Student
Mr.
Maite
Honors
English 9
8
November 2000
Gun Control:
Is It Right for the US?
Over the years there have been many
debates about whether or not gun control is a good solution for the United
States. As a result, two very distinct
sides have formed: one for gun control and one against it. Recently, the pro gun control side has
argued that the many school shootings were partly a result of our country’s
minimal gun control. To many this may
seem like a reasonable argument, but in reality it is an over-generalization;
there are many other factors that play a part in horrific events like school
shootings. Those against gun control
have argued that gun control laws are a violation of citizen’s constitutional
rights often saying things like, “to take away the right to have guns is no
different from the attempt of the British to “disarm” the colonists during the
Revolutionary War” (Hanson 68). But
which side is right? Many would say
that neither side is completely correct, but when the facts are presented it is
obvious that gun control is not a good solution because “guns don’t kill
people, people kill people”, self-defense is the number one reason for owning a
gun, and because the gun control laws that are being instituted do not work
(Zimring 13).
It has been said that “unless we
solve the problem of interpersonal hatred it may not matter very much what we
do about guns” (20). The fact of the
matter is, that is the truth. Those
supporting gun control argue that if we restrict guns then murder and crime
rates will drop. However, until we
solve the hatred in the world there will always be crime and killing. Criminals will find other weapons or find a
way to get guns illegally. Studies
prove that in areas with more gun laws, crime is higher. Until we can start cracking down on those
who commit crimes, gun laws can do nothing to help. It is not the gun that kills, but the person pulling the trigger.
Those who advocate gun control have
argued that two-thirds of homicides are committed with a firearm (13). However, even with gun control, homicides
would most certainly continue because of human nature (13). Murderers would just turn to another weapon
and we would see more homicides committed with knives, axes, clubs, or other
weapons (Zimring 13). If someone wants
to kill badly enough virtually anything can be turned into a weapon. This can be proven by statistics that show
that in cities where there are many gun control laws the crime rate is higher.
It has been argued that gun control
laws would help decrease crime rates (Hanson 70). However, studies have proven that gun control laws have the
opposite affect. In 1967, New York City
passed a rifle and shotgun registration law (70). After the law was passed, crime rates in New York City rose
(70). The city of Washington DC passed
a handgun ban in 1976, and after that the murder rate in DC tripled
(71-72). A 1994 report showed that 304
of Washington DC’s 309 firearm homicides were committed with handguns even
though the city had banned handguns (71).
Further still, the homicide rate in Washington DC is much higher than
the national rate at seventy-five per one hundred thousand; however, the
national rate is only 9.5 per one hundred thousand (71). California also has a homicide rate that is
38 percent higher than the rest of the country--even though the state banned
assault weapons in 1989 (72). In South
Carolina violent crime rose more than 100 percent after they limited the sale
of handguns to one per person per month (72).
All these statistics prove that gun control is not a solution to our
country’s crime problem. We need to
crack down on the person pulling the trigger, rather than the availability of
guns.
Instead of restricting guns and
taking them away from law abiding citizens, a better solution would be to crack
down on the criminals and put more emphasis on their punishment (74). Organizations against gun control, like the
NRA, suggest reforming the criminal justice system (74). They suggest that the justice system be
reformed with five steps (74). First,
criminals need to be put in prison (74).
71 percent of the criminals sentenced are out on parole or probation
(74). Second, adequate sentences need
to be imposed (74). On average,
criminals serve only one-third of their sentence (74). Third, the system needs to get tough with
repeat offenders (74). As many as 237
crimes are committed each year by repeat offenders (74). Fourth, juveniles who commit adult crimes
need to serve adult time (74). Only 1.5
percent of juvenile offenders serve time (74).
Last, the victims need to be involved in the sentencing process (74). These reforms would help to reduce crime,
and instead of punishing everyone, only those deserving punishment would
suffer.
Those for gun control argue that
restricting guns would help to reduce crime and killing, but the facts show
that if guns were banned murderers would use other weapons to kill. The facts also show that in reality gun
control has the opposite affect: as more gun control is added, crime rates go
up. Finally, because it is the person
pulling the trigger that does the killing, not the gun itself, we need to crack
down on those doing the killing. Guns
can also be used in positive ways, like hunting, collecting, or most
importantly self-defense. More often
than one would think, the ownership of a gun can mean the difference between
life and death.
Texas legislator Suzanna Gratia Hupp
remembers, “how her parents were killed with twenty others in a Texas cafeteria
massacre in 1991” (qtd. in Dickens para. 30).
She said she had a shot at the gunman, but wasn’t carrying her pistol
because back then it was against the law (para. 30). “Had my legislators not legislated me out of the right to protect
myself and my family, we would have had a chance, at least a chance to protect
ourselves” (qtd. in para. 30).
What would have happened if Suzanna
Gratia Hupp had had her gun with her?
Would her parents or one of those twenty other people be here
today? No one could say for sure. This is just one of the many instances that
makes self-defense the number one reason for owning a gun (Zimring 30).
First, the statistics show that the
most common reason for owning a gun is self-defense (30). Criminologist, Gary Kleck, says handguns are
used 2.5 million times each year for self-defense (Dickens para. 29). One poll showed that 66 percent of those
owning a gun, which they kept in their home, listed “protection” as their
reason for owning the gun (Zimring 30).
Another survey of US adults found that 71 percent of those owning a
handgun owned it only for self-defense and protection (30). The facts prove that self-defense is the
number one reason for owning a gun, but why?
The answer to that question is that
criminals are humans too, and it is human nature to be afraid of something that
could potentially kill. It has been
proven that criminals attack those they consider weak; therefore, attacking those
who are unarmed (Kim 43). Studies have
shown that criminals fear armed citizens and therefore may be deterred by the
knowledge that everyday citizens can purchase guns (Zimring 33). But if gun control laws change that, another
crime deterrent is lost. Not only are
criminals deterred from homes by guns, but they can also be deterred from
businesses by guns (33). If gun control
laws continue to get tighter and tighter, soon we will have nothing left to
deter those criminals. Luckily, we have
not reached that point--yet.
More studies have shown that areas
that allow handguns have lower crime rates; proving, that guns are a major
deterrent of crime (32). One study
shows that states allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons have reduced
murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent,
and robbery by 3 percent (Kim 74). In
1982 the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law that required the head of each
household to keep a firearm in the house (Hanson 72). Since the city passed this law, crime has dropped 16 percent
while the population has doubled (72).
Florida passed a law in 1987 to allow concealed weapons and the state
murder rate dropped 27 percent (71). As
these facts show, guns are a major form of self-defense and a major deterrent
of crime.
It has been said that “preventing
law abiding citizens from carrying
handguns does not end violence, but merely makes them more vulnerable to
attack” (Kim 76). The statistics and
facts show that this is the truth.
Criminals fear citizens that are armed and are deterred by guns (Hanson
72). The states with the least amount
of gun control have the lowest crime rates.
For these reasons, the purpose of owning a gun is more for a feeling of
safety than anything else (Zimring 32).
A former Washington DC police chief
was quoted saying, “What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from
getting guns? Absolutely nothing” (
qtd. in Hanson 71). In 1998, the Brady
Law took the next step and made the original five day background checks instant
(Fields A1-A2). To many this latest
step may seem like it improves the law, but that is not the case. Some states do not keep the records required
for this system to work, and some states can not open the records needed, which
makes the system full of loopholes (A1-A2).
Others argue that the new instant
checks work better than the old checks which had a five day waiting period
(A1-A2). However, when someone goes to
purchase a gun there are three categories which are checked instantly by
running the buyer’s name through an FBI database (A1-A2). The categories are: mental incompetence, domestic abuse, and
court-ordered restraining orders (A1-A2).
If the purchaser has any background in any of the three categories, has
committed a felony, or is wanted in connection with a crime they are not able
to purchase the gun (A1-A2). This
system would work great too--if all the states kept these records. Three states do not keep track of
court-ordered restraining orders (A1-A2).
Some states, like Louisiana, document domestic abuse offenses
differently and have no way to tell whether the offender got in a fight with
their spouse or got into an altercation at a bar (A1-A2). These differences in documentation make it
difficult for the system to work and easy for criminals to fall through the
cracks.
Not only do some states not keep the
right kinds of records, but other states can not open certain records
(A1-A2). Twenty-eight states can not
open mental competency records because of privacy policies (A1-A2). A system that leaves the possibility of a
mentally incompetent person obtaining a gun can not work. Only nineteen states can check all three
categories, that is only 38 percent (A1-A2).
38 percent is a failing grade in school. Does that mean this country is relying on a gun control law that
would receive an F?
The fact that some states do not
keep records and others can not open records makes this system full of cracks
for criminals to slip through. Jack
Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston says that it is,
“impossible, at least in the short term, for this system to work. It’s too big, too cumbersome and it lacks
uniformity from state to state” (qtd. in Fields A1-A2). If the instant check database does not bring
up anything on the buyer, they can walk away with the weapon then and there
(A1-A2). Even Sarah Brady, founder of
Handgun Control Inc. says, “there’s a whole gamut of people who are going to
fall through the system” (qtd. in Fields A1-A2). Just because a state does not have or keep records of a certain
type should not mean that a prospective gun buyer can walk away with a gun
without being checked.
Truly, the new instant check system
appears to be moving forward with leaps and bounds, but it is really traveling
light years backwards. As stated before,
a system that lacks uniformity between the states can not work (A1-A2). With this system we might as well be opening
the doors to a gun store and saying to criminals, “Come and take what you
want!” If we are going to try to
institute gun control laws they should at least work.
Thomas Jefferson, a man considered
by many to be a great leader, once said, “What country can preserve it’s
liberties if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time that the people
preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms” (qtd. in Shade’s Landing Inc.). If we allow gun control laws are we not giving up the right that
the second amendment guarantees us? In
conclusion, gun control laws are not a wise solution for the US. First, we need to crack down on criminals,
not law abiding citizens because it is not the guns that are doing the killing,
but the people (Zimring 13). Until we
get tough with criminals, it will not matter what we do about guns (20). Second, if guns are restricted, then a major
form of self-defense is taken away.
Should the government be allowed to strip citizens of their feeling of
safety by taking away guns? Third, the
gun control laws that are being instituted make it easier for criminals to slip
through the cracks and obtain guns. How
can a system that has this many holes really work? By no means is gun control a good solution for our country.
Works Cited
Dickens,
Geoffrey. Media Research Center. Outgunned:
How the Network News Media Are
Spinning the Gun Control Debate. 5 Jan. 2000.
<http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105b.html>.
Fields,
Gary. “Will Gun Checks Misfire?” USA Today 30 Nov. 1998, home ed. :
A1-A2.
Hanson,
Freya Ottem. The Second Amendment: The Right to Own Guns. Enslow:
Springfield,1998.
Kim,
Henny H. ed. Guns and Violence. Greenhaven: San Diego, 1999.
Shade’s
Landing Inc. Firearms and Liberty Site. 12 Apr. 2000.
<http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/>.
Zimring,
Franklin E., and Gordon Hawkins. The Citizen’s Guide to Gun Control. Macmillan:
New York, 1987.