as fearful and hence not taken as seriously (Mauser, 2001).

This is really worrying when we turn the pages back to history, especially the era of Nazi Germany. It would be interesting to know that when the Nazis invaded the countries, they were able to dominate the common citizens by first getting hold of their weapons. This they did by making use of the data generated with the help of gun registration (Weir, 1997).

There was a catch to it. The Nazis merely made it public on false grounds that they had the registration records and commanded all people to hand over their guns. They imposed a penalty for not meeting up to this command, and the penalty was death. Nearly whole of the European population abided by this order, especially when some executions were carried out by the invaders as a measure of caution (Weir, 1997).

The argument for registration has also a specific amount of paradox. The Supreme Court laid down in 1968 that the compulsory gun listing was, in certain situations a breach of the 5^th Amendment. Also, a sentenced felon named Miles Haynes was arrested for possessing a shotgun with a short barrel that was not registered (Weir, 1997).

According to Haynes, if he had registered his weapon as per the legal requirements, then that would have meant an offence to the federal law, which prohibited the possession of firearms by sentenced felons. Thus he would be convicting himself by having his gun registered, and hence the compulsory registration was illegal as per the 5^th Amendment. It is no surprise that Haynes' case was upheld tremendously (Lott, 2000).

Hence, this decision effectively made felons excused from laws compelling them to register their weapons, which would be intrinsically illegal. Under this system, only those who have no crime to their credit would be penalized under registration and licensing systems, which cannot hold true for the criminals (LaPierre, 2003). It is hard to understand how one can disagree over such a system.

Those who endorse gun regulation do not conceal their real objectives all the time. They are just of the opinion that the ordinary citizens should not own guns at all. In order to support their view by taking into account the United States Constitution, they assert that it does not give anyone the right to keep guns. Furthermore, they also deduce from the Second Amendment that only those serving in the military are allowed to have firearms, and everyone else is not. It is rather difficult to ascertain how they formed this opinion (Poe, 2001).

The Second Amendment 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." Interestingly, the word "militia "does not indicate military. The Webster's Dictionary defines "militia" as a "body of citizen soldiers, called out only in emergencies.' (432). "Citizen" is the main word. The same dictionary presents a synonym for citizen as "civilian" (130). The proper use of the word "civilian" (130) is "one engaged in civil, not military, pursuit," (131). Hence by definition, a militia comprises of people who are ordinary civilians and not belonging to the military. When we replace this definition into the Second Amendment, the following result is deduced: "A well regulated body of citizens, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."(Poe, 2001)

Hence it becomes obvious that the Second Amendment aimed to assure that all people have the privilege to own automatic weapons, and it is not something restricted to only military. Still, this evidence is not sufficient for those against the carrying of firearms by the citizens. This group propounds that the Constitution makes no allusion to the types of guns one can carry. They just mention these guns as being "assault weapons" (Lott, 2000).

The expression is commonly used to describe any type of military-style firearm, without any consideration of its practical function. Efforts to prohibit these weapons have been tried now and then, regrettably with success at times. Also, some rules and regulations are formed under the principle that these alleged assault weapons have no real functional use outside of the armed forces, and only the likes of terrorists and convicts would want to draw them (Lott, 2000).

It is ironic, that a great deal of data quoted presently concerning "assault weapons" is not factual. Here, we would like to bear into account fully automatic weapons which are basically guns which fire multiple rounds once the trigger is kept pressed. These guns have been banned since promulgation of the National Firearms Act of 1935 (LaPierre, 2003). Semi-automatic guns that only shoot a solo shot every time the trigger is pulled are the only lawfully entitled guns for most of the people.

The truth is that the civilian adaptations of fully automatic military weapons are not much different than the common rifles sold at Wal-Mart. A Remington rifle which is a hunter's prized possession has a killing force as brutal as a semi-automatic AK-47 would exercise. It cannot be denied that compared to hunting guns, majority of the military weapons will fire longer distances and hold more rounds, but they still do not pose more danger to the society (Weir, 1997).

A fire from Remington is as likely to kill someone as a shot from the AK-47. The truth is that military weapons are lesser in force when weighed against the hunting guns. Since the civilian models of military firearms have the same design as the original, they are confined with the same restrictions. Effectiveness requires that a portable rifle capable of firing in a fully-automatic manner must use lower-powered rounds, to stop the barrel from rising too severely when several shots are fired in automatic mode (Weir, 1997).

These military firearms have civilian models that are prepared to use the same cartridges. Hence, that way they too are less powerful than a standard semi-automatic-only designed rifle. "Assault Weapons" are just termed as such due to their tendency to be like military weapons, and hence appear threatening. They offer no real hazard and in some cases, less menace than traditional hunting rifles (Weir, 1997).

