Gun Control

Sponsors

Senate Bill 7026 was submitted as a Committee Bill on February 26, 2018. It was created as a result of the Parkland shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and was reported favorably by Senate Rules Committee. Senate Bill 7026 was sponsored by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Rules Committee.

The Senate Appropriations Committee was created on March 6, 1867 as a result of funds being misused (“Appropriations Committee”, 2018). Whenever they used to run out of money, due to the danger of tasks not being done properly, it urged the congress to give the senate more money (“Appropriations Committee”, 2018). When the offices had an excess of money, they spent it however, they wanted. After the Civil War, it complicated federal funding thus they created a committee that will oversee the funding.

The Senate Rules Committee was not created until April 17, 1867 (“History”, n.d). The committee was created to be a standing committee and their role was to revised the rule of the senate and its procedure as well as make any changes to the rules as was appropriate. It was not until December 9, 1874 where it became known as the Committee on Rules instead of the Select Committee on the Revision of the Rules (“History”, n.d).

Legislative Support and Opposition

Support

The Florida legislator has put gun control as one of their number one priorities as a result of the mass shooting in Parkland (“Orlando Sentinel”, 2018). They have spent a significant amount of time trying to find the best solution for this massacre. After a lot of debates, Senate Bill 7026 was put into action with a vote of 20-18. This bill will put some restriction on guns and an additional $400 million will go to mental health services and school security (“Orlando Sentinel”, 2018). By providing more funding for mental health services and school security, it can help decrease the number of school shooting if intervention happens early.

Senator Bill Galvano was one of the 20 senators who supported this bill. Senator Galvano stated, “This bill will make a difference now. When it becomes law, things will start changing. It will be one of those areas where we can stand up and say to the families, to the communities, to the children, and to our children that we listened and we are trying” (Call, 2018). His statement shows that they are doing everything that they can to decrease the amount of gun violence in school as well as increase school safety, hence the proposal of this bill.

Senator Bill Montford and Senator Lauren Book also voted in favor of this bill even though they have some reservation about certain parts of the bill. On one hand, Senator Book does not agree with the section of the bill that allows teachers to be carrying guns in school. She stated, “If we walk away from $400 million — is teachers carrying guns a poison pill? Absolutely, I can’t imagine that. But there are others in this who have embraced it. My position is to leave it up to them.

There is never enough money for anything we do up here. School districts are always having to scrape to come up with money” (Call, 2018). I understand where she is coming from as that might pose more harm than good considering our current situation with multiple gun violence. On the other hand, Senator Garcia support this bill and stated the reason for school shooting for the past 18 months has been as a result of mental illness (Call, 2018). She supported this bill’s inclusion of additional $400 million that provides the expansion of mental health services.

Opposition

Although Senate Bill 7026 was passed as a result of the Parkland shooting and trying to reduce gun violence in school, many are not happy with the new legislation. Florida Democratic Party Chair Terrie Rizzo, was one of the individuals that was not impressed with this new bill. Rizzo, stated “this is not the legislation the Parkland students fought for — this does not go far enough to protect our students from gun violence” (Call, 2018). This bill does not include universal background checks or ban assault weapons. It is bringing more gun in the school by allowing school personnel to carry weapons.

Senator Baxley was another individual who voted against this bill, he found the age limit to be discriminatory and find it to be a violation of the second amendment rights (Call, 2018). The senators that opposed this bill were Senator Gibson, Grimsley, Hukill, Lee, Powell, Rodriguez, Rouson, Steube, Stewart, Taddeo, Thurston, and Torres. Each of these individuals who opposed this bill had their own reason why they oppose it. Opposition ranged from violation of rights to age limits.

Identification of Coalitions, Special Interest Groups, and Organizations

Support

At least $400 million dollars has been invested inquiring school safety and mental health services. Multiple steps have been taken to enhance school safety and decrease the risks of another school shooting. Due to the enactment of this law, more steps has been taken into account to increase the sharing of information between the sheriff department, the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), and any community behavioral health providers to provide any type of required intervention or prevention strategies (“Gov. Rick Scott”, 2018).

