Gun Control
A very serious issue in the United States today is the subject of gun control. There is a debate between those who feel that the right to safety is impeded by lenient gun control laws, and those that believe the right to own guns is protected in the constitution. Both views are valid, as both are supported by the constitution. 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.” Both sides of the debate respect the right to own guns. Many feel that gun ownership should be permitted strictly for the purpose of, if necessary, forming a militia. Those on the other side of the debate feel that this amendment’s ambiguous wording was intentional, and was meant to allow gun ownership with relatively little regulation. The two sides of this argument spawn from a difference of interpretation, and this difference is what leads to polar views on the matter.
Harsher gun control laws will decrease the number of gun related accidents. This is the foundation of the argument of those in favor of stricter gun laws, and it is a valid one. Most of the people with this viewpoint have no problem with private gun ownership. Generally, objections occur in response to concealed weapons, assault weapons, and with how easy it is to obtain a gun. It is believed that guns are protected in the constitution strictly for the purposes of overthrowing the government if needed, and for self-protection. However, many studies that have been conducted indicate that weapons aren’t being used for the reasons defined in the constitution. An FBI crime report stated that out of the 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US in 2004, only 229 were justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms. This means that the vast majority of these shootings were conducted under illegal circumstances. Obtaining a firearm is a fairly simple procedure. In 1990, the Brady Bill was passed. This required a background check for each person purchasing a firearm. It also required a seven-day waiting period before a gun purchase, to allow a cool off period for those purchasing a firearm for illegal purposes. This waiting period was later declared unconstitutional, and is now left up to the states. This does prevent many criminals from purchasing firearms, but many people who aren’t already listed as criminals can misuse firearms just as easily. The problem, simply put, is that there are guns getting into the hands of criminals through illegal trafficking, and many of the people able to purchase guns are incapable of using them responsibly. From this viewpoint, it is necessary to pass more stringent gun laws to protect the innocent from the misuse of firearms.
Strict gun laws will violate the second amendment and prohibit Americans from protecting themselves. This foundation for the argument against strict gun laws is justified and supported. Most people with this school of thought feel that the ability to form an effective militia is slowly deteriorating as more gun laws are passed. Also, individuals are losing the ability to protect themselves effectively. Waiting periods just make it more difficult to protect oneself. Waiting periods and background checks prevents immediate protection, and only harms those who follow the rules. More gun laws will only infringe upon the rights of honest citizens. Criminals illegally obtain guns now, and they will continue to illegally obtain guns regardless of the laws in place. The current laws should be enforced more effectively. Since 1993, the US government has spent over 300 million dollars on the National Instant Check System, and there are still many malfunctions in this system. If the laws currently in place were correctly implemented, there wouldn’t be a major problem with gun safety. It’s just a matter of inefficiency. Another key issue is the protection of citizens against the government. Even if guns lead to unnecessary deaths, they protect the American population from a possible tyrannical government. One of the first actions of Hitler was to seize the guns of the civilians. This prevented any real resistance from the population. This is a straightforward viewpoint. Gun laws simply restrict the rights of American citizens.
The two major sides of this debate agree on many key issues. Both sides are seeking protection of the innocent and safety of the overall population. However, differences in opinion arise when determining the best way to obtain safety. Those in favor of strict gun laws are seeking change, whereas those in favor of lenient gun laws wish for things to remain the same and are defending their position. There are many key issues involving gun laws that both sides of the debate feel strongly about. Many feel that firearms should contain many safety features, in addition to those already present, to prevent those who cannot properly handle a firearm from causing harm. They feel that the instances when a child, or anyone for that matter, is killed by accidental gunfire are devastating enough to require more safety features on guns. The counter to this argument is that governmental regulation is not needed here. Parents should be held accountable for proper discretion, protection, and education of children concerning firearms. Excess safety features prevent responsible gun users from protecting themselves properly. Another argument is that all gun owners should be required to register their firearms with the government, so that the gun owners are ultimately held responsible for their weapons. This would greatly assist law enforcement, as they would have records of who has purchased what firearm. Criminals would be the only ones impacted by this. Those against this argue that this targets a certain population and infringes upon their rights. This requirement would violate the privacy of gun owners. Many people also feel that semi-automatic firearms are overkill and therefore should be banned. Automatic weapons were banned in the 1990’s and have had drastic effects. Very few people would hunt with a semi-automatic weapon, restricting the use to military engagements. They are of no legal, practical use and should be outlawed. The response to this is that the government should not be allowed to determine which types of weapons serve as adequate protection. If semi-automatic weapons were banned, and the government needed to be overthrown, the US military would have much more firepower than a militia could.
In order for a consensus to be achieved, both sides are going to have to sacrifice some ground. In the near future at least, guns will never be completely banned, and some gun laws will always exist. The important thing is that the nation as a whole needs to benefit from the consensus. Even though the debate consists mainly of two completely polarized opinions, not every citizen feels as strongly. The decisions should lead to a safer country, without sacrificing protection. The key issues that have been discussed only make up a small portion of the firearm issues that exist. They represent a variety of the aspects of this debate. Concerning the debate over safety features, I feel that more should be required. This would really be no different than safety tops on medicine bottles and household cleaners or certain states requiring residents to wear seatbelts. All of these things may be nuisances, but they protect and save lives. The same reasoning should be put behind gun control, to a certain degree. If too many safety measures are present, the firearms will be useless. Gun maker Smith and Wesson recently decided to include trigger locks on all future guns. I think these should be required. Some people want guns to be fingerprint sensitive to ensure that the gun owner is the only one who can fire the weapon. This seems over the top and would greatly increase the price of guns. However, minor safety features should be added to firearms and would be a fair compromise. Another argument is over requiring gun owners to register their weapons with the government. This would assist law enforcement in tracking down criminals, but it would violate personal rights of gun owners. This seems to fall along the same lines as racial profiling. A certain population is targeted for making a legal purchase. On the other hand, firearms are major purchases. They are potentially deadly machines that should be dealt with carefully. In my opinion, I do not believe that gun owners should be required to register their weapons. Under current gun laws, this shouldn’t be required. Unless the Supreme Court changes the current standards, I feel that it would violate personal rights to require gun registration with the government. The debate over semi-automatic weapons concerns the nature in which this type of weapon would be used. The only conceivable use for the weapon would be military engagement. I feel that it is over the top and should be banned. Only harm could come from it. The argument that it would be useful in a militia, I feel, is moot. On one side, yes it is a useful weapon in combat. However, in my opinion, the US military is strong enough to defeat any militia, regardless of how many semi-automatic weapons the militia possessed, and I think they should be banned from the civilian population.
Current Supreme Court rulings allow for little gun restriction. Both sides of the debate agree that the Supreme Court should have final say on the matter. It is true that if guns were less accessible, school shootings, suicides from firearms, criminal actions involving guns, and accidental deaths would occur less frequently. Many also feel that the constitution is outdated in regards to firearms. They feel that the Constitution was written in a much different time, and there is no need for a militia in this modern age. However, because of past Supreme Court rulings, these arguments are null. Those against firearm restrictions believe that values should be taught so that people can be responsible with weapons, rather than to restrict the weapons themselves. Regardless, this debate cannot, at the moment, be easily solved or summarized. It is multi-faceted, and until the Supreme Court clearly defines the second amendment, no real consensus will be reached. The Supreme Court is currently ruling on the legality of Washington, D.C. banning handguns from the city. The decision will serve as a precedent for many similar cases. In hearing this case, the Court will be forced to interpret the Second Amendment. The ruling should to be made by the end of June 2008. After a resolution is made, there will be some basis for the gun law debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment