Gun Control Restrictions

Isabella Correa
Pr.
ENC
04/16/2013

Research Paper: Gun Control Restrictions According to the 2010 statistics presented by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, (UNODC,) in Great Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, and Japan, a total of 294 people were murdered by firearms. In the United States more than 22,000 people were murdered by firearms by the end of the year. The difference that exists among these countries and The United States is that in these countries is very difficult to buy a firearm. In fact these countries have rigorous gun laws. In contrast in the United States people can buy a firearm in a pawnshop, in Wal-Mart, online, arm shows, newspapers ads, Craigslist, almost anywhere. In this essay,
I will argue a more clear meaning of the Second Amendment, and why I think that in the United States should create gun control policies. My first point requires me to explain more clearly the meaning of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms was so important for the founding fathers that it occupies the second position in the United States Constitution. However, after many tragedies, such as homicides, theater shootings, and school massacres, it is necessary to set limits to this right. No right is unlimited, even those conferred by the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment ensures the right of freedom of speech, but this amendment does not protect freedom of speech when it affects the rights of other people. Nobody can scream fire in a theater, if there is not fire, because to incite panic can cause harm. The above example shows that sometimes rights can easily get into conflict with other rights. The right of freedom of speech hinders the right of people in the theater to avoid being trampled. The same reasoning can be used to the second amendment. If the right to keep and bear a gun affects the safety of others, this right should be restricted in order to protect the safety of others. There is evidence that throughout the history of the U.S. courts have limited the second amendment. In an article from The Washington Post, and titled “History of Gun-control Legislation,” it provides a brief history of firearm regulations in America. In 1939, there was the Miller case, which restricted the right to have specific kind of guns. Then in 1986, there was the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which imposed some restrictions on gun sales. Finally, in 2013, after recent massacres such as the murder of 20 children in Newton, Connecticut, and 12 spectators in Aurora, Colorado, President Obama proposes to tighten gun control laws, which still is being analyzing by government. In the U.S. constitution, the second amendment reads: “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” (Steve). Regulated is defined as “Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly,” or “Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations” (“Regulated” def. 1a; 1b). Militia is defined as “a military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency,” or “a military force that engages in rebel activities” (“Militia” def. 1a; 1b). From my understanding, it is clear to me that the Second Amendment did not refers to the gun ownership as a right that would be unlimited and without restrictions, but it does mean to equip “a military force of civilians” to protect the nation, which is stated in the next part of the sentence “being necessary to the security of a free state” (Steve). Together with the word “militia,” it reads clear that the Founding Fathers knew very well who could bear arms and for what those arms should be used. The last part of the sentence says, “The right to people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The founding fathers refer to “the people” as the “militia,” who is in charge of ensuring the safety of a free state. The last part of the amendment, “shall not be infringed,” connects with the first part, “well regulated.” It proves that the Second Amendment does agree with gun regulation that defends the security of the nation (Steve). Even though I would like that no citizen to carry a gun, with exception of the police or someone well trained to take care of the common good, I realize that there is not a realistic goal for gun control politics.
Therefore, I have some suggestions to try to have more realistic solutions. I think that a national system would be a great way to have more control over guns and people who own those arms. For instance, each every gun should be registered to a single owner. It would be helpful in identifying criminals. I think that mandatory background check for people who want to buy a gun would be very helpful to ensure that responsible people own guns. More severe judgment should be another suggestion to ensure the enforcement of the law. I also think that not everyone knows how to handle a gun properly, so gun education will prevent many accidents and tragedies. The last idea that I have come with is more complicated and less possible, but maybe in the future it would be used. The idea is that each gun has recorded its owner’s hand prints, and only the owner can use the
gun. In an article published by Stephen King, he asked “How many have to die before we will give up these dangerous toys?” referring to gun control policies.
In the article King writes that “any bills to change existing gun laws... quietly disappear into the legislative swamp.” King also says that “In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings; gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it is just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage.” This article leads me to ask myself why government is waiting to take action with this issue. I decided to check how many massacres had occurred in the U.S. history. In the article from the Sky News website, titled “US Shooting: History of Deadliest Massacres,” the authors present a long summary of gun massacres that have occurred in the U.S. The list is too long to include in its entirety, so I would like to mention some: “San Diego, California (McDonalds restaurant) July 18th, 1984 – 21 killed (19 wounded) – James Oliver Huberty (aged 42, shot at scene by police); Killeen, Texas (restaurant) Oct 16th, 1991 – 23 killed (20 wounded) – George Hennard (aged 35, suicide at scene); Virginia Tech – April 16th, 2007 – 32 killed (25 wounded) Seung-Hui Cho (aged 23, suicide at scene); Fort Hood, Texas, (military base) Nov 5th, 2009 – 13 killed (29 wounded) – Nidal Malik Hasan
(age 39, arrested at scene); and Newtown Connecticut (Sandy Hook Elementary School ) Dec 14th, 2012 – 27 killed (developing) Adam Lanza (aged 20, suicide at scene). The list goes on and on, but the point is the same that King argues in his article: “How many have to die before we will give up these dangerous toys?” During this research, I noticed that The U.S Constitution is called “a living document.” That means to me that it might be available for changes. Whatever position is taken in this issue, I think that the second amendment should to be renovated for modern times. Clearly, there are no longer militias that work for the benefit of the public concerns. The rare associations that identify themselves as militias do not work under the constitution principles of a “well-regulated militia” that defends the “security of a free state.” After so many tragedies, I believe that by now it is obvious that is necessary to set gun control restrictions. It is unnecessary that many more people keeps dying because a mentally ill person takes a gun and decided to revenge by shooting anyone who crosses his or her path, and whose only crime is being in the wrong place, on the wrong day, at the wrong time. I do not expect gun control restrictions will avoid all massacres, but I think that if gun restrictions will help to avoid at least one tragedy, then that is a good beginning and at least better that just seat and see on TV that more innocent people died in another gun massacre.

Works Cited
"History of Guns - Aguea." Washington Post, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
"Militia." Def. 1a; 1b. Merriam-Webster.com. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
M, Steve. "U.S. Constitution." - Amendment 2. N.p., 24 Jan. 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
"Regulated." Def. 1a; 1b. Merriam-Webster.com. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
"Stephen King Writes Passionate Essay in Favor of Gun Control Asking 'how Many Have to Die before We Will Give up These Dangerous Toys? '" Top News Today. Kindle Singles, 26 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.
"United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime." UNODC Homicide Statistics. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
"US Shooting: History of Deadliest Massacre." Sky News. N.p., 16 Dec. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.