Gun Control: The Actual Factual
The term “gun control” is a broad term that covers any sort of restrictions put on firearms. Recently, gun control debates have been primarily over background checks for buyers, the right to carry in public and the legality of semiautomatic rifles. The right to bear arms has been possessed by American citizens since the birth of the United States. Our second amendment 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”. Regulations on this amendment, though, are currently being debated. In September 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which made it unlawful, with certain exceptions, to manufacture, transfer, or possess “assault weapons,” which included many semiautomatic rifles, pump action shotguns, and handguns with certain features. This expired in 2004. Recently, California Senator Dianne Feinstein has reintroduced an assault weapons ban; it would prohibit the purchase of assault weapons and the transfer of them 90 days after the passage of the bill would be illegal. It would also ban “bump stocks” that allow a semiautomatic weapon to fire as rapidly as a fully automatic one, but with diminished accuracy(1). There are approximately 30,000 gun-related deaths in the United States each year. Out of these, there are around 8,000 gun-related homicides(2), most of which are gang related and 60 percent of which are committed with handguns(7). There were an estimated 17,250 homicides in the United States in 2016 overall(3). Most of the remaining gun deaths are suicides, although there are around 500 accidental deaths each year(4). There are approximately 300 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States(5) and mass shootings are more common in the United States than in other industrialized countries. However, they make up a small fraction of total firearm homicides(6). To obtain a pistol license in NY, you must go through a series of steps. They are as followed:
1. Make sure you are eligible (Must be a New York State resident, must be 21 years old, have no prior felony or serious offense convictions, be of good moral character, and have a legally recognized reason for wanting to possess or carry a firearm)
2. Apply to the county court in the county in which you live or are principally employed.
3. Complete the state of NY Pistol/revolver license application (PPB3)- this includes personal info as well as criminal history, mental health history, character references and identification.
4. All info provided by the applicant is verified by a background check.
These steps do not have to be followed if you are purchasing a rifle or other longarm; you must simply pass a federal background check.
1,7. http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Feinstein-Senate-Democrats-introduce-assault-12342832.php
2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
3. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-crime-statistics-released
4. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
5. http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/how-many-guns-in-the-united-states/
6. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/02/01/170872321/study-most-gun-deaths-happen-outside-of-mass-shootings
Viewpoint 1- Gun Ownership in the US: Rethinking the Laws
With approximately 30,000 gun-related deaths in the United States each year, America takes the cake for owning more guns per capita than any other country. We lose thousands of people to gun related homicides each year, yet we refuse to recognize the fact that regulations on gun ownership need to be stricter. The laws we have right now are extremely flawed. In order to obtain a handgun, one simply needs to pass a background check and provide four character references. The majority of people who carry out mass shootings, and homicides in general, are not mentally stable, yet the only precaution we take regarding mental health is checking if one has ever been admitted into a mental health facility. Instead of assuming one is mentally fit to own a gun, there needs to be extensive psychological evaluations before one can purchase. This way, a trained professional can determine whether or not a person is psychologically stable enough to possess a weapon of such power. The weapons American citizens are allowed to possess needs to be restricted as well. There is no reason for a civilian to own any type of assault or semiautomatic weapon. The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds more than 31% of global mass shooters. We continue to justify these occurrences and the availability of gun licenses with the rights we hold under the second amendment. It 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”. We continue to allow this statement to dictate how American society functions regarding gun ownership, yet we fail to recognize the fact that this law was written almost 250 years ago, and is not as applicable to us today as it was then. In the late 1700s, America was fearful of a possible tyrannical government taking control due to the fact that they had recently freed themselves from British control. Today, we are a leading example of a democratic society, and we have a well-armed police force and military to protect us on the off chance that our government stops functioning in the democratic way that it currently does. Another argument of those who support easy gun ownership among American citizens is self-defense. If we disarm much of the population, though, what is there to protect yourself against? I understand that many of you are going to have the answer of “those who obtain guns illegally”, and yes, there will always be some individuals who find their way around the law. However, just because there may be a percentage of people who get guns illegally does not mean we shouldn’t have laws in place that try to regulate and stop it. Many things are illegal, but does that mean we should get rid of laws that forbid them just because they still happen sometimes? No. Regulations on gun ownership need to become much stricter because there is obvious correlation between the ease of obtaining a gun license in America and the amount of deaths caused by these weapons, and there is no disputing that.
Viewpoint 2- Proposed Gun Control Measures Would be Ineffective and Unconstitutional
Hundreds of books and tens of thousands of pages have been written in defense of gun rights, by authors far more talented than this one. As such, it would be foolish to try to cover all of the bases relevant to the gun debate, so this will be quite limited in scope. Calls for more regulations in the wake of mass shootings are misguided. A ban on semiautomatic rifles and expanded background checks would be both ineffective and contrary to the Second Amendment, which explicitly calls for an armed populace and is still relevant today.
Presumably, a ban on semiautomatic rifles in meant to prevent murder by semiautomatic rifle. Therefore, it is important to note what would actually be prevented. According to the FBI, there were a grand total of 374 homicides by rifle in 2016(1). It should be noted that this is not exclusively “assault style” rifles-a dishonest term based solely on cosmetics- or even exclusively semiautomatic rifles. It includes all rifles. In a country of well over three hundred million, your chances of being killed by an assailant with a rifle are absolutely miniscule. It would be exceedingly foolish to attempt to buy back or forcibly confiscate the approximately 3.8 million AR-15s(2) in this country, not to mention the countless millions of other semiautomatic rifles, such as the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22, in the hopes of preventing 374 murders. Attempting to purchase millions of weapons at market value would cost quite a lot of money. Attempting to go door-to-door and seize millions of weapons from millions of citizens that do not want to give up their weapons would probably lead to an increase in gun-related deaths. A ban on semiautomatics is a solution in search of a problem—and the solution is very bad.
