Argumentative Essay: Gun Laws Are Not The Answer
Gun Laws are not the Answer The controversial debate of gun control at the national and state level is magnified after every tragic shooting. One of the more recent attacks occurred when James Holmes opened fire in a movie theatre killing twelve American citizens and injuring fifty-eight others (Krouse, 2012). This debate has evolved into quite a heated debacle because many citizens believe firearms should be banned due to episodes such as the movie theater incident. This leads to discussion of the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment. Written in 1789, this document states, “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” (Madison, 1789, p. 1). According to this amendment, except in some cases, Americans need and have the right to own firearms for law abiding purposes. Many gun law proponents believe the amendment is obsolete and more “modern” regulations should be enforced. Gun laws are not the answer to a safer country. Restricting the ownership of weapons will have a negligible
…show more content…
affect. The Second Amendment is in fact up to date and Americans deserve the right to bear arms. With this privilege comes great responsibility and through gun classes, background checks and elimination of the gun show loophole, America can become a safer nation. The first known firearms were invented in the fourteenth century and received the nickname “hand cannons.” Soon after guns became more sophisticated; by the seventeenth century, fairly sophisticated rifles and muskets dominated the weapon culture. Perhaps the biggest invention in the handgun industry was the revolver patented in 1836 by Samuel Colt (Lepore, 2012). The revolver’s multi-bullet firing chamber permanently changed the gun industry. Soon all other weapons of this era, which worked on a shot reload basis, were obsolete. Prior to ratification of the Second Amendment, England’s Parliament strictly supervised the rights of weapon ownership in the colonies. Under England’s control, only the wealthy were permitted to own firearms and all others in possession were considered poachers. Eventually in 1689 Parliament gained control of the militia in the “New World” (Lepore, 2012). This allowed for the one small provision of the British which read, “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law” (Lepore, 2012, p. 26). When the colonies defeated the British, the Founding Fathers believed it was a privilege for every American to own a weapon. Also during the colonial era, there was no regulated police force in the seventeen hundreds. If a person needed to defend himself, it was by utilizing his own weapons or strength. This made it an integral part of society to own a weapon for self-defense purposes. Statistically, America has the highest gun ownership per person in the world. No other nations is as powerfully armed with civilians. Currently there are over 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States and 106 million are handguns. Thirty percent of Americans claim they personally own a firearm and forty percent have a firearm in their household. (Lepore , 2012). If distributed evenly, every person in the United States would own a firearm. With these immense gun ownership numbers, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was signed. The act was named after James Brady who was shot in an assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan in 1981 (Schumer, 1993). The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 required background checks between gun dealers and non-licensed persons through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which was mandated in 1993 but not launched until 1998 (Schumer, 1993). These background checks include files on the following: wanted persons, persons subject to domestic abuse restraining orders, deported alien felons, persons in the U.S. Secret Service protective file, foreign fugitives and known or suspected terrorists (Schumer, 1993). In 1998, The Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) denied 18,647 people of firearm ownership. On the other hand, in 2011, the FBI denied 150,013 potentially dangerous people of possessing a firearm. (Krouse, 2012 ) Consequently, since the Handgun Act of 1993, the number of murder victims across the nation has dropped from 24,526 to 14,748 people (Krouse, 2012). In 1871, with the growing number of firearms in the United States and lack of marksmanship, Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association (NRA) (Keene, 2012). The main goal of the association, according to Church, allowed Americans to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis" (Keene, n.d., p. 1). Today, the NRA is widely recognized as a political force and the biggest sole supporter of the Second Amendment. It is the biggest organizer of gun education and claims its noteworthy success is due to its four million members across the states. (Keene, 2012) Recently in 2008, Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia because he was denied the right to own a handgun. In the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in favor Heller ruling the “right to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual American citizen” and “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home” (Barnes & Dan, 2010 para. 4). This invalidated a ban on handguns in District of Columbia which had been upheld for thirty years. The court indicated in the District of Columbia v. Heller case “it does not intend to treat the right to keep and bear arms any less favorably than other fundamental rights” (Golden, 2012 p. 102). This court case decided and validated the citizen holds the right to “keep and bear arms.” For many gun law opponents, this case reveals sufficient evidence to prove the Second Amendment is, in fact, up to date. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court 's conservatives claimed, “It is clear that the Framers...counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (Barnes & Dan, 2010 para. 3). Many of those who had fought for years seeking an interpretation of the Second Amendment were thrilled. Wayne Lapierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association said, “a great moment in American History for the Second Amendment becomes a real part of constitutional law” (Barnes & Dan, 2010 para. 5). This court decision proved the government supports individual American firearm rights. It reveals that America still has the right to own firearms for law abiding purposes and the laws of the states can not infringe the Bill of Rights. Although the Second Amendment is strongly supported, Americans need to be exposed to the dangers of firearms. America is a battleground of intended and unintended murders. Across the nation, in 2011 the average murder rate per 100,000 people was 5.7 percent. Also in 2011, The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program reported 14,916 non-negligent (intentional) murder victims in the United States. Of these 14,916 murders, 10,129 were accomplished with the use of a firearm. In fact, in 7,398 cases handguns were used (FBI, 2011). The murder rate in America far surpasses any other country on the planet for these statistics. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney claims more gun laws are not the solution. He believes it is not the weapon that needs controlling, but the person behind the trigger. He was quoted in an NBC broadcast after the Aurora shooting saying, “[I]t was illegal for him to have many of those things already, but he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won’t. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what’s essential, to improve the lots of the American people” (Romney, 2012, p. 1). Jill Lepore wrote a personal journal after she attended the American Firearm School in Providence, Massachusetts (2012). The school is one of the rare open to the public facilities with weekly classes ranging from beginners to expert. Entering, Lepore felt comfortable handling a weapon but soon discovered many of her operating weaknesses. The instructor, Tom Dietzel, took no chances. He stated cooly, “In a swimming pool, there are lifeguards. And this place is a lot more dangerous than a swimming pool” (Lepore 2012 p. 33). Jessica Tully of USA Today also claimed "No matter how much gun training an average American might have, it pales in comparison to the rigorous gun training that we demand of law enforcement officers, and thousands of innocent Americans die every year because of the paranoid mentality and lack of meaningful training” (Tully, 2012, p. 10). A gun safety class should be mandatory in order to purchase any firearm. It is similar to a drivers education course. Americans cannot drive a car as soon as they become of age without first successfully completing a driver education course. Every person must prove he or she has the skills necessary to control a motor vehicle. Similarly, every person should be required to demonstrate their ability and knowledge to safety operate a firearm. If every person in the United States who owned a weapon took a mandatory class it could potentially reduce the number of gun related deaths and, undoubtably, it would increase the awareness of firearm safety and risk. Finally, all gun laws need to be mandated at the federal level. This will ensure the entire nation is under the same set of laws, rendering no difference between the states. By making gun laws federally enforced, NICS background checks will be much more accurate. Any person intent on buying a weapon should have a license in order to operate a weapon. Secondly, if all gun laws are mandated on the federal level it will abolish the “gun show loophole.” Over 40 percent of all weapons in the United States are purchased at gun shows (Lepore, 2012). The Brady Handgun Act only requires background checks between licensed dealers and purchasers. The loophole allows “those not engaged in the business” to sell a firearm (Beard, 2012, p. 2). Out of the fifty states only twenty-seven have taken action against the “gun show loophole” and only six of those states require background checks under any circumstances (Beard, 2012). By placing gun laws under Federal Law ensures nearly one hundred percent of all weapons purchasers receive a NICS background check as well as weapons sold from licensed gun dealers. Many countries have an organized method that only licensed dealers sell weapons and the buyers have a clean background. Switzerland for example, has the third highest gun ownership in the world topping at 51 per hundred people if spread out evenly. Although the United States is much higher, many comparisons can be drawn from Switzerland. In 2010, there were 40 intentional gun homicides and less then 5 people are unintentionally killed annually with firearms (Parker, 2011). Switzerland has very similar gun ownership regulations. Private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited and semi-automatic weapons are only allowed