Gun Control Essay Research Paper Gun ControlGun

Gun Control Essay, Research Paper

Gun Control

Gun Control can be called the ‘acid test’ of liberalism. All true

liberals must favor stricter gun controls. After all, doesn’t the United States

have the most heavily armed population on the earth? Are we not the world’s most

violent people? Surely these facts must be at least casually connected.

Therefore the apparently desperate need to “do something” about the vast

quantity of firearms and firearms abuse is obvious.

Guns are employed in an enormous number of crimes in this country. In

other countries with stricter gun laws, gun crimes are rare. Many of the

firearms involved in crime are cheap handguns, so-called Saturday Night Specials

for which there is no legitimate use or need.

The public is polarized on the issue of gun control, Anti-gun control

activists believe that it is each and every American’s individual right to bear

arms. After all, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that:

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.

Advocates of gun control say that even with 20,000 gun control laws

already in existence, the serious problems due to firearm misuse continue.

Obviously, the controls that have been designed have not been sufficiently

effective. Therefore the pro-gun controllers argue, we need more uniform

legislation, more extensive gun controls, and effective enforcement.

Various pro-gun control organizations disagree on methods of gun control

needed. For example, there are individuals who would ban all handguns’ as well

as those who take a less radical stand and who would simply increase the

controls on firearms. The moderate gun control groups propose measures such as

requiring an individual to successfully complete a firearms safety course before

being allowed to possess a gun, or to wait for a mandatory period of time before

taking possession of a gun.

Today, there are approximately 20,000 different gun control laws in

existence, ranging from those enacted by municipalities and states, to those

enacted by the federal government. Gun control is ineffective and tougher

sentencing of criminals and stricter parole policies would do far more to combat

crime.

Statistics show that Canada is less violent than the United States.

Fewer guns are only part of the story. The inner-city slums of the United States

are murderous, bombed-out-looking places. American visitors to Canada’s big

cities often ask where the slums are. The answer is that there really aren’t any

slums, and the lack of violence there reflects it.

Canada’s more generous welfare benefits and universal health insurance

have made for safer cities. The contrasts between extreme wealth and extreme

poverty are fewer and less striking. Poor inner-city families do not

disintegrate to the extent they do in black American ghettos. Canadian murder

rates in big cities are about the same as in isolated rural areas.

According to ‘THE ECONOMIST” magazine; Blacks, 12% of the United

States’ population, account for 48% of murders, mostly when inner-city blacks

kill each other. (The Economist July 10-16,1993, pg 38) Few of these guns if any

are purchased from retail gun stores. Gun laws will not keep guns out of these

ghettos.

The founding fathers included Second Amendment to the Constitution

because they were very aware of the fact that there might once again come a time

when American Citizens would have to fight for their freedom. Patricia Lee of

Balch Springs, Texas was running for the Texas House of Representatives in 1992

when she wrote the following about gun rights.

When the British marched toward Concord in 1775, it was not to collect

taxes or suppress the press; it was to institute gun control. They were not

after hunting or target shooting guns; they were after military cannons (clearly

“assault weapons, with no sporting purpose”). How did the citizens of Concord

and Lexington respond to this reasonable, moderate gun control proposal? With

their guns! With a battle that killed hundreds of people and began years of

vicious war!

Why were our ancestors so “unreasonable”? Because they knew that once

their guns were taken, the rest of their rights would soon follow. History has

proved them right time and again; the citizens of Hitler’s Germany and Soviet

Russia allowed themselves to be disarmed, and suffered the consequences. (Guns &

Ammo, pg.26)

Of course guns in the hands of criminals (or criminal governments) are

harmful. But taking away guns from honest, law abiding citizens does nothing to

solve the problem of those who would misuse guns. Criminals will always have

guns, whether we like it or not. Even in countries where guns are completely

illegal, criminals simply manufacture or smuggle weapons. The entire Soviet Army

was unable to successfully impose gun control on the small country of

Afghanistan. In the U.S. today, criminals routinely import new machine guns that

law-abiding citizens are banned from possessing.

What would happen in a nation with guns in every house? There is such a

nation; Switzerland. The Swiss have not had to fight a foreign war for hundreds

of years (the last fighting in Switzerland was a one-month insurrection in 1847).

and their crime rate is among the lowest in the world. The U.S. can only envy

their record.

To carry a firearm in California requires a permit commonly called a CCW

(Carry Concealed Weapons). CCWs are issued at the discretion of the chief of

police of a city in the county, or a sheriff of the county, where the applicant

resides. As long as the applicant passes the background check provided by the

California Dept. of Justice (DOJ), a chief of police of sheriff may issue a

permit to the applicant.

In California where CCWs (Carrying Concealed Weapons) permits are

obtainable, a study reveals the following:

(American Rifleman, pg.27)

(American Rifleman, pg.28)

When more people were armed, the crime rates went down proportionally!

Is it not obvious that when more citizens are armed there is less incidence of

crime? The examples from California and Switzerland are evidence to that fact.

Enough freedoms have already been lost in this country, can we afford to lose

another? With some 20.000 firearms regulations now on the books, we do not need

still more gun-control laws. We need to enforce the laws that we have now. It’s

time to stop the wait. The only thing Congress should rush is the adoption of

meaningful criminal justice reforms to keep violent predators off our streets.

We do not need more laws that restrict the ability and the right of honest women

and men to protect themselves from criminal attack.

WORKS CITED

Lee, Patricia. “Fighting for Freedom.” Guns & Ammo Sept. 1992: 26.

Cramer, Clayton. Are Concealed Carry Permits a Threat to Public Safety?.

American Rifleman Sept. 1993: 27-28.

t