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) has been a big supporter for this new legislation. There are multiple reasons why NAMI supports Senate Bill 7026; one of the reasons mentioned in the press release is that it raises the age limit for gun purchases. It does not require teachers to be armed, and it addresses ways to remove firearms from the home (NAMI, 2018). NAMI is the largest organization that supports individuals with mental illness and is only interested in the provision of mental health services to the individual that were involved in the Parkland shooting.

As mental illness is a serious issue and has been part of the reason of some of the school shooting happening in the US, it show us how important it is to get the person the help they need. NAMI has been helpful in providing public awareness, psychoeducation, designing services to address prevention, intervention and other strategies for mental health service delivery (Roberts, 2018). This law opens up doors for those who are suffering from a mental illness or their loved ones and also reduce the stigma associated with mental illness. This organization main purpose is to advocate on behalf of those suffering from a mental illness as well as promote recovery and improve treatment for those receiving treatment.

Opposition

Although this bill was written with the interest of keeping the public safe and reducing the amount of gun violence; there are certain organizations who were not in favor of the bill and strongly opposes its enactment. The League of Women Voters of Florida (LWVFL) was amongst one of Senate Bill 7026’s vocal opponents. The LWVFL oppose the policy that will arm staffs at schools in regards to enhancing school safety, as they are not school safety officers (“Coalition Statement”, 2018).

The LWVFL believes that it will do the school more harm than good and will not properly protect the school. This organization was not the only coalition that opposed this new bill. Other organizations such as the Firearms Policy Coalition believe that this bill is a violation of Floridians’ second amendment rights (“Oppose FL SB 7026”, n.d). Chris Wagoner, member of Florida Firearms Coalition, supports the LWVFL’s stance against Senate Bill 7026. He finds the bill unconstitutional and found it to be an infringement of his rights as well as many others who are subjected to this law (Wagoner, 2018).

The NRA is one of the largest organization with over five million members. NRA is a non-profit American organization advocates for gun rights. Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate founded this organization in 1871 (“About the NRA”, n.d). It was known for its promotion of gun safety and proper use of firearms. NRA’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the US through public safety, lobby for and against any form of gun control legislation and to lobby for gun owner’s rights (“About the NRA”, n.d).

The National Rifle Association (NRA) stands with the LWVFL in opposition of Senate Bill 7026 arming school personnel. NRA was another organization that advocate against this new bill. They were the most vocal opponent and wanted it to die out in senate. The NRA filed a federal lawsuit against Florida for enacting this bill. Arguments such as breaking off one’s amendment rights were pursued. They also argued about the age limit of the bill being change from 18 years old to 21 years old violates the 14th amendment (Sanchez & Yan, 2018), which can be understandable as 18 years old is not too far off from 21 years old.

Did you know that in 2018 there were more school shootings in the United States than there have ever been since 1970? It seems that America has become so blind to the big issue at hand. We americans are too quick to move on from tragedies. We only send love and prayers but once a week goes by we do nothing about it. The advertisement I chose is in color and shows two children standing in the middle of a room. The boy is holding a Kinder Egg while the girl is holding an assault rifle. As you look closer into the background you notice they are in a classroom. This Ad by “Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America” effectively uses children, pathos, logos and background in the effort to bring awareness to the lack of gun control in America today.

The use of children is the first rhetorical appeal in the image. The Ad is eye grabbing in a unique way. There is no pop of color but the scene still manages to catch your attention. The little girl is holding an assault rifle which is something you rarely ever see, especially in a classroom. The children both have a serious look on their faces. The lighting in the room is very gloomy and the children are in the spotlight. At the center of the photograph the children are looking straight into the eyes of the audience as if they are pleading for help. The children are close-up and the center of attention.

The use of pathos the is second rhetorical appeal in the image. The Ad provides a the use of emotion because most people have some sort of relationship with a child, whether it be as a parent, uncle, aunt, sibling or even a neighbor. Kids are a big part of many people’s lives and this Ad forces the audience to place those kids in the position of the children in Ad. No one wants think about a child in a classroom with a gun.

