Gun Control

Guns In The United States In today’s society of political turmoil, violence, and economic tragedies, many gun control advocates are pushing for more gun regulations from the government. Guns have been a part of America’s way of life for centuries. However, it was not until the 20th century that the government enacted it’s first gun control act. The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934, as stated in “Firearm Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances,” edited by Sandra Alters, in response to the increased criminal and gangster activity as a result of prohibition (19).

This act aimed to make it more difficult to acquire specific firearms by establishing a $200 tax on firearms (Alters, ed. 19). In 1968, the Gun Control Act was passed and amended the National Firearms Act of 1934 to include a wider range of firearms. This act was passed in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. The act required firearm dealers to be federally licensed, restricted interstate sales of firearms, and forbid the sale of firearms to minors or criminals (Alters, ed. 19).

The passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was criticized, however. The main criticism involving the Gun Control Act of 1968 was that the act penalized law-abiding citizens and rewarded criminals (Alters, ed. 20). In 1986, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act greatly amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 in an attempt to address the various criticisms and concerns linked to the act. There have been various gun control regulations enacted since 1986; however, the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act is one of the largest regulations ever put into place.

Much of the controversy over gun control laws now and then involves the second amendment to the constitution. Today, lawmakers face much pressure from gun control advocates, as well as anti-gun control advocates regarding gun laws. However, putting more regulations on guns is not going to change the way that people use them, which many gun control advocates believe to be true. There should be no further government gun control in America because additional gun control will not lower violence and it is not financially feasible to enforce additional gun control laws.

The most significant federal gun control act today is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, as discussed in James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter’s article “Keeping guns out of the ‘wrong’ hands: the Brady law and the limits of regulation. ” This act requires federal firearm licensees to run background checks on gun sale purchases, and also created a federal database for federal firearm licensee’s access to The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (Jacobs and Potter). A 5-day waiting period for the purchase of a gun was also introduced.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is to provide access to names of those persons not allowed to purchase a gun (Jacobs and Potter). The aim of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was to prevent criminals, or ineligible persons from purchasing guns. The Brady Act expanded the definition of an ineligible person to include: illegal drug users and addicts, former mental patients, illegal aliens and persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces (James and Potter). This act, along with the other regulations discussed, form the current federal gun control laws.

One central view of gun control advocates in support of additional gun control is the belief that banning guns would lower violence in America. Stephen E. Wright, writer of “From the Bluff,” claims that the main focus of anti-gun groups is on gun ownership (par. 2). Anti-gun groups claim that if citizens did not own guns, fewer crimes would be committed. Although taking away guns appears to be a good plan to reduce crime, it is not a realistic one. Banning gun ownership could have an effect similar to the Prohibition Act of 1920.

In 1920, the American government put a ban on all alcohol in the United States. One of the central ideas behind the Prohibition Act was to create a safer America for its citizens. The Prohibition Act did not make for a safer America; however, the effect of the Prohibition act was the development of widespread organized crime, resulting in a increase in the number of criminals. Jeff Hill, writer of “Defining Moment Prohibition,” explains, widespread disregard for the prohibition act resulted in corruption of government officials, police forces and law enforcement (75).

Government statistics show that crime actually rose during the prohibition years, contrary to what the government believed would occur (Hill, 76). The banning of guns could have the same effect as the Prohibition of alcohol. Prohibiting guns could create more widespread organized crime and an increased number of criminals, as it would be a criminal act to purchase or own a gun. While the idea that fewer guns would lead to less violence in America seems reasonable, when the effects of the Prohibition Act of 1920 are considered, it is seen that the prohibition of guns may have very negative consequences.

Another common belief of gun control advocates is that increased purchasing regulations will help prevent gun violence. The general current regulation system for purchasing guns consists of a simple background check, usually on the first purchase of a gun, with a 5-day waiting period. In the Opposing Viewpoint article “An updated Background Check System Will Help Prevent Gun Violence,” the editor explains that the current background check system needs to be fixed (par. 11). The various loopholes in the current background system are a main focus of the gun control advocates.

To fix the various loopholes, gun control advocates believe the government should gather everyone’s name that should be prohibited from buying a gun and put him or her in the system for tracking and they should require a background check for every single gun sale, not just on the first purchase (An Updated Background). The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act fixed these issues presented through the National Instant Criminal Background System Check (Jacobs and Potter). Gun control advocates viewed the Brady Act as a positive step towards lowering violence in America.

However, the act has not reduced gun violence like gun control advocates believed would occur. The view that the Brady Act was a simple solution to the gun violence problem is not only false, but also creates great expense for the government. The problem related to gun violence is not the current background check system; instead the problem lies in the use of illegal guns. Amy Roberts, writer of By the Numbers: Guns in America, explains that each year an estimated 40 percent of all guns purchased in America are through unlicensed, private sellers (Roberts).

Thousands of gun shows are held each year in America; it is at these gun shows where thousands of guns are bought and sold illegally each year. Most gun vendors at these shows do not require any background check. Many gun control advocates feel that many of the murders and shootings in America would not have happened if a background check was ran on the individual purchasing the gun. When a gun is bought illegally, there is no background check. The seller has no way of knowing if the buyer is a criminal. An example of the violence related to the use of illegal guns is he Columbine High School shooting in Colorado. The Columbine killers were able to purchase guns illegally at a gun show from an unlicensed seller, who required no personal information before selling the guns (An Updated Background). This example shows how easily one can obtain a gun illegally; no increased purchasing regulation would have stopped the Columbine killers from purchasing guns. Increasing purchasing regulations will not stop a criminal from getting a gun. Obtaining a gun illegally is so easy that a criminal wouldn’t even think to go through a registered firearms dealer.

Gun control advocates’ views on gun control laws and the prevention of violence only lead to increased