Gun Control
What is the problem: GUN CONTROL
My Solution: Stop focusing the legislations on law-abiding citizens that own guns, and start
stricter law enforcement regarding gun crimes. Enforce the already existing laws, stop the
government from adding more unenforceable laws.
Arguments in favor : According to David B. Kopel in The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry
Permits (July/August 1996) concealed-carry laws not only reduce violent crime, but also hold no
threat to public safety. �In Florida as a whole, 315,000 permits had been issued by December
31, 1995. Only five had been revoked because a permit holder committed a violent crime with a
gun.� He goes on to recount that Florida residents who are permit holders are 300 times less
likely to commit a gun crime than citizens without permits.(qtd. in Bijlefeld 85) In my mind this
clearly shows that with all our gun laws (currently totaling 20,000) the only people being
restricted are the ones who are willing to play by the rules in the first place.
Not only do the existing laws merely restrict non-criminal gun owners, the laws do
nothing to markedly decrease crime. As Daniel Polsby put it in The False Promise of Gun
Control: �While legitimate users of firearms encounter intense regulation, scrutiny, and
bureaucratic control, illicit markets easily adapt to whatever difficulties a free society throws in
their way...� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 92)
In Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, General
Accounting Office (January 25, 1996) we find that �...in a 1991 survey of state prison inmates,
which showed that 73% of those who had ever possessed a handgun did not purchase it from a
gun dealer.� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 96) If such a large percent of convicted criminals get their guns in
other ways, I don�t see the good of laws making people wait five days for a background check. I
see this as simply feeling an obligation that �something must be done� to reduce violence,
regardless of the efficacy of that �something.�
James B. Jacobs, J.D., and Kimberly A. Potter, J.D. (Keep Guns Out of the �Wrong
Hands: The Brady Law and the Limits of Regulation [1995] ) point out that if rejected at a gun
dealer due to the Brady law, a criminal can just as easily submit a false application elsewhere,
have a family member or friend buy a handgun for them, or purchase one on the secondary
market. �Thus there is no political or practical obstacles to ensuring severe sentences for gun
offenders. This should be the top priority for American law enforcement.�(qtd. in Bijlefeld 98)
Arguments in opposition: What I�ve gathered from the multitude of articles opposing citizens�
freedom to be armed, is that it is alright to take away a little freedom for the good of the whole.
In the Congressional Record (Senate, May 8, 1986), Document 114: Law Enforcement
Steering Committee Letter, we find �Retain current law that requires gun dealers to keep records
on all firearm sales, thus preserving law enforcement�s ability to trace firearm(s) used in
crimes.�(qtd. in Bijlefeld 126)
Sarah Brady was quoted in Time (29 January 1990, 23.) saying, �First we must require a
national waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, to allow for a criminal-records check.
Police know that waiting periods work. In the twenty years that New Jersey has required a
background check, authorities have stopped more than 10,000 convicted felons from purchasing
handguns.� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 109)
The Media shows the extreme side of gun control advocates: �Since there are 200 million
guns already out there, I don�t think that gun control is going to have much impact. But I think
we ought to do it anyway just to make a statement as a society, and even if you save a couple of
lives, then it�s worth it.� -Evan Thomas, Newsweek�s Assistant Managing Editor, Inside
Washington, May 1, 1999 (qtd. in Dickens 13)
�Get Rid of the guns. We had the second Amendment that said you have the right to bear
arms. I haven�t seen the British coming by my house looking for it. And besides, the right to
bear arms is not an absolute right anyway, as New York�s Sullivan Law proves.... But I think if
you took away guns, and I mean really take away the guns, not what Congress is doing now, you
would see that violent society diminish considerably.� -PBS NewsHour essayist Roger
Rosenblatt, May 20, 1999(qtd. in Dickens 13).
�I don�t understand why we�re piddling around. We should talk about getting rid of guns in
this country.� -The Washington Post�s Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, May 23, 1999 (qtd.
in Dickens 13).
�Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby. I mean, for example, we�re
talking about limiting people to one gun purchase, or handgun purchase, a month. Why not just
ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic
rifles? Nobody needs one.� -Time National Correspondent Jack E. White, Inside Washington,
May 1, 1999. (qtd. in Dickens 14).