Gun control advocates are quick to point to the policies enacted by Britain and Australia in the wake of mass shootings in their respective countries. They point to the fact that after Australia’s harsh legislation, there has not been a single mass shooting. This is true, but the full story is more complicated. According to statistician and former gun-control supporter Leah Libresco, “mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress.”(3) In Britain, after semiautomatic and pump-action weapons were banned in 1988, homicide rates increased.(4) They continued to increase after nearly all firearms were banned in 1996, reaching a peak in 2004.(5) In contrast, after Australia’s buyback program, homicide rates did decline- but at a rate nearly identical to the decline already occurring before the ban.(6) Even if we toss these numbers aside and pretend that these regulations magicked away violence, there are a few mitigating factors that distinguish these nations from the United States. First and foremost, Britain and Australia are islands, while the US has a long and porous border. Second, there are many, many more firearms in the United States than in Australia or Britain. Third, there is no “gun culture” in Britain or Australia like there is in the US. As a result of a combination of these factors, the already lackluster policies of foreign nations would be even less effective here.
Well-meaning individuals of perhaps a less totalitarian bent would call for more comprehensive and expansive background checks, but that would also do very little to prevent gun deaths. The vast majority of weapons used in crimes are obtained in violation of existing law, not by going through loopholes that need to be filled. The number one source of firearms for criminals is “straw purchases” in which a friend or acquaintance buys an unqualified person or felon a gun.(7) This is already illegal. The next largest source is federally licensed dealers who do not perform a background check.(8) This is already illegal. After that comes unlicensed street dealers and theft, both of which are clearly illegal.(9) The issue is not the laws we have- it is failure to enforce the laws we have. Expanding background checks would do very little if the current laws are not strictly enforced. What’s needed, according to ATF official Jay Wachtel, is “better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers”(10), not an expansion of background checks into private sales. Think FFL sales are hard to enforce? Try mandatory background checks whenever a husband sells to a brother in law, an aunt sells to a niece, or a friend sells to a neighbor. It would be absolutely impossible to police. The answer is a crackdown on criminal sales, not more background checks.
These gun control proposals would be highly unsuccessful, as they would not address the vast majority of firearms used in crime, and would be difficult or impossible to enforce. Rather than responding to a blind gut feeling that something, anything, must be done, the facts of gun violence must be examined. Most homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles. The overwhelming majority of guns used in crime are purchased illegally, not via loopholes or legal purchases. If we want to decrease firearm-related homicide in the United States, we must address these issues, not make blind grabs at scary-looking pew-pew machines.
As a side note, I would like to address certain misconceptions surrounding the Second Amendment. First and foremost is the “well-regulated militia” clause. Gun control advocates frequently cite this clause, claiming that it shows that the Second Amendment allows for substantial regulation of individual firearms and is actually the legalization of militias such as the National Guard. This is preposterous. For starters, in the 1700s, “well-regulated” meant “in good working order.”(11) This clause is not meant to allow limitation; it is meant to ensure strength. Second, the militia was not a government organization- it was every able-bodied man in the United States(12). As such, the “well-regulated militia clause” secures the existence of an armed populace every bit as effectively as the “right of the people” and “shall not be infringed” clauses.
After they fail to invalidate the Second Amendment’s meaning, opponents of gun rights inevitably declare the amendment to be outdated. They claim that modern democratic governments will not become tyrannical, and even if they do, small arms would not be sufficient to prevent tyranny. This is just as foolish. As Spain and Germany showed us in the mid-twentieth century, democratic governments can and do become fascistic or oppressive with appalling rapidity. It can certainly happen again, and some on the radical left even believe that the American government is doing just that under the current administration. Why they would also want this administration to forcibly confiscate the only feasible means of resistance, I cannot imagine. Furthermore, citizens with small arms have proven themselves capable of resisting government abuse multiple times, including in the modern United States. In 1946, the citizens of Athens, Tennessee, violently overthrew their corrupt town government in order to ensure fair elections.(13) More recently, in 2014, the Bureau of Land Management ended attempts to round up a rancher’s cattle, largely as a result of a standoff with hundreds of armed protestors. Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of the protestors’ position, it established beyond any shadow of a doubt that an armed citizenry can prevent government objectives. In addition, if you think poorly trained irregulars can be easily crushed by the American military, perhaps you should Google “Afghanistan.” Finally, gun control activists like to posit an argument that barely warrants a response- that the Second Amendment is invalid because the primary small arm of the time was a musket. This is just like saying that the First Amendment only protects freedom of the printing press. Like it or not, the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear modern firearms. If you don’t like that, get it repealed- and deal with the consequences.
Suggested Resources
1. The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook. Published by the Independent Institute.
2. “I Used to Think Gun Control was the Answer. My Research Told Me Otherwise”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.5f18b67420c2
Sources
1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12
2.http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/historical-crime-data
5. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/?hpt=wo_t4
6. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/
7, 8, 9, 10. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
11. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
12. http://lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/Militia/regulated-militia.shtm
13. http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens
Dysfunctional Discourse 