Gun Control Would Reduce Crime example essay topic

Gun Control in America Today Mark Van HolstynIntermediate Composition Mrs. Gunning 10 January 2003 Gun Control in America Today During the Vietnam War, more than twice as many Americans were killed with firearms in the U.S. than died in combat. Today, firearms are used in approximately 65% of the 11,000 homicides a year. Suicides are carried out via a gun 57% of the 16,600 a year ("GunCite" 49). These statistics pose the question, "Would there be that many fewer deaths if guns were banned altogether? Or would these deaths occur just the same but by other means?" Studies on both a local and a national level have shown that the majority of murders are committed by those with previous criminal records. The "crimes of passion" are not very common; rather, most murders are planned and therefore would occur no matter what weapon is to be used ("GunCite" 49).

However, controlling the guns in America is still an issue that needs to be addressed. Banning guns completely is not what should be done, however; if the government controls guns by other means, then crime will be reduced yet many Americans will still have them to use in recreation and in self defense. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Right in the United States Constitution says "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". This statement has been interpreted two very different ways over the years. The Americans that favor strict gun control have come to the conclusion that this amendment guarantees the right of the states to own firearms.

They believe the forefathers of the Constitution wanted to guarantee every state the right to keep and bear firearms, in order to defend against the federal government, should it try to possess too much power. The "well regulated militia", they say, refers to state troops using state-supplied firearms, such as the National Guard or the Naval Militia. They believe that the Second Amendment was just another part of the checks and balances built into the American government. One strength this viewpoint has is that while the Supreme Court has never made a direct ruling on how to interpret the Second Amendment, it has never stuck down any gun-control law as being unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (Beard and Rand 224). Americans that are against gun control interpret this amendment in a very different manner.

While they do not dispute that every state has the right to keep and bear firearms, they believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to the individuals right to keep and bear firearms. All of the amendments in the Bill of Rights protect individual rights, why should the Second Amendment be different ("GunCite" 2)? Also, when drafting the Second Amendment, the words "for the common defense" were taken out, showing a more individual intent (Cooper 169). The statement "the right of the people" clearly shows that the forefathers of the constitution intended for the private ownership of firearms. Their interpretation of the "well regulated militia" is that of citizens being soldiers. These "soldiers" should be everyday men with the ability to resist the federal government should it become too powerful (National Rifle Association 218).

According to Stephen Halbrook, it would be inconceivable that the framers of the Second Amendment would have tolerated that a free person required permission from the state or federal government to own and bear firearms. Also, it would be even more ridiculous should a free person be imprisoned for not ak sing (220). If this right was to be taken away, what would be next? In reality, the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee both the states right and the individuals right to keep and bear firearms. While having this right might breed certain costs, such as the crimes committed with these very firearms, restricting of private ownership of firearms would be even more costly (Halbrook 220). There are over 20,000 laws in place today to try and control firearms.

The laws that have the most effect are the federal laws. The first federal law pertaining to firearms was the National Firearms Act, which Congress passed in 1934. This law called for a $200 excise tax on fully automatic weapons and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Also, this law required all of the said weapons to be registered with the federal government. Four years later, in 1938, Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act. The added restrictions on gun sales in this act consisted of requiring gun dealers to obtain a federal license if selling guns to buyers from another state.

Also, this act forced dealers to keep records that identified all gun buyers. Lastly, it prohibited dealers from selling to convicted violent felons; however, this was based on an honor system and the dealers had no way to check on the validity of the buyers claims (Cooper 165). For thirty years, the federal government laid off making any large scale gun control laws. Finally, spurred by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior, Congress passed the Gun Control Act in 1968. The effects of this law were tremendous.

Before, only dealers that sold firearms across state lines were required to be licensed; after, all dealers were required to be federally licensed. This law also made it illegal to do any out of state handgun sales or any mail order gun sales. Convicted felons, except some convicted of business related felonies, the mentally ill, and illegal drug users were banned from buying guns. Finally, this law stopped the importation of firearms that were not "particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes". One year later a law passed weakening the previous year's Gun Control Act by removing record keeping requirements for some rifle and shotgun ammo. Another year later, the Omnibus Crime Control Act was passed which made it a crime to carry a firearm while committing a felony and set the minimum mandatory sentences for that crime (Cooper 165).

Fourteen years went by before the need arose to strengthen gun laws. The Crime Control Act, passed in 1984, increased the minimum sentences. It also made it a crime to use or carry a gun with armor piercing bullets, a. k. a. cop killers, when committing a crime. 1986 proved to be a very busy year; two laws were passed. The first stopped the sale of all armor-piercing bullets because they were a huge threat to police officers. This law won the first big support from police officers nationwide.

