Gun Control

A. No matter how they are looked upon, guns will be, as they always have been, dangerous. Every time a gun is fired, negative, more often than positive, effects follow. One way or another, gun use must be governed.

B. Many demands exist which a law abiding citizen must meet in order to gain possession of a handheld projectile weapon.

C. Gun control is a definite necessity. Saying "let's get rid of all guns," will not work; reality dictates this will never happen; in today's world it is not an option. However, problems which have been until now only monitored can be controlled. Pressure can and must be applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership.

A. Proposed and implemented laws and bills are often opposed not only by individuals, but by huge organizations. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is against the Brady Bill.

B. Guns in the hands of incompetent individuals (juveniles, for example). Suicide, intended and not intended homicide statistics.

Requires a waiting period during which personal checks are run on a person purchasing a firearm.

D. Different states require one or more or all the following - a permit, gun registration, a license to own, and a permit to carry (separate ones for concealed and unconcealed). The requirement of the documents varies from state to state since it is based on a particular state's crime rate.

C. In the wrong hands guns are a serious threat to the society. Control is required.

Gun control is one of the most debatable topics today. Thirty-three million Americans own firearms for hunting (Aitkens 9). But hunting is not the sole reason for which many individuals buy firearms. Of all countries, the United States is the one which is troubled most by a large number of criminals who are in possession of guns. The U.S. has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world (Aitkens 5). Where is the country going wrong as far as gun control is concerned? An immense number of laws have been created by the legislature. All were made in order to be sure guns remain in control of the right hands, yet the problems seem to prevail. All three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) are involved in desperate attempts to improve the situation. Getting rid of guns would not work; it would be an impossible task. But, if pressure was applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership - a majority of problems could be controlled.

Since there are two sides to every debate, the antithesis of this position views gun control as unnecessary. This view is strongly held by the National Rifle Association, a very powerful organization, which has nearly 3 million members and an annual budget of 88 million dollars. The NRA is highly effective in motivating thousands of gun owners into action against gun control legislation. Lobbying, advertisements, letter-writing campaigns, and contributions to political candidates who oppose gun control have been some of the establishment's most effective strategies in its fight against tighter firearms laws. Most members of the NRA believe that restricting firearms to prevent gun-related deaths is ridiculous. Allen R. Hodgkins III, a spokesperson for the association, once said, "If you follow that logic, we should also ban the use of motor vehicles. More than 47,000 people die each year in motor vehicle accidents. If we ban their use, no one will ever have a motor vehicle accident and no one will ever die" (Aitkens 11). The whole idea of restricting firearms can seem absurd when contrasted with information published by the National Rifle Association which states that in reality over 99.8 percent of firearms and 99.6 percent of handguns will never be involved in criminal activity. This means that gun control laws would restrict law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to reduce crime (Aitkens 13-15).

The following twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment have caused quite a bit of confusion for the past two hundred years:

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 (Landau 44).

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But to whom does it guarantee the right? Everybody? Whom exactly did the people who wrote the amendment have in mind? Let's not forget, this was written over two hundred years ago when life was different. At that time hunting was a major means of getting food and guns were required to protect oneself and one's property from hostile Native Americans and other intruders. In other words, what a car is to an American today, a rifle was to an American back then - a bare necessity (Gottfried 26-31). Another problem about this Amendment is that there are many interpretations of what several of the words in the short text mean. For example, people , according to many, refers to all individual American citizens. Others believe that people is simply avoiding the use of the word militia again, but the two are used in the same sense. In other words, people , used here does not indicate a right of all individuals, but only of those selected few who belong to a militia (which at that time included almost all the males living in a colony). Also, many argue that the Amendment gives states the right to form well-regulated militias or a National Guard and that people as individuals have the right to keep and carry certain types of guns - namely, the kinds of guns used by soldiers in state militias. Those would be for no other purpose but to defend the state. All other guns, such as sawed-off shotguns (short-barrelled guns and handguns), can be regulated by the government because such guns have never been used by the military and, therefore, do not have a military purpose (Gottfried 31-33).

Afore mentioned NRA statistics seem overwhelming, and, perhaps, conclusive. However, they are rather meaningless since they do not manage to explain the damages caused by those mere 0.2 percent (for firearms) and 0.4 percent (for handguns). The following are some statistics gathered by Maggi Aitkens:

The number of people murdered by firearms rose 160 percent between the years 1960 and 1980, comparing to an increase of 85 percent for people who were murdered by other means.