The use of logos is the third rhetorical appeal used in the image. the way the room is decorated might sway the reader to think about school shootings. The background is a classroom with no color, almost lifeless. School is meant to be a safe place where kids go to learn but in recent years it has also become a place of tragedy. School is a huge part of the life of a child considering how much time children spend at school

The choice of background is the last rhetorical appeal used in the image.

The Gun Control issue has sparked major controversy in America today. People who support gun control feel that guns are the reason for the soaring crime rate in our country, while others believe that gun control laws have nothing to do with it. These people believe that gun laws take guns away from law-abiding citizens while criminals continue to obtain guns illegally. The gun laws we have today do not appear to be doing anything as we continue to hear about shootings involving guns that were owned illegally. To protect the American people the best way to allow them to use guns for protection. In Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin eliminated the concealed carry permit requirement because the second amendment. Stricter gun laws would hurt Americans because of the black market, violent criminals being released from prison early, and the need to ensure personal safety, and will have very little impact on violent crime in America.

The debate for gun control has been around for a very long time. There is always talk of ending war for its violence and the number of casualties, in search of peace. A big push for the gun control movement was the Vietnam war. It was not a war for the United States to fight and was all around a bad situation. It put a fear of guns into people because it was not like other wars where we had a reason to be fighting. The movement against the Vietnam war was to end it since there was no reason for The United States to be involved. After we pulled the troops and brought them back to America, the people saw the effects of guns from a different perspective. This started the massive movement for more gun control laws that people part take in today.

Most laws on gun control are about limiting certain aspects of guns, while a few make these things illegal, such as bump stocks. Many of these laws are reasonable, such as limits on ammunition in a magazine depending on the gun. Other laws are not as reasonable, like the bump stock ban. “The stock uses the recoil of the semiautomatic rifle to let the finger “bump” the trigger, making it different from a fully automatic machine gun, which are illegal for most civilians to own.” (Is NRA move to regulate “bump stocks real or a ruse?, Lisa Marie Pane) A bump stock does not make a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. It allows a person to pull the trigger of a gun at a faster rate than before.

The debate on gun control has been happening all over the world but especially in the U.S it has been a passionate, emotive, and controversial issue. Those who support gun control through laws and policies say that it will lead to a reduction in the number of crimes. Examples of some of the most common gun-related crimes include domestic homicides, mass shootings, and robberies.

Michael Siegel, a public health researcher for Boston University, has concluded that: “Gun control has been effective in preventing crimes often committed using these weapons such as shootings it also helps in keeping guns out of the wrong hands” ​ ​(Siegel 2102). However, while these are fundamental ways in which gun control can help reduce crime, there are those who believe that such laws and policies are rarely effective. Indeed, opponents of gun control often contend that guns deter criminals thus reducing crime. The opposition may also argue that restricting gun ownership does not always succeed in denying the wrong people access to guns. Despite the legitimate arguments by those opposed to gun control, evidence suggests that such laws and policies tackle crime by reducing mass shootings, making homes safer, and reducing the gravity or intensity of crime.

Gun control is one of the most effective ways of reducing mass shootings. Statistics on various incidents of mass shootings that have occurred in the U.S show that the guns used in these shootings were purchased legally (Schildkraut and Tiffany 359). Indeed, in a comprehensive study conducted by news organization ​Mother Jones ​, “over the past four decades, about 74 percent of the guns used in mass shootings were acquired through the right procedures as prescribed by the law” (Kleck 29). Considering these statistics, the argument for gun control is quite legitimate in terms of how people get their guns. However, the idea behind gun control through laws and policies is to deny ‘potentially dangerous people’ the opportunity of owning guns. And defining potentially dangerous as anyone who has a history of violent behavior or plausible reason in which they should not have access to a gun. Stiff laws and policies such as this will make the society safer from cases of mass shootings because guns will not be in the hands of people who can use them to devastating effects. An example of how gun control could have been used to control crime, and in a particular mass shooting, is the case of Stephen Paddock.