The ban of the sale and ownership of fully automatic machine guns after May 19, 1986, also was integrated into this bill. The only machine guns that were allowed in the U.S. were those made under the authority of the U.S. or of the states for the purpose of arming their militia. The second law that was passed was a NRA sponsored bill. The Firearms Owners Protection Act eliminated some record keeping required of dealers and once again, Americans could buy rifles out of state. In the next three years many various laws were enacted. One banned all plastic handguns because metal detectors could not spot them.

Also, all toy handguns were banned unless they had some obvious color markings to show that they were toys. This law was prompted by a number of assaults and robberies that were committed while using toy firearms and by a number of police shooting people with toy firearms. The next law banned the importation of 43 different semi-automatic assault weapons, but did nothing to ban domestically manufactured assault weapons (Cooper 165). State laws in the U.S. vary widely. Unfortunately, even if a state has strong state laws, this will do little to protect them. Many guns used in crimes in Washington, D.C., and in New York City, two of the most strict gun control areas, come from southern states.

This shows that state laws offer only as much protection as the most lenient ones (Cooper 166). With all of the laws in place today, something still needs to be done. The current laws, while better than nothing at all, are flawed because they tried to tackle the problem of gun control too late (Cooper 168). Also, there is very little that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can do to enforce the laws. This is due to the fact that they cannot just search someone, their house, or anything else in search of a firearm without a legitimate excuse. Another reason for the poor enforcement is that there is little money to delegate to this task (Dolan 38).

There is a need to find some way to curb the problems caused by firearms. One solution that has been talked about is to ban the manufacture, sale, and importation of every firearm unless it is kept and used in an authorized shooting range where is sporting features can be safely enjoyed (Block 198). If this is done, then the supply of firearms will cease. Those in America that agree with this solution say that the only real way to eliminate gun violence is to ban guns completely, not to regulate post-manufacture care (Cooper 168). The thought behind this is simply that if there are no guns to use, then they will obviously not be used. This "more guns means more violence" philosophy has two parts.

First, criminals will have less chance of getting weapons. Even now, many guns used in crimes are stolen, so it is almost certain that criminals will still get guns illegally, but acquiring them will be much more difficult and therefore, will still decrease gun violence (Glidden 194). Also, without guns, many attacks will be carried out with less deadly weapons and may end up being assaults, rather than murders (Block 194). The second part of this philosophy is to keep citizens from becoming criminals (Glidden 194). Tom Bradley, an ex-mayor of Los Angeles, said "We know from experience, guns are dangerous, even in the hands of competent, responsible people (qt d in Block 194)".

However, banning all guns would not solve the problem. The laws that would be put into place to ban guns would only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens. A black market run by organized crime will spring up to supply all the demand on firearms. This will open a whole new problem on curbing organized illegal gun distribution. Another reason banning all guns will be unsuccessful is because guns are fairly easy to make at home. Afghani tribes use wood and metal working tools to make firearms that are inferior to what can be bought from a local Sears store (Wright 204).

A more likely solution to gun control would be to ban certain types of guns. The guns that some Americans would like to see banned are those which serve no recreational purpose. The reasons for this are very much like banning all guns, except they protect the right to freely use guns for sporting purposes. The guns that many would like to see banned include all assault weapons, Saturday Night Specials, and short barreled shotguns. All of these are said to serve not recreational purpose.

The Saturday Night Special, a small, low priced, low quality, small caliber, short barrel length, is said to be the criminal's choice (Wright 207). Another desire from these Americans is that the laws imposed on imported weapons be imposed on domestic weapons also. Some of these requirements are the complete ban on assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials. They also want the many safety regulations that are put on imports to be put on domestic guns.

Lastly, all domestic guns should be ones that are easily adaptable to sporting purposes. Currently the only constraint put on domestic weapons is the Product-Liability lawsuits that may be filed if a gun malfunctions and causes injuries. To date, there has been only one successful lawsuit of this nature (Cooper 167). One problem with banning certain guns is again assumption that a black market run by organized crime would spring up to supply all the demand on firearms (Wright 204). In addition, those who oppose banning any guns say that most any gun can have some type of recreational purpose for someone. One purpose that could be true for any firearm is that of collecting.

There are many collectors of firearms in America that would like to have rare guns, yet have no intention of using them for criminal actions. The Saturday Night Special is said to be a criminals' choice. Criminals more frequently desire to be just as well equipped as their most likely enemies, the police. Also, if these small guns are banned, larger more powerful ones will likely take their place. Having these more powerful guns more common increases the chances of a wound being fatal. One legitimate purpose for the Saturday Night Special is to use it as a pack or trail gun.