Historical Perspective of the development of this policy: Debates about gun-control and
the civil right to bear arms in America started right at the time the Constitution was being
ratified. Federalist Noah Webster thought that the people shouldn�t be armed so that the military
and government could be more powerful, (qtd. in Bijlefeld 7) while Richard Henry Lee, an
Anti-Federalist senator from Virginia, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, said,�To
preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be
taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...�(qtd. in Bijlefeld 8)
At this time in America, when our Founding Fathers were establishing the new
government, there was a lot of fear that the central government would be too powerful, and that
the national army would be used to bully the citizens around, as they had just experienced prior
to the American Revolutionary War. The need for state militias, and also a national army to help
strengthen the central government, was cause for a lot of debate. Here are some of the versions
of the Second Amendment that were reviewed: �The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render
military service in person.� -Amendment offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789.
(qtd. in Bijlefeld 2). Samuel Adams offered that the �constitution never be construed to
authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from
keeping their own arms� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 3). All these stemmed from the English Bill of Rights
(1689) which states: �That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defense
suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 2). The final version which
was passed by the Senate on September 9,1789, now our Second Amendment, is as follows: �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� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 3).
Nearly all gun-control debates center around the Second Amendment, so it is interesting
to see that some court rulings about this, such as the ruling in Georgia: Nunn v. State (1846),
which rules in favor of the right of the people to bear arms.(qtd. in Bijlefeld 44) Likewise, in
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) wherein the Supreme Court decided that an African American
slave couldn�t become an American citizen, the rights of an American citizen were stated as
follows: �It would give to persons of the Negro race, ...the full liberty of speech in public...to
hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.�
(qtd. in Bijlefeld 44)
In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled, in U.S. v. Cruikshank that the right of �bearing arms
for a lawful purpose� isn�t a Constitutional right, that the Second Amendment is only referring to
Congress not infringing on those rights. �This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
than to restrict the powers of the national government....� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 45).
More recently, in the 1982 Presser v. Illinois, the Court held that �the Second
Amendment doesn�t reach state and local governments, either directly or through the 14th
Amendment� (qtd. in Bijlefeld 48). With rulings like this, it is no wonder that as time went by,
more and more gun control came into effect, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act (1993) which put limitations on gun sales, such as a five-day waiting period for gun
purchasers, so the gun dealer can check to make sure the purchaser isn�t a criminal, etc.
Purchasers must also fill out a statement with personal information to apply for handguns (qtd. in
Bijlefeld 93). The regulations that are now imposed on firearms are quite extensive, and vary
from state to state. Interestingly enough, �the constitutions or bill of rights in 43 states contain a
�right to bear arms� clause. The seven states that do not have a constitutional provision are
California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin� (Appendix A,
Bijefeld).
Recently in California, Governor Gray Davis, on October 18, 2001, signed SB 52 and AB
35 which �remove the exemptions for licensed hunters and retired veterans from the
requirements to obtain the Handgun Safety Certificate...� (NRA web-page). This further shows
that the regulations that are being passed are not aimed at criminals, or at limiting criminal
access to guns, but in limiting guns themselves. It seems that in our privileged, sheltered society
here in America, we have been free for so long that people don�t really question the taking away
of these freedoms. America had been settled for centuries before the American Revolutionary
War occurred. The whittling away of freedoms turns into the removing of freedoms.
My opinion: I think that my idea is a good solution. Laws have more weight behind them if
enforcement is strongly carried out, just as parents command more obedience from their children
when rules are upheld. Regardless of how effective my idea may be immediately, I have not
been convinced by the gun-control advocates that taking away the freedom to own guns has in
the past or will in the future reduce crime.
I have read a couple of books in researching this topic, wherein the author believes in gun
control because someone they knew died because of a gun. Unfortunately, there are sick
depraved people in our society. I�m not just referring to criminals; everyone you see is capable
of violence, because humans don�t have a golden streak inside that�s purely good. Removing
guns from society doesn�t remove violence from society, because ultimately humans are to
blame. Moral reform would require something entirely different, which would have to come
from God, not from man-made rules and regulations. Obviously, those have not worked.
Violence and ugliness continues in our generation, as it has since the advent of sin in our world.
A commonly believed lie is that crime and hatred and violence are worse in our time than they
have ever been. I think we just hear more about it, thanks to our garbage-attracted media. All I
know is that I will not rely on the government to protect me, I will keep my freedom and keep
matters in my own hands, and what�s beyond that I will have to entrust to God.