A constitutional Right? Carl T Bogus, the author of a 1992 article, " The Strong Case for Gun Control", explains to the reader of the importance and relevance of tougher and more strict gun control laws in local governments today. Bogus begins by telling of the recent rise in school shootings and violent crimes in the united states. He explains that in 1998, more than four thousand children were killed by guns, and it took a string of school related shootings to bring that fact to the attention of the public. 34 thousand people were killed in total, and over sixty thousand were held at gunpoint. In order to explain and prove his theories, Bogus goes on to compare two cities with similar crime rates, economies, nationalities, and entertainment values, but very different ways on controlling guns. Seattle Washington, and Vancouver British Columbia are only 140 mile apart, but they both have different views on how to control the way guns are used in there city.

Seattle requires only a five day waiting period to purchase a hand gun, while Vancouver requires a permit and a VALID excuse to own a handgun. Due to the difference in laws, 41 percent of all Seattle's population own handguns, while only 12 percent of Vancouver's population own handguns. It isn't hard to see that it would be harder for anybody who shouldn't have a weapon to stumble across a handgun in Vancouver than in Seattle. Bogus then goes on to explain a new law taken into effect in the District of Colombia not too long ago. Residents who currently lived in D.

C. would have sixty days to register there handguns, and after the time period was up, newly acquired handguns became illegal. But, rifles and shotguns could still be purchased and owned after the time period ran out. The result of the new law came out with results that surprised a lot of people. There was a 25 percent drop in gun related homicides and a 23 percent drop in gun related suicides. While D.

C. experienced such a significant drop in gun related crimes, surrounding cities experienced no significant change in their rates. Just another reason to believe that even local gun laws can lead to safer cities and homes. Daniel D. Polsby, the author of the article, " The False Promise of Gun Control" Focuses on how tougher gun control laws make it harder for regular people to defend themselves, and easier for criminals to get what they want. First, Polsby explains how a criminal would be less likely to go after a victim who carries a gun than a victim who carries nothing.

It's obvious that a criminal would choose the easier fight with a helpless person over someone who has an equal chance of winning the fight. Look at police officers. Police officers typically do not get shot at, due in part by the fact that they carry handguns. Most police officers never shoot there handguns (except for target practice). Yet due to the fact that they have them, it makes them a worse target for a criminal.

So if owning a handgun means you are in power, then a handgun should be the item a criminal would want most. After all, if you are in power, people do what you want them to do. Polsby goes on to explain how criminals would be more interested in these items of power than the average person and would tend to pay more for it too. So if congress wants to pass laws that make it harder and more expensive to purchase handguns, it could have a converse effect. The rising cost to own a gun would deter a regular person from buying one while the criminal still wants that item of power, at no matter what price. Thus decreasing the percent of law abiding citizen's who own hand guns and increasing the amount of hand guns that get into the hands of criminals.

Making it easier for criminals to do those acts on citizens who don't have protection anymore due to it's high price. It's a vicious circle that isn't working in favor of the average US citizen. Says Polsby. Polsby also states that the stock of privately owned hand guns in the united states has risen drastically since the 60's. and if the amount of handguns has risen, shouldn't the rate of spousal homicide rise along with it? Well it hasn't. In fact, from the years of 1976 to 1985 the rate actually fell.

And the years after 1985 the number of privately owned handguns has risen by almost a million, yet the rate of spousal homicide has pretty much stayed the same. As much as I hate to admit it, Bogus does make a number of good points throughout his argument. Local gun laws can effect and help the amount of gun related crimes in a community where crimes like that are prominent. I believe that local gun laws like the one put in place in the District of Colombia could be effective in larger cities where gun related crime is an everyday ordeal.

But in a small community where violence rarely ever occurs, tougher gun laws should not be a major concern. The right to own and carry a gun is your constitutional right, and everyone should be able to exercise that right. But like many things I've learned in school, if you abuse your right, you get it taken away. I believe that any criminal who has had an infraction with the law involving any type of weapon should never be allowed to own a gun again. And if that person is ever caught with a gun again. He / she should be punished.

Hefty fines and a mandatory jail sentence. But I'm not saying I'm all for tougher gun control laws. Compare gun related incidents to incidents involving cars. In 1998 34, 000 people were killed and 60, 000 people were injured by gun's.

But in that same year, 42, 000 people were killed and 3. 2 million people were injured by automobiles. So why is congress concentrating so hard on making gun's harder to get, when car's kill and injure more people than gun's do. Why don't they concentrate harder on making a driver's license harder to get, and make a mandatory five day waiting period on the purchase of new and used cars so they can run a background check for any felonies or outstanding warrants. What I'm really trying to state here, is that gun's cars, knives, bats, hammers, or whatever, they " re all just tools of the trade.

The tools don't kill people, people kill people. I know every one has heard that before, but it is true. So why concentrate on keeping guns out of every ones hands, when the concentration should be on keeping them out of the wrong hands. Bibliography 1.

Bush signs stripped-down economic stimulus bill March 9, 2002 web signs stimulus plan into law, March, 9 2002 By Tom Curry web stimulus bill signed by Bush, March, 10 2002 By Lawrence L. Knutson, Associated Press web puts stamp on stimulus package, march 10, 2002 By Lawrence L. Knutson, Associated Press, web puts stamp on stimulus package+. s html.