These guns are often carried by people who are out in the woods a lot. These guns are used to defend against any unfriendly wildlife that might come about or to kill small game for food. Another purpose for these small, cheap guns is for poor people living in bad neighborhoods. They cannot afford to get a bigger gun so their only way to defend themselves is to be able to buy a cheap firearm (Wright 207). One very important use for many firearms today is self-defense. This use of firearms is recognized in state constitutions by over 50% of the states that guarantee the right to own guns in their constitution (Cooper 166).

According to a national survey conducted in 1993 by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, there are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law-abiding citizens ("GunCite" 44). Some Americans believe that using firearms in self-defense is very dangerous, even more so than not having a gun to defend oneself with. The thought behind this is that if they have a gun, and then they pull it out to defend themselves, then the criminal will feel threatened and is more likely to shoot. Most of the time the criminal gets off the first shot because citizens hesitate and freeze up (Vaughn 215). These people say these guns give Americans a false sense of security. Also having a gun can make a big man out of a small one and sometimes give that person a dangerous sense of power.

One big problem when defending with guns is that if victims have guns, the criminals will make sure they have bigger better guns. If this were to happen, the death toll could increase rapidly (Cooper 167). The objective of most burglaries is only to take property (Schwerin 194). Obviously citizens would want to save their possessions, but is it worth it to risk a life to save property? The reason some people feel the need to take these matters into their own hands is the low confidence in the law enforcement. To overcome the need to self-defense guns, Americans need to establish a greater confidence in law enforcement.

Since the chance of getting caught is much higher when owners are home, 90% of burglaries take place while no one is home. If a gun is kept in the house, chances are it will get stolen which will then give more criminals guns. Another fear these people have is that of a loaded gun sitting in a bedroom dresser. Any young kids, older kids, or even adults could very easily get a hold of the gun and things could be tragic. Because of these simple accidental threats, experts say that a gun in the home is more likely to injure a family member than a would-be criminal (Zimring and Hawkins 217).

Some citizens believe every home is an armed fortress (Block 193). Owning firearms for self-defense is what 71% of gun owners confess to (Kopel 112). They claim that guns are necessary, and have two different groups that they must protect themselves from. The first group is the government. As mentioned earlier, the "well regulated militia" was meant as citizen soldiers with the purpose of defending against a government that has become too powerful. This idea stems from the belief that the guardians of liberties should not be the government, but it should come from those who enjoy them (National Rifle Association 218).

The second group of people that citizens must be able to protect themselves from is common day criminals (National Rifle Association 218). Using a gun will in self-defense will stop the criminal. Crimes are successful 88% of the time, but when defended against with guns that number drops to 30%. Injury rates without defending are 25% while an injury only occurs among victims 17% of the time if a gun is used for defense. Studies have shown that no other weapon helps this much (Kopel 9). Americans today feel this is necessary because of how few criminals are actually caught.

They then feel that they must take the law into their own hands. They do not have much confidence in law enforcement (Zimring and Hawkins 217). Another reason Americans have a low confidence in the law enforcement is that they are not always right there to protect them when they are needed. Although the police should respond to any call, they sometimes arrive late or not at all. One night in April of 1988, Brooklyn residents called 911 to report a stabbing that was taking place outside their apartment building. The 911 operator asked questions about gender, race, and age, irrelevant to getting help to the man.

Then, the operator relayed to the officers that a man was unconscious. Thinking that the man was drunk, the officers stopped to offer a regular traffic violation on their way to the stabbing. In Howard Beach, Theresa Fisher called 911 as she watched a mob of men beat a young boy to death. Due to the operator not understanding the address, she gave the officers the wrong address and the police never arrived at the scene of this crime.

Miscommunication's like this happen quite frequently and can be very dangerous to victims of terrible crimes. Unfortunately, the courts have ruled police are not liable for failing to protect, even if it was negligent (Kopel 209). The assumption that guns are more likely to kill a family member has been disproved by a study by Gary Kleck. This study showed that less than 2% of guns used in self defense ended up killing a family member ("GunCite" 46). Often this is the case because simply wielding the gun, or even if the criminal knows the victim has it, will scare off the criminal (Zimring and Hawkins 217). Some believe women need guns to defend themselves more than men do.

This is because any other weapon is more suited for male use because strength is needed. The gun is the great equalizer, in that a female can use it just as easily as a male can (Wright 205). Many studies have shown that gun defense in business yields far less risk than gun defense at home (Kopel 216). Without guns to defend with, America would be much more dangerous.

Guns are necessary in today's society, but if used incorrectly or by the wrong people, they can be very dangerous. Because of this there must be regulations on firearms. First of all, all gun dealers should be required to register all firearms and ammo. All guns are required to have a serial number on them. This number should be recorded, along with the information of the gun, ammo, and buyer. If all firearms were registered, law enforcement would be able to trace or origin of any gun.