In 2017, Paddock shot at and killed 58 innocent people and wounded 500 more when he positioned himself at a perch in a hotel before shooting into the crowd below him at an outdoor event in Las Vegas.(LVMPD 110) Investigations into the shooter revealed that since 1982 with many of them being rifles. When someone buys numerous rifles, a seller is supposed to alert the bureau. However, this requirement is not legally binding since there are no federal laws making it mandatory for sellers to report such buyers. Having so many guns (47 in the case of Paddock) in the hands of a dangerous person is something that can be corrected by stiffer laws and policies.

The number of homicides happening in homes has been high around the world. As the U.S Department of Justice avers, domestic abusers and guns are a dangerous combination (U.S Department of Justice, 2012). Gun control helps in reducing the likelihood of this combination because it restricts access to firearms among people who are likely to commit domestic violence or who have a history of engaging in this crime. Laws that restrict such individuals from owning firearms are examples of gun restrictions. According to Petrosky, “ approximately half of all women who are killed in the U.S die in the hands of their current or former intimate partner with guns being the most used weapon” (Petrosky 741). Some states have made legitimate strides in implementing such laws. These laws are necessary due to the fact that domestic violence can be potentially lethal. The issue becomes more complicated when one considers the number of children who live in such homes. Examples of gun restrictions that have been used successfully in ensuring that more people who are potentially domestic violence perpetrators and those that have a history of committing these crimes include background checks and mandatory surrender of firearms ​ ​(Siegel 2101). Overall, gun restrictions will reduce homicide crimes and shootings happening in homes thus making homes safer for all and especially for the most vulnerable.

Gun control in its most basic form serves to reduce the gravity or intensity of crimes. This position recognizes the fact that gun control cannot completely reduce the number of crimes however, it can reduce the casualties of these crimes. For instance, Lott states, “ most of the mass shootings that have occurred over the past thirty years have been committed using high-capacity magazines and assault weapons” ​ ​(Lott 126). “High-capacity magazines can be defined as an ammunition feeding device that has the potential of accepting more than ten rounds, and an assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm that can accept a magazine and contains additional features that make the weapon even more lethal” (Lott 126). These features include folding stock and a pistol grip. High-capacity magazines and assault weapons often increase the fatality of shootings. In addition, since these weapons are capable of killing many people within a short p of time, they increase the number of fatalities and casualties in the event of a shooting.

Therefore, it turns acts that could have simply been murders into mass murders. The advantage of gun control is that it will restrict these options without necessarily limiting gun ownership. One of the most fundamental counter-arguments on gun control as cited by its many opponents is that it increases crime. Indeed, one of the main reasons why many Americans are hostile to further gun control is the belief that people are safer when they are free to purchase guns so that they defend themselves ​ ​(Hemenway 502). Today, more people feel more secure owning a gun because they understand that in the event of an attack, they will be able to defend themselves or even prevent the crime from occurring. For instance, the idea of teachers carrying guns in school has been one of the measures that have the potential of reducing school shootings.

This position has often been advocated for by the National Rifle Association and in 2018, received the backing of President Trump who observed that arming teachers turns schools into hardened targets. When more people are allowed to own guns, it makes them safer from gun-related crimes. Admittedly, an armed attacker would not be confident about targeting an individual or home that has a gun (Hemenway 503). There are many cases of stories all over the media of people using their guns to defend themselves from attacks. Therefore, guns make societies safer and gun control only aggravates crime. Gun restrictions do not always succeed in denying the wrong people access to guns. Admittedly, a person who is determined to acquire a firearm will circumvent gun control until he or she succeeds in acquiring one or several guns. The war on drugs is a perfect example of how restrictions rarely succeed in making something inaccessible. Indeed, if one wants to use crack cocaine or meth they can still do it despite the fact that there is a law restricting ownership of these drugs.