No doubt, when one conforms to the afore-mentioned reasoning in front of someone who supports gun regulation, they are quick to question the need to carry gun by a common citizen. Then they also opine whether people really need to hunt for their food anymore? Furthermore, does today's man need to protect himself? The group maintains that in today's world, it is the job of the police to protect you against criminals, and the government must help them by keeping guns away from those offenders. The question arises who will protect them against the government? The second amendment was not designed so as to make certain that an individual goes for deer hunting. It was to ascertain the capability of law-abiding citizens to secure themselves from a repressive government.

Now let's go back two hundred years. Just after the United States was formed, the Bill of Rights was documented. At that time, the founders were fearful that the States would turn into an oppressive place just like England if checks and balances were not implemented. One such bill comprised allowing the citizens to own weapons in order to minimize the power of a government to run over its people. Firearms regulation rejects the ruling of that bill, and concentrates power in an ever-growing central government. According to Benjamin Franklin, "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety" (Mauser, 2001).

Next, we have to consider accidents arising out of carrying guns, which is a popular reason for the removal of guns. It is frequently recorded in Statistics by the liberals, that a frightening number of children are killed each year in gun accidents. They regularly recommend compulsory gun locks, and also other measures designed to keep guns out of hands of kids (Mauser, 2001).

However, they fail to mention that the most useful measure is to curb firearm accidents among children through formal gun education and not prohibition. When the issue is examined in detail, we find that the trigger-lock hinders timely use of the weapon in an actual emergency. A gun is basically owned to cater to the self-defence needs of the user, whereas the user would not really have time to remove such a device as trigger-lock.

Hence the trigger-lock regulations are basically making a weapon too cumbersome for quick self-defence. It is possible to safeguard your children and still keep a defensive firearm in the home, and the solution is very simple, namely education. It would not be wise to teach children to be fearful of guns and keep away from them since that would in fact initiate them to be rather inclined towards the firearms. Children are curious by nature and want to explore new things, hence, the same curiosity might induce them to locate and play around with their parents' guns thus causing accidents. It is better if a child is exposed to guns under situations which are organized and supervised. If they are taught suitable use and safety procedures, accidents can be easily overcome (Poe, 2001).

One reason for outlawing guns as put forth by the Liberals is that they are a source of suicide cases since depressive people take their lives with their help. However, this reasoning has very weak basis aside from the question of ethics concerning the right to kill oneself. It can be established that guns do not really initiate people to kill themselves though people often opt for guns to commit suicide (Poe, 1997).

Figures show that the suicide rate in the United States, which is about 12 cases in a population of hundred thousand, is less compared to Japan which is 14 cases in a population of hundred thousand, in spite of the fact that there is non-availability of guns in Japan (Weir, 1997). This proves that there is correlation between the number of suicide cases and the availability of guns, hence banning guns in the United States will not help people to stay away from suicide.

It could be easily concluded that restraining use of guns is not the answer to reduce crime. Liberal activists often assert that gun control helps thwarts the number of killings. F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Reports narrate that two-thirds of all murders in 2002 were carried out with the help of firearms. Though this figure substantiates that possessing firearms is a big contributor to killings yet we are surprised when we consider the 'weapons' used in the rest of the murders.

The same report suggests that for approximately one-fourth of the murders in 2002, clubs (or other blunt objects), knives or the hands or feet were used. That means that these murders were executed with the help of weapons found commonly in an average American household. Does it mean that the steak knives and baseball bats should be banned? Definitely not! Another remarkable fact is that killings related to firearm accounted for only 0.0065% of all violent crimes that occurred in 2002 (U.C.R.) which is much less than one percent. This shows that there is a very low probability of being killed by someone with a gun.

The harsh reality of life is that crime will always persist. The same goes for murder. It will always stay there no matter what laws are passed or what measures are taken. The chains of legislation cannot bind the criminals who will not limit themselves to function within their confinement and will continue to overlook the hands of the law. If the weapons are subject to strict control and the innocent are denied their use, then the power will be left in the hands of those who would exploit it - these are the criminals and the government.

Works Cited:

LaPierre, W. 2003. Guns, Freedom, and Terrorism. Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Mauser, G. 2001. Firearm Registration and the Slippery Slope in Canada. The Fraser Forum, The Fraser Institute. p. 8-10.

Weir, W. 1997. A Well Regulated Militia: The Battle Over Gun Control. North Haven.

Poe, R. 2001. The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth About Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment. Prima Lifestyles.

Lott jr., R. L. 2000. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. University Of Chicago Press.