Although this could be a hassle, it would be no more of a hassle than it would be to register a boat or automobile. Another way that guns in America can be controlled is by requiring every gun purchaser to complete a training course. This would help all gun owners to be thoroughly knowledgeable about the weapon they are purchasing. With this knowledge, accidents would be less frequent.

To some this class will be time consuming and will just get in the way. But again, this hassle will be no more than that of taking a class to get a driver's license. The only exception to this class would be if the gun were being put into a collection. If this fact could be shown, then the class would be waived.

Along with the waved class, no ammo could be sold for that weapon to that buyer. Having these permits from completing classes helps greatly. In a study taken in Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia, two cities with very similar ethnic, cultural, and economic background, only Vancouver required these permits. Though the cities were very similar, because of the required classes and registration of guns in Vancouver, the crime was only one-seventh of that in Seattle (Cooper 164). A third way to control guns in America is to impose a waiting period to buy a gun.

Ninety-five percent of Americans support a seven-day waiting period before the purchase of a firearm (Cooper 170). The thought behind this is to have a period for people to "cool off". The reason people believe that most murders are so-called "crimes of passion" is that over 60% of them are between people who know each other (Block 195). Obviously this will be the case because most of the time the only person anyone would murder would be someone they know and have something against (Wright 205).

Most murders are not planned at all; rather, they are just preformed out of a fit of rage. Such cases as an argument or fight between two people could trigger a want to kill the other person. With a waiting period in place, these "crimes of passion" should drop. Again, some say this would be a hassle, and again, it is the same as the waiting period to get a driver's license. The final way to control firearms in America today is to regulate who can own guns. Some people should not be allowed to own guns due to their increased threat to society.

A common phrase used to express this thought is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Their likely solution would be to attack the criminals, not their weapons. Those that should not be allowed to own guns include the mentally ill, convicted violent felons, and drug addicts and alcoholics. The mentally ill are an increased threat because they often do not think clearly and cannot distinguish right from wrong. Convicted violent felons pose the obvious risk of turning back to their past ways. Lastly, drug addicts and alcoholics are a big threat because the substances they use can cloud their reasoning and judgement.

Those opposed to these ideas say that this would be prejudice. Although this is true to some extent, it is for the good of society. Again this can be related to cars. All of these groups of people frequently lose the privilege of driving, a common right to all people. Right now, making sure these people do not get guns is very hard. In the forms that are filled out to purchase a gun, they are asked tell if they are in one of these categories.

However, this is based mostly on the honor system. A nationwide system of background checks needs to be implemented. Records of all the mentally ill, convicted felons, and drug addicts and alcoholics should be kept on a nationwide computer system. The problem with this is that only ten states have fully computerized systems like this (Cooper 166).

Many of these four ways to control gun violence have worked in other countries. In Switzerland all guns are government issued, a background check is required, as is a permit and registration. Their homicide rate is one-thirteenth of that in the U. S (Block 197). Also, in Europe, gun violence occurred one-ninth as often as in the U.S. One year, 8,915 people were murdered in the U.S. with guns. Compare that with seven in Great Britain, nineteen in Sweden, fifty-three in Switzerland, twenty-five in Israel, thirteen in Australia, and eight in Canada. These numbers show a 168 to 1273 times larger gun murder rate in the U. S (Cooper 162).

Obviously gun violence in America today is a problem. However, the Second Amendment clearly guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear firearms. This mean that the government should not be allowed to ban firearms, yet some method of gun control must be incorporated. There will always be some with enough rage to kill people, but with registration, permits, waiting periods, and keeping those with and increased risk away from guns, gun violence would be significantly reduced. WORKS CITED Beard, Michael K. and Kristin M. Rand. "Gun Control Does Not Violate the Constitution" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints.

Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. Block, Irvin. "Gun Control Would Reduce Crime" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints.

Ed. William Dudley. Cooper, Mary H. "Reassessing the Nation's Gun Laws" Congressional Quarterly's Editorial Research Reports. 22 March 1991: 158-170.

Dolan, Edward F, Jr. Gun Control: A Decision for Americans. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982. Glidden, David.

"No One Should Own Guns" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. GunCite" web 8 December 2002. Halbrook, Stephen P. "An Individual Right" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints.

Ed. William Dudley. Kopel, David B. "Guns Are Necessary for Self-Defense" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed.

William Dudley. National Rifle Association. "Gun Control Violates the Constitution" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. Schwerin, Ursula.

"The More Guns, the More Violence" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. Vaughn, Jerry. "Guns Difficult to Use" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed.

William Dudley. Wright, James D. "Gun Control Would Not Reduce Crime" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. Zimring, Franklin E. and Gordon Hawkins. "Guns Should Not Be Used for Self-Defense" Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints.

Ed. William Dudley.