under permit. One of the only major differences is the requirement of licenses. A license allows a person to legally obtain a weapon and ammunition in the country. In order to get a license, the person must state a reason for ownership, for example, self-defense, and then undergo a background check which includes, mental illness, criminal and domestic violence. In order to keep a license, the person must re-apply and re-qualify under the standards every five years. Also in order to carry a concealed weapon, every person must have a license as well as take an extensive firearm safety course. Every gun dealer in Switzerland must be licensed (Parker, 2011). Many gun proponents believe this is the route for a safer nation. By looking at other less violent nations and drawing parallels, gun supporters believe a safer country can be created through gun safety classes and more extensive backgrounds checks. Much like Switzerland, everyone is allowed the right and has the opportunity to own a firearm. Switzerland differs from America because of its requirement for licenses. Many gun proponents of America believe that by enforcing these regulations, America can become a much safer nation. Many gun law proponents believe gun laws are the answer to a safer country. Krouse’s (2012) study found the following:
The Second Amendment is now obsolete, with the presence of professional police forces because it was initially intended to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government. They ask why in today’s modern society a private citizen needs any firearm that is not designed primarily for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes. (p.5)
When the Second Amendment was created it had no correlation toward hunting purposes or for defense against criminals. In fact, it was created to defend against the British, who banned the ownership of weapons for the commoners. The British were a constant threat of an attack on the vulnerable colonies. In this event, if the people were armed they could defend themselves against the invaders. However, in today’s society, the power of the Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy is immense. Unlike the responsibility of Americans in the 1700s, it is now meaningless for the people to have arms in the event of an attack. America has the largest military in the world as well as a one of the strongest most organized police forces. As a result, gun law proponents believe the Second Amendment is now obsolete (Krouse, 2012). Obviously it will be impossible to ban firearms throughout the United States. The next closest option for gun opponents is stricter firearm laws. According to a recent study, The Atlantic Times researched gun restrictions enforced in the states. The study pertained to three gun restrictions which included the following: assault weapons’ ban, trigger locks, and safe-storage requirements. States with at least one restriction reported half as many deaths due to firearms per 100,000 people (Florida, 2011). Another prominent argument for gun law supporters is the increase of crime with the ownership of a firearm. A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be used in a suicide, criminal homicide then in the need of self-defense (Huemer, 2003). This researched study claims that for every case, “where someone in a gun-owning household uses a gun to successfully stop a life-threatening attack, nearly forty-three people in similar households will die from a gunshot homicide, or accidental death than it is to kill an intruder in self-defense (Huemer, 2003, ). Surprisingly, the increase of gun laws has a negligible affect on the number of firearms deaths across the nation. Since the expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban in 2004 crime has actually decreased across the nation. In 2003, the crime rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, and in 2011 the crime rate was only 4.7 per 100,000 people which was a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent (FBI, 2011) . Although this has no direct connection to the Assault Weapon Ban, many Gun supporters infer an increased amount of laws will have a negligible to detrimental affect. After Huemer’s (2003) extensive study on the increase of gun laws and crime rates, he made the following claims:
We find that (i) jurisdictions with stricter gun laws tend to have higher crime rates, (ii) shifts to more permissive gun laws tend to be followed by drops in crime rates, (iii) areas with higher gun ownership rates have lower crime rates, and (iv) historically,crime rates have fluctuated with no patten as the civilian gun stock has increased drastically (p. 302).
During Huemer’s research he took into account civilian weapon ownership for the need of self-defense. He claims, “gun prohibition would have to save many times as many lives as it costs” (Huemer, 2003, p. 297). In his study, he found there are approximately 1.8 million instances when a private citizen uses or threatens with a firearm in self-defense. Of those, 400,000 people claim the weapon saved their lives. While people almost certainly overestimate their danger, if 4 percent were correct it would exceed the number of gun homicides annually. (Huemer, 2003) Some use this as leverage to support the Second Amendment. Although thousands die every year in gun homicides, many more thousands of lives are saved by allowing Americans to bear arms legally in the need of self-defense. Gun violence is a major issue currently affecting our country today.