Therefore, it will be inaccurate to suggest that gun control would succeed since other laws with similar intentions have failed. Therefore, gun control does not decrease crime because individuals who are determined to acquire a weapon will do so. In addition, gun control laws and policies tend to put restrictions on individuals who already own guns as opposed to addressing the problems caused by criminals with guns in society ​ ​(Kleck 499). As such, innocent gun owners are understandably skeptical about gun control from the fear that it could eventually result in confiscation. Confiscation as a measure of gun control without dealing with the loopholes that criminals use to acquire firearms will only increase crime.

In conclusion, though the nation of America was built on the right to own firearms, this right has over the years become fundamentally emotive and controversial. Over recent years, the wave of mass shootings has reopened the debate on gun control with one side of this conversation asserting that such laws and policies are ineffective in addressing crime. On the other hand, proponents of gun control argue that selecting who can buy, sell, or possess a firearm is one of the best measures of reducing crime. However, gun control debates tend to be based on emotions as opposed to real facts. The facts indicate that more guns lead to more gun-related deaths it also intensifies the rate of and intensity of particular crimes. Therefore, though gun control cannot control all violence, it can significantly help in making the community safer by reducing crime.

Works Cited

• Cook, Philip J., Anthony A. Braga, and Mark H. Moore. Gun control. ​Crime and public policy ​, 2011, pp. 257-292.
• Hemenway, David. Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home. ​American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine ​, vol. 5, no. 6, 2011. pp. 502-511.
• Kleck, Gary, Marc Gertz, and Jason Bratton. Why do people support gun control?: Alternative explanations of support for handgun bans. ​Journal of Criminal Justice ​, vol. 37, no. 5, 2009, pp. 496-504.
• Kleck, Gary. Large-capacity magazines and the casualty counts in mass shootings: the plausibility of linkages ​Justice Research and Policy ​, vol. 17, no. 1, 2016, pp. 28-47.
• Lott, John R. ​More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws ​. University of Chicago Press, 2013. Petrosky, Emiko. Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—the United States, 2003–2014. ​MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report ​, vol. 66, no. 28, 2017, pp. 741-746.
• Schildkraut, Jaclyn, and Tiffany Cox Hernandez. Laws that bit the bullet: A review of legislative responses to school shootings. ​American Journal of Criminal Justice ​, vol. 39, no. 2, 2014, pp. 358-374.
• Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King III. The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981–2010. ​American journal of public health ​, vol. 103, no. 11, 2013, pp. 2098-2105.
• United States Congress, LVMPD, Force Investigation Team, and Sheriff Joseph Lombardo. “LVMPD Criminal Investigative Report of the 1 October Mass Casualty Shooting.” ​LVMPD Criminal Investigative Report of the 1 October Mass Casualty Shooting ​, 171001st-3519th ed., Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 2018, pp. 1–187.
• U.S Department of Justice. ​Firearm and domestic violence ​. ​USA.gov ​. 13 December 2012 https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/firearms-and-domestic-violence-intersections.
• Wallace, Lacey N.Responding to violence with guns: Mass shootings and gun acquisition. ​The Social Science Journal ​, ​ ​vol. 52, no. 2, 2015, pp.156-167.

When it comes to the right to openly carry, many feel it’s the right thing to pass the OCW law In Wisconsin for a law abiding citizen to rightfully carry a conceal weapon. A normal citizen would feel threatened if he or she encounters a individual who is legally carrying a firearm in public. And a convicted felon or an citizen who does not possess a permit to carry might feel threatened by a citizen who carries his flamer legally when he or she encounters that individual and might pose a threat to that individual or himself to protect their self.

With the recent uprising in violent crime this year due to the recent drop of the economy, Wisconsin should not have a Concealed Carry Law as it would increase the already too many guns that are on the street and increase the odds of more gun violence. This issue of open carry a concealed weapon Is becoming an alarming topic In Wisconsin and In Illinois; which feel that allowing this law will help in the decrease of violent crime.

However, with the recent reports of the top ten cities which have the lowest poverty rate shows that they have a steady rate In violent crime. ND the robbery rate Is astounding. The threat of the latest release of the major cities that is experiencing a drastic drop of poverty are experiencing a rise of robberies and a steady pace of gun violence: with the fact that Milwaukee, WI are noticing a rise in violent crime in 2010, hence the crime rate was at its lowest in five years in 2009[1].