Every day in the United States, 10 children ages 18 and under are killed by handguns, mainly by accident.

A teenager intentionally takes his or her own life with the use of a handgun every three hours. In general, as the years go by, guns tend to outweigh all other methods of suicides, and this includes adults, as well. (pg. 6-7)

These misfortunes are just a few examples of the power of guns to kill. Tens more can be thought of in a matter of seconds. Even though Mr. Hodgkins' opinion seems to make a lot of sense, it is not without flaw. Susan Whitmore, a spokesperson for Handgun Control, Inc., sees things a bit differently. During an interview she said,

"We have laws for people who drive cars, including who can drive, how they drive, and under what circumstances. People are required to pass a test, obtain a license, and register their vehicles. They're prohibited from driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol - when most car accidents occur - and these laws are strictly enforced. We're not calling for a total ban on firearms. We're calling for national laws that stop criminal access to handguns and ensure the appropriate use of firearms - the same way laws require people to use an automobile appropriately. In a country where cars, dogs, and even bicycles must be registered in most areas, shouldn't we have at least similar laws for something as dangerous as firearms?" (Aitkens, 11-12)

According to Whitmore, no one from Handgun Control, a non-profit organization, believes gun control laws alone will stop all handgun violence. She goes on to say "We're not that naive. The fact is, gun control is only part of the answer - but it's a very important part. We believe it will make a significant dent in the number of needless handgun and other firearm deaths in this country." (Aitkens, 12) Thus, Handgun Control favors what else? - gun control! Handgun Control works to pass federal legislation, to keep handguns out of the wrong hands. Claiming more than one million supporters, the organization's central goal is to establish an effective national gun policy (Aitkens 15-17). In summary, the difference between the two sides is that Handgun Control believes that enacting more gun control laws and enforcing stiffer penalties for criminals who use guns will help reduce gun-related crimes in America, while the NRA believes the solution to violent crime lies solely in the swift, sure punishment of people who use guns to commit crimes. Although both favor crime reduction, Handgun Control employs a strategy which addresses the problem of gun-related accidents, suicides, and crimes before they happen by requiring a background search. This background search is opposed by the NRA because they believe that the assumption of innocence makes this unnecessary. Although one should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, there is nothing wrong with being cautious about gun possession.

In the United States, the controversy over federal gun control legislation did not really begin until the early 1900's. Since then, 20,000 plus gun control laws have been ratified at all levels - federal, state, and local. Do gun control laws actually work? This is the question most often posed in the never ending controversy. Some people believe gun control laws keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and, thus, prevent violent crimes. Others insist that criminals simply find other ways to obtain weapons, and gun control laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to own guns (Bender 68). In a way both statements are true, but they clash and both have flaws. And this is exactly what makes it obvious that something must be done in order to correct the situations. Since there are many laws on the books already, more laws is not the solution. So what must be done? The laws must be applied. Only by enforcing the laws can we make them useful; otherwise, government officials wasted a lot of time creating them in the first place. Enforcing means keeping very strict documentation of all actions, starting with manufacturing at the base and ending with licenses to carry at the peak. (But more about this further on.)

Gun control laws are usually passed in reaction to an increase in crime. Gangsters started using sawed-off shotguns and automatic weapons in the 1920's, causing a lot of problems. People needed to somehow protect themselves against being constantly threatened of getting caught in gang-to-gang cross-fire. Laws concerned with this particular problem weren't passed until 1927 in the form of the Miller Bill. Mandatory registration of the most commonly used weapons in the previously described crimes did not follow until 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The assassinations of the '60's, including President Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., and presidential candidate Senator Robert Kennedy provoked further action with the Gun Control Act of 1968.

A constant complaint is that gun control works against people who obey the law. This is unfortunate, but people should learn to cope with this. Why is that? Some people simply have to lose or give up what they want for the sake of the majority. Since picking a criminal out of a crowd is impossible, it should be assumed that anyone and everyone could be a criminal. Laws of prohibition or control must be set up for everybody, including those individuals who would not present any problems. Criminals have easy access to guns, and the only way of stopping them from obtaining them, is by unfortunately restricting easy access of guns for everyone.