It is a heated debate as to whether more gun laws need to be enforced in order to promote a safer culture in the United States. Gun Laws are not the answer to a safer nation. It is not the majority of American who are naive to firearms; it is the minority. Therefore America should enforce gun classes, background checks and eliminate the “gun show loophole.” By making these three changes, America can respect the majority, who are entitled to own a weapon for law abiding purposes, and minimize the amount of murders from the minority. America is a place where freedom of choice has always been protected, and the case for gun ownership is no exception. As a country we must assume responsibilities of our freedoms and wisely regulate them so that all citizens have the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and
happiness.
References
Barnes, R. & Dan E. (2010, June 29) Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2012.
affect. The Second Amendment is in fact up to date and Americans deserve the right to bear arms. With this privilege comes great responsibility and through gun classes, background checks and elimination of the gun show loophole, America can become a safer nation. The first known firearms were invented in the fourteenth century and received the nickname “hand cannons.” Soon after guns became more sophisticated; by the seventeenth century, fairly sophisticated rifles and muskets dominated the weapon culture. Perhaps the biggest invention in the handgun industry was the revolver patented in 1836 by Samuel Colt (Lepore, 2012). The revolver’s multi-bullet firing chamber permanently changed the gun industry. Soon all other weapons of this era, which worked on a shot reload basis, were obsolete. Prior to ratification of the Second Amendment, England’s Parliament strictly supervised the rights of weapon ownership in the colonies. Under England’s control, only the wealthy were permitted to own firearms and all others in possession were considered poachers. Eventually in 1689 Parliament gained control of the militia in the “New World” (Lepore, 2012). This allowed for the one small provision of the British which read, “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law” (Lepore, 2012, p. 26). When the colonies defeated the British, the Founding Fathers believed it was a privilege for every American to own a weapon. Also during the colonial era, there was no regulated police force in the seventeen hundreds. If a person needed to defend himself, it was by utilizing his own weapons or strength. This made it an integral part of society to own a weapon for self-defense purposes. Statistically, America has the highest gun ownership per person in the world. No other nations is as powerfully armed with civilians. Currently there are over 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States and 106 million are handguns. Thirty percent of Americans claim they personally own a firearm and forty percent have a firearm in their household. (Lepore , 2012). If distributed evenly, every person in the United States would own a firearm. With these immense gun ownership numbers, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was signed. The act was named after James Brady who was shot in an assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan in 1981 (Schumer, 1993). The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 required background checks between gun dealers and non-licensed persons through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which was mandated in 1993 but not launched until 1998 (Schumer, 1993). These background checks include files on the following: wanted persons, persons subject to domestic abuse restraining orders, deported alien felons, persons in the U.S. Secret Service protective file, foreign fugitives and known or suspected terrorists (Schumer, 1993). In 1998, The Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) denied 18,647 people of firearm ownership. On the other hand, in 2011, the FBI denied 150,013 potentially dangerous people of possessing a firearm. (Krouse, 2012 ) Consequently, since the Handgun Act of 1993, the number of murder victims across the nation has dropped from 24,526 to 14,748 people (Krouse, 2012). In 1871, with the growing number of firearms in the United States and lack of marksmanship, Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association (NRA) (Keene, 2012). The main goal of the association, according to Church, allowed Americans to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis" (Keene, n.d., p. 1). Today, the NRA is widely recognized as a political force and the biggest sole supporter of the Second Amendment. It is the biggest organizer of gun education and claims its noteworthy success is due to its four million members across the states. (Keene, 2012) Recently in 2008, Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia because he was denied the right to own a handgun. In the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in favor Heller ruling the “right to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual American citizen” and “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home” (Barnes & Dan, 2010 para. 4). This invalidated a ban on handguns in District of Columbia which had been upheld for thirty years. The court indicated in the District of Columbia v. Heller case “it does not intend to treat the right to keep and bear arms any less favorably than other fundamental rights” (Golden, 2012 p. 102). This court case decided and validated the citizen holds the right to “keep and bear arms.” For many gun law opponents, this case reveals sufficient evidence to prove the Second Amendment is, in fact, up to date. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court 's conservatives claimed, “It is clear that the Framers...counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (Barnes & Dan, 2010 para. 3). Many of those who had fought for years seeking an interpretation of the Second Amendment were thrilled. Wayne Lapierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association said, “a great moment in American History for the Second Amendment becomes a real part of constitutional law” (Barnes & Dan, 2010 para. 5). This court decision proved the government supports individual American firearm rights. It reveals that America still has the right to own firearms for law abiding purposes and the laws of the states can not infringe the Bill of Rights. Although the Second Amendment is strongly supported, Americans need to be exposed to the dangers of firearms. America is a battleground of intended and unintended murders. Across the nation, in 2011 the average murder rate per 100,000 people was 5.7 percent. Also in 2011, The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program reported 14,916 non-negligent (intentional) murder victims in the United States. Of these 14,916 murders, 10,129 were accomplished with the use of a firearm. In fact, in 7,398 cases handguns were used (FBI, 2011). The murder rate in America far surpasses any other country on the planet for these statistics. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney claims more gun laws are not the solution. He believes it is not the weapon that needs controlling, but the person behind the trigger. He was quoted in an NBC broadcast after the Aurora shooting saying, “[I]t was illegal for him to have many of those things already, but he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won’t. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what’s essential, to improve the lots of the American people” (Romney, 2012, p. 1). Jill Lepore wrote a personal journal after she attended the American Firearm School in Providence, Massachusetts (2012). The school is one of the rare open to the public facilities with weekly classes ranging from beginners to expert. Entering, Lepore felt comfortable handling a weapon but soon discovered many of her operating weaknesses. The instructor, Tom Dietzel, took no chances. He stated cooly, “In a swimming pool, there are lifeguards. And this place is a lot more dangerous than a swimming pool” (Lepore 2012 p. 33). Jessica Tully of USA Today also claimed "No matter how much gun training an average American might have, it pales in comparison to the rigorous gun training that we demand of law enforcement officers, and thousands of innocent Americans die every year because of the paranoid mentality and lack of meaningful training” (Tully, 2012, p. 10). A gun safety class should be mandatory in order to purchase any firearm. It is similar to a drivers education course. Americans cannot drive a car as soon as they become of age without first successfully completing a driver education course. Every person must prove he or she has the skills necessary to control a motor vehicle. Similarly, every person should be required to demonstrate their ability and knowledge to safety operate a firearm. If every person in the United States who owned a weapon took a mandatory class it could potentially reduce the number of gun related deaths and, undoubtably, it would increase the awareness of firearm safety and risk. Finally, all gun laws need to be mandated at the federal level. This will ensure the entire nation is under the same set of laws, rendering no difference between the states. By making gun laws federally enforced, NICS background checks will be much more accurate. Any person intent on buying a weapon should have a license in order to operate a weapon. Secondly, if all gun laws are mandated on the federal level it will abolish the “gun show loophole.” Over 40 percent of all weapons in the United States are purchased at gun shows (Lepore, 2012). The Brady Handgun Act only requires background checks between licensed dealers and purchasers. The loophole allows “those not engaged in the business” to sell a firearm (Beard, 2012, p. 2). Out of the fifty states only twenty-seven have taken action against the “gun show loophole” and only six of those states require background checks under any circumstances (Beard, 2012). By placing gun laws under Federal Law ensures nearly one hundred percent of all weapons purchasers receive a NICS background check as well as weapons sold from licensed gun dealers. Many countries have an organized method that only licensed dealers sell weapons and the buyers have a clean background. Switzerland for example, has the third highest gun ownership in the world topping at 51 per hundred people if spread out evenly. Although the United States is much higher, many comparisons can be drawn from Switzerland. In 2010, there were 40 intentional gun homicides and less then 5 people are unintentionally killed annually with firearms (Parker, 2011). Switzerland has very similar gun ownership regulations. Private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited and semi-automatic weapons are only allowed under permit. One of the only major differences is the requirement of licenses. A license allows a person to legally obtain a weapon and ammunition in the country. In order to get a license, the person must state a reason for ownership, for example, self-defense, and then undergo a background check which includes, mental illness, criminal and domestic violence. In order to keep a license, the person must re-apply and re-qualify under the standards every five years. Also in order to carry a concealed weapon, every person must have a license as well as take an extensive firearm safety course. Every gun dealer in Switzerland must be licensed (Parker, 2011). Many gun proponents believe this is the route for a safer nation. By looking at other less violent nations and drawing parallels, gun supporters believe a safer country can be created through gun safety classes and more extensive backgrounds checks. Much like Switzerland, everyone is allowed the right and has the opportunity to own a firearm. Switzerland differs from America because of its requirement for licenses. Many gun proponents of America believe that by enforcing these regulations, America can become a much safer nation. Many gun law proponents believe gun laws are the answer to a safer country. Krouse’s (2012) study found the following:
The Second Amendment is now obsolete, with the presence of professional police forces because it was initially intended to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government. They ask why in today’s modern society a private citizen needs any firearm that is not designed primarily for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes. (p.5)
When the Second Amendment was created it had no correlation toward hunting purposes or for defense against criminals. In fact, it was created to defend against the British, who banned the ownership of weapons for the commoners. The British were a constant threat of an attack on the vulnerable colonies. In this event, if the people were armed they could defend themselves against the invaders. However, in today’s society, the power of the Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy is immense. Unlike the responsibility of Americans in the 1700s, it is now meaningless for the people to have arms in the event of an attack. America has the largest military in the world as well as a one of the strongest most organized police forces. As a result, gun law proponents believe the Second Amendment is now obsolete (Krouse, 2012). Obviously it will be impossible to ban firearms throughout the United States. The next closest option for gun opponents is stricter firearm laws. According to a recent study, The Atlantic Times researched gun restrictions enforced in the states. The study pertained to three gun restrictions which included the following: assault weapons’ ban, trigger locks, and safe-storage requirements. States with at least one restriction reported half as many deaths due to firearms per 100,000 people (Florida, 2011). Another prominent argument for gun law supporters is the increase of crime with the ownership of a firearm. A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be used in a suicide, criminal homicide then in the need of self-defense (Huemer, 2003). This researched study claims that for every case, “where someone in a gun-owning household uses a gun to successfully stop a life-threatening attack, nearly forty-three people in similar households will die from a gunshot homicide, or accidental death than it is to kill an intruder in self-defense (Huemer, 2003, ). Surprisingly, the increase of gun laws has a negligible affect on the number of firearms deaths across the nation. Since the expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban in 2004 crime has actually decreased across the nation. In 2003, the crime rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, and in 2011 the crime rate was only 4.7 per 100,000 people which was a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent (FBI, 2011) . Although this has no direct connection to the Assault Weapon Ban, many Gun supporters infer an increased amount of laws will have a negligible to detrimental affect. After Huemer’s (2003) extensive study on the increase of gun laws and crime rates, he made the following claims:
We find that (i) jurisdictions with stricter gun laws tend to have higher crime rates, (ii) shifts to more permissive gun laws tend to be followed by drops in crime rates, (iii) areas with higher gun ownership rates have lower crime rates, and (iv) historically,crime rates have fluctuated with no patten as the civilian gun stock has increased drastically (p. 302).
During Huemer’s research he took into account civilian weapon ownership for the need of self-defense. He claims, “gun prohibition would have to save many times as many lives as it costs” (Huemer, 2003, p. 297). In his study, he found there are approximately 1.8 million instances when a private citizen uses or threatens with a firearm in self-defense. Of those, 400,000 people claim the weapon saved their lives. While people almost certainly overestimate their danger, if 4 percent were correct it would exceed the number of gun homicides annually. (Huemer, 2003) Some use this as leverage to support the Second Amendment. Although thousands die every year in gun homicides, many more thousands of lives are saved by allowing Americans to bear arms legally in the need of self-defense. Gun violence is a major issue currently affecting our country today.
It is a heated debate as to whether more gun laws need to be enforced in order to promote a safer culture in the United States. Gun Laws are not the answer to a safer nation. It is not the majority of American who are naive to firearms; it is the minority. Therefore America should enforce gun classes, background checks and eliminate the “gun show loophole.” By making these three changes, America can respect the majority, who are entitled to own a weapon for law abiding purposes, and minimize the amount of murders from the minority. America is a place where freedom of choice has always been protected, and the case for gun ownership is no exception. As a country we must assume responsibilities of our freedoms and wisely regulate them so that all citizens have the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and
happiness.
References
Barnes, R. & Dan E. (2010, June 29) Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2012.