The recent uprising of robberies and homicides In Milwaukee are making red flags go offer Legislatures to try to constitute on what can be done so that this recent rise does not continue. In addition, with the big issue of straw buying and open gun shows that with the right to be able o purchase firearms without having to go through any background checks give the right for many illegal firearms to purchase and used in violent crimes. Even though the rate of violent crime in many of the major cities are declining with a great rate; the rise of homicides and shootings are rising.

In cities such as Detroit. Philadelphia, the State of Ohio and SST. Louis are noticing a rise in gun shootings; which do authorize the right to conceal carrying a firearm (“Concealed Carry” Laws and Homicide Rates). The legislature of gun laws feel that the right to conceal carry can help eliminate Eileen crime and most states shows a decline In violent crime that firearms are used; but for the major cities that actually permits open carry are still having their share of increase in violent crime.

Since 1999 when the US experienced a 30-year low in violent crime, most of these major cities have experienced a dramatic Increase In gun violence. Missouri permitted concealed carrying beginning in September 2003. Since then the murder rate in Missouri has gone up 8. 8% while the rate of rape has risen DAY 14 [2] http://city. Milwaukee. Gob/Deliberativeness/201 October/Policemen)-Reports-11- Straight-Quarter. HTML

Guns are extremely powerful weapons. They can cause destruction, harm or even death. They can be used to defend and protect or threaten and kill. Any way you look at it, guns are powerful tools not only physically but socially. As college students it is important to stay abreast of the current events and issues circulating our country today, one of which is the controversial issue of gun control. It is extremely important to pay attention to where gun control laws are headed. The directions they take not only affect our nation and society but our future as well as we all move to communities and begin to rise.

One of the most controversial issues in our society is gun control legislation. Violence associated with guns is increasing every year and something must be done to stop it. Gun legislation varies in every state in some states gun policy is stricter than in other states. Gun legislation should be abolished in favor of federal gun legislation. To examine the issue with gun violence today we must understand the gun laws that are in effect. The gun legislation in the United States is mostly based on a state level. One federal law for example prohibits the manufacture of all plastic guns.

The federal government tightly restricts fully automatic guns. Most manufactures stamp serial numbers for law purposes. The government also has regulation on importation on guns brought into the country. Also, most states restrict the purchasing of long guns the age of 18 and 21 for the purchase of hand guns. Most states prohibit the purchase of guns if you are; a convicted felon, alcoholic, drug addict and mentally ill person, alien, or a fugitive from justice. Some laws required prospective gun buyers, to get a purchase permit which comes with applicant posing background checks.

A few states even require that all persons possessing guns must have license to do so, even in their homes. Some states do not ban guns from addicts this is a problem. At in the course of the crime either by the police or by the victim. The likelihood of social disapproval could be a negative factor. It has been known that one half of every household has at least one gun. If you restrict a victim‘s options on limiting households guns, crime could rise highly. This new policy on gun control should help lead our nation in the right direction.

The massacre at the empire state building was an example of how our gun control legislation must be changed. The new federal gun legislation will provide equality among all states. Criminals will not have the option of buying a gun in a state with weak gun legislation. This new policy on gun legislation will cut down on violence dramatically. The issue of guns and gun control takes on a proportion of extreme magnitude. Weighting the rights and liberties of the individuals against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act.

In the United States, gun control sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the provision for such rights are in the constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the free”. Possessing a gun is a fundamental right and may even be a necessity. Anti –gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in effort.

The political approach on gun control deals with the issue of laws and political organization that surround the debate. The government is where the critical laws are made concerning gun control, which in turn affects the entire country. And therefore is important to look at as a key player in the debate. There are two major sides or parties in the political arena that are lobbying either for or against gun control. These two would of course be the Democrats and the Republicans, the two dominating parties in the country today.

The republicans have long been supporters of the pro-gun movement, largely due to both their conservative nature as well as an increased backing over the years by the National Rifle Association, a powerful force in the pro-gun movement. During the elections the NRA gave 92% of its congressional campaign contributions the republicans giving the party ample ammo to promote their cause. Democrats are known to be largely for gun control but as public support has waned , in part due to an increase in gun sales the 9/11 attacks so has the Democrats enthusiasms to bring the issue.

This is an important question to everyone involved in the issue and extremely important to society as a whole. Guns play a role in everyone‘s lives to some degree, whether it be your own possession of hunting rifle, or a pistol in the hands of a youth in your neighborhood we as Americans values our rights to freedoms granted to us by our forefathers , which includes the possession of firearms as stated in the second amendment. As citizens we must ask ourselves, do we really want gun control laws which are created to protect us, to take away our basic rights as citizens? Gun Control Laws

Imagine spending a quiet evening at home or attending a friendly church service. I am sure you would not expect to be threatened or attacked by a criminal, especially in the main place where you expect to have peace of mind but that is exactly what happened to an elderly woman in Arizona. When she realized an intruder was breaking into her home she used her handgun to fire two shots, which scared him away (Rocky Mountain News, 2008). In Colorado, an armed man opened fire in a church killing two people and threatening to kill more when he was shot by an armed volunteer security officer (Rocky Mountain News, 2007).

In these situations, when a criminal decided to infringe on another’s right to privacy and safety, and law enforcement was not around, law abiding citizens were able to stand up and protect themselves using their registered handguns and essentially saving their lives. One does not have to think too hard to imagine the state these citizens might have been in if the Second Amendment did not protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Although guns are used in some violent offenses, the fact remains that it is an American’s constitutional right to own a firearm.

Stricter gun laws will not promise a decrease in violent crimes in the United States, and may put the lives of innocent citizens in greater danger. To understand why owning a firearm is so important to the American people, one must first understand the history of gun ownership. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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. ” Although there is some debate over whether the Second Amendment empowers citizens with the right to keep and bear arms,

Gun Ownership 3 Americans cannot ignore the history of the ownership of weapons prior to, and including gun ownership. Before there were firearms, under the reign of Alfred the Great, all English citizens were required by law to own arms for fear of being overthrown during the British oppression. By the thirteenth century, the law had been changed to specify the arms as the long bow. In 1623 recognizing the need for self defense and hunting, Virginians were not even allowed to travel unless they were properly armed.

In 1658, each colony household had to have a functioning firearm, and in 1673, the law stated that if a person was too poor to purchase a firearm, he would be provided one by the government (The subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982. ) The founding fathers recognized an individual’s right to safety and defense making the right to bear arms a constitutional right. Times have changed, but the need to protect ones family and possessions still exists. According to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, people in America use a handgun to defend themselves every 13 seconds.

Does that mean that citizens have turned trigger happy as some would counter argue? No. In fact, according to the FBI, only in 8% of the cases does the victim harm the attacker. In less that one in one thousand does the attacker die. In an interview conducted by J. Neil Schuman (1993), Gary Kleck, Ph. D, a criminology and criminal justice professor at Florida State University conducted a survey of 4,978 homes in the United States. Kleck found that when law enforcement is not around, 92% of American citizens reported that firing a warning shot scared off potential attackers.

Dr. Kleck’s research confirms that “American civilians commonly use their privately-owned firearms to defend themselves against criminal attacks and that such defensive uses significantly outnumber the criminal uses of Gun Ownership 4 firearms in America” (Schuman, 1993, ¶1). A person has a right to feel safe in his or her own home, and legal firearm ownership achieves this for many citizens. More guns in America does not equate to more violent crimes. An estimated half of all American households has at least 1 gun owner (Cook, P. & Ludwig, J.

, 1997. ) The number of right-to-carry states has increased from 10 in 1987 to 38 today (NRA, 2008). The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) approved 60. 4 firearm transactions between 1994 and 2004 (The Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006) however, violent crime rates dropped 1. 8% in 2007 according to the FBI. In right-to-carry states, the total violent crimes rates were down by 21% compared to other states. Florida issued the most gun permits and experienced the greatest decline in violent crime on a state-by-state basis in 2006.

This chart shows a decline in violent crime since 1994, reaching the lowest rate ever in 2005. Years (The U. S Department of Justice, 2006) Gun Ownership 5 Gun Bans are ineffective because criminals will find a way to evade the law. In D. C. where handguns are banned, 137 people were killed as a result of firearm violence in 2006 (Lanier, 2007). In Britain, following a complete gun ban, firearm offenses increased 40% between 1997 and 2000 (Murray, 2001). In the United States it is illegal to possess and sell controlled substances yet, we are still combating drugs in this country.

According to the D. E. A. , there were 5,636,305 drug seizures in 2007. The estimated number of arrest for drug abuse violations amongst adults has continued to rise from 1970-2006. The “war on drugs” in this country is proof that criminals will continue to break the law and the best way to combat criminal activity is with a strict enforcement of the law and stricter penalties. Changing the Constitution by incorporating stricter gun control will hurt the innocent law abiding citizens of America, not the guilty criminals that will continue to obtain guns illegally.

Guns are used as self-defense for many citizens. According to the Albuquerque Tribune (2008), more women are acquiring guns especially single women reporting that they feel safer owning a firearm for protection. According to Kleck (1999), there have been 20 studies conducted that have found when criminals attempt an attack on an unsuspecting victim if the victim has a gun the aggressor is far less likely harm of injure them. In addition some convicts have reported if they suspected persons may be armed, they would be far less likely to initiate an attack on that individual.

Guns are being sold at alarming rates in black markets all over the world. Disarming citizens will only make them a target to those criminals who have no intention on abiding by the law. Gun Ownership 6 Some laws have been put in place to prevent persons suspected of criminal activity from purchasing guns such as conducting criminal background checks prior to gun purchases, but this is not enough to solve the problem. The solution is not stricter gun laws, but harsher penalties for those who break the law. Criminals need to be held accountable for illegal guns.

Same as the concept with the death penalty, harsher penalties will deter gun offenses. The A. T. F states that out 70,000 guns traced each year, 50,000 of them involve offenses many of which are not prosecuted (Moore, 1997). This is a rather high number of offenses. If criminals see illegal gun charges as a serious offense, than maybe others will get the picture. According to the statistics, more citizens in America with firearms do not equal more crime. Studies have shown a dramatic increase in violent crimes where gun laws are stricter and a decrease where the gun laws are more lenient.

Criminals are less likely to attack innocent people if they feel they may be armed. One could assume that the increase in gun ownership has had a significant impact on the decline in the national violent crime rate. What we also know is that criminals are such, because they have no respect for the law, and whether guns are illegal or legal, they will find a way to obtain them victimizing the innocent. Instead of stripping American citizens of their constitutional right, more effort should be put towards punishing those who break the law by enforcing the laws currently in place.

This is the best way to bring American communities a step closer to ensuring the safety of our law abiding citizens.

References CONSTITUTION, S. O. (1982). Retrieved march 12, 2008, from The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: http://www. constitution. org/mil/rkba1982. htm Ludwig, P. J. (1997). National Institute of Justice. Retrieved mar 29, 2008, from Guns in America: National Survey on: http://www. ncjrs. gov/pdffiles/165476. pdf Moore, E. (1997). Gun In America Tracing the Terror. Retrieved march 26, 2008, from houston Chronicle: http://www. chron. com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/gunpart2. html News, R.

M. (2007, December 9). Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved march 21, 2008, from Man opens fire, kills 2 at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. NRA-ILA. (2008). Armed Citizen. Retrieved march 28, 2008, from NRA-ILA: http://www. nraila. org/ArmedCitizen/ U. S Department of Justice. (2005). U. S Department of Justice. Retrieved march 29, 2008, from Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www. ojp. gov/bjs/gvc. htm U. S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Violent Crime. Retrieved mar 20, 2008, from www. fbi. gov: http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/index. html