A waiting period would prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. The following historical event illustrates this need. On March 30, 1981, in Washington D.C., John Hinkley pulled a .22-caliber revolver from his pocket and opened fire on President Ronald Reagan, White House Secretary James Brady, and two security men. Although he was injured (the bullet hit only an inch from the heart), Reagan recovered. Brady was shot in the head and suffered severe brain injury that left him permanently disabled. Hinckley had done nothing more than present a valid driver's license and purchased his gun (with which he committed the crime) for twenty-nine dollars in a Dallas pawn shop. Even though he used a false address, at the time of purchase he was not a convicted felon. It has to be understood a gun is not a toy, but Hinckley had not gone through any more trouble buying the weapon than people who come into the store to buy, let's say, a newspaper. Some people believe that a waiting period is needed between the time a person applies to buy a firearm and the time when the actual purchase is made in order to do a background check on the buyer. Most gun control supporters say a waiting period and background check would prevent many shootings. Sarah Brady, a lobbyist for Handgun Control and the wife of James Brady, is one of several people who have worked to get Congress to approve a major gun control bill, commonly known as the Brady Bill, that would require a seven-day waiting period. On May 8, 1991, the Brady Bill passed by a vote of 239 to 186 in the House of Representatives. The Senate included a slightly different version in its Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill - a bill that addressed not only gun control, but many other issues as well. A compromise between the Senate and the House of Representatives also set up a program to update criminal records so dealers could eventually conduct instant checks on purchasers through centralized computer system (Aitkens 54-56). A waiting period just might have stopped Hinckley. Currently, the Brady Bill has presidential support. President Clinton called for a strengthening of the Brady Bill during the reelection campaign (Kopel 43-44).

Gun control is necessary in our violent society. Gun registration, permits to purchase, license to own, and license to carry are very important safety precautions. States like New Jersey require all of these, depending on specific uses of the weapon. Vermont, however, requires none, and the minimum age is 16. The requirements are mirrored by crime rates of specific areas of the United States, and Vermont, unfortunately, is a very rare example of a state with a low crime rate. Most states are somewhere in between with requirements, and many come close or match those of New Jersey. The documentation is very important as it monitors transfers between dealer and buyer. Documentation must be enforced to such a degree that it is either unavoidable, or a person simply cannot get a gun.

Although convincing statistics have been cited, they alone are not enough. It is public opinion that shapes the government. Numerous polls and surveys indicate the majority want enforcement of current legislature regarding guns and firearms. Since more gun related crimes are committed in the USA than any other country in the world, the United States needs to improve its gun policies. Keeping people on record would allow strict control of guns. "People" are all involved; manufacturers, dealer, buyers, and most importantly, users.

Aitkens, Maggi. Should We Have Gun Control? Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company 1992. Cozic, Charles P., et al., eds. Gun Control . San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1992. Gottfried, Ted. Gun Control; Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms . Brookfield, CT: The Millbrook Press, 1993. Landau, Elaine. Armed America; The Status of Gun Control . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Julian Messner, 1991. Hawkes, Nigel. Gun Control . New York: Gloucester Press/Watts, 1988. "A New Round For and Against the Brady Bill." U.S. News & World Report 9 Sept. 1996: 8. Kopel, David. "Criminal Record." National Review 2 Sept. 1996: 43-44. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the Bergen County article.

I wasn't able to post it on their website, so if anyone else can, feel free.

----

I have recently reviewed the posting on gun control on your web site and am dismayed by the large number of incorrect assumptions, primarily based on incorrect data.

1) To quote your article directly, "Every time a gun is fired, negative, more often than positive, effects follow."

While there are approx. 30,000 deaths a year from firearms (including homicide, suicide, and accidents), intervention by armed citizens stops millions of crimes each year, often without the need for actually needing to fire a weapon. This fact consistently goes unreported by traditional media outlets, which consistenly show a bias in favor of gun control legislation versus responsible ownership of firearms.

2) Given that there are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books in this country, why is there no example of one of these laws which has successfully led to a reduction in violent crime? Gun control laws are praised based on their level of severity, such as those in Massachusetts, rather on their effectiveness. In fact, violent crime rates in Massachusetts have gone up since the new laws have been passed. In addition, according to recent BATF statistics, Boston ranks as one of the most likely cities for a juvenile to be in posession of a weapon when arrested.

Research by John Lott at the University of Chicago has shown the opposite to be true. In the 34 states where "right to carry" laws have been passed, violent crime has shown a general reduction, including multiple-victim shootings.

3) The United States no longer ranks among nations with the highest murder rates. It has been surpassed by nations which have introduced universal bans on private firearms ownership, including, but not limited to Australia and England. While firearm fatalities in the United States went up from 1960 to 1980, they have gone down consistently since then to where they are now at the lowest point in the last thirty years. These rates in the United States have gone down while, at the same time, the number of firearms owned by American citizens has gone up.

4) According to the 1998 National Vital Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, firearms are the preferred method of suicide among males. Of the 17,242 suicides using firearms, only 1,241 were individuals of age 19 or below. This is less than half the number cited. There are till more non-firearm suicides (13,151) in this country that there are homicides by firearms (12,102), reflecting that this is more of a mental health issue than a gun-control issue.

5) Accidental deaths by firearms have consistently been below 1000 per year, less than 1% of all accidental deaths in the United States. The CDC numbers for 1998 list only 832. Of these, only 262 were individuals under the age of 19. A large number of these deaths are not due to children having access to guns, but accidental discharges of firearms in the hands of white males in their 20s, usually with alcohol involved.

6) The NRA has over 4 million members.

7) The inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with hunting. It's purpose in guaranteeing the right to "the people" is political, to prevent all power by force from being concentrated in the hands of the governement. According to the definition by Thomas Jefferson, when the people fear the government, it's tyranny and when the government fears the people, it's democracy.

I just checked out that message board, and it has definitely been FREEPED!

I sent the following reply to both the message board.

Regarding the article on gun control by Michael Sienko the author's whole argument falls apart because of this statement:

"Since picking a criminal out of a crowd is impossible, it should be assumed that anyone and everyone could be a criminal."

This is presuming that everybody is guilty until proven innocent. This is a violation of the Fifth and Sixth amendments.

Another thing that stuck out in my mind was that the author called everybody up to the age of 18 "children".

The fact is that for children age 1-14, 142 died in 1997 from firearms. This is a far cry from 3,650 each year, as Michael Sienko would have you believe. (Source: Figures are for 1997. National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 2000 Edition, at 10, 11, 18.)

Dr. Kleck notes that, "Accidental shooters were significantly more likely to have been arrested, arrested for a violent act, arrested in connection with alcohol, involved in highway crashes, given traffic citations, and to have had their driver's license suspended or revoked." (Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University.)

If we are to go by things that cause child deaths as reason to control items, then swimming pools (965 deaths), fires (676 deaths), small objects (suffocation - 474 deaths), and food (185 deaths) should be controlled. (Source: See above National Safety Council source)

Mre Sienko also states, "No matter how they are looked upon, guns will be, as they always have been, dangerous. Every time a gun is fired, negative, more often than positive, effects follow."

I've fired some form of a firearm more than 1,000 times. In most cases, the result was a hole in a piece of paper. Other cases resulted in holes in other assorted inanimate targets. One shot resulted in the death of a varmint on our property. No shots resulted in human fatalities. When you multiply this times all the other gun owners who shoot for recreation and sport, the statement that "every time a gun is fired, negative effects follow" falls apart.

Compound this with the fact that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. Of these, less than 8% of the time does the citizen shoot or kill his attacker. This means that usually, a law abiding citizen merely needs to brandish his weapon to stop a crime from occurring.

I also wish to take issue with the argument that guns cause suicides. About 57% of all suicides are done with a gun. So, if we take guns away, will it stop this 57% from killing themselves? I'd say that more likely, most of this 57% would find some other way to kill themself.

And finally, I want to say something about waiting periods. I'd say that most of the time, waiting periods keep people from purchasing a gun when they need one. Possible examples include women who have recieved threats from past partners, and other individuals who have been threatened by ill intended persons. And of course, there's the masses of people in Massachusetts who, because of 911,went out to buy a gun and found out that they have to wait 60 days to purchase a gun.

If I want to assassinate somebody, believe me, I wouldn't be stopped because of a waiting period. If one were to make a serious assassination attempt, it would be planned out well in advance, which would allow the person ample opportunity to purchase a gun long before the planned attempt.

No amount of legislation would stop criminals from getting guns. Case in point: any drug of your choice. All are illegal, yet millions of people are able to acquire a regular supply of whatever it is they're addicted to. Making something illegal simply makes it so that only criminals have that item which is illegal.

In closing, both Britain and Australia have banned private gun ownership. Since those bans went into place, gun related crimes have gone UP instead of down.

I also included a link to the GunOwners.org firearms fact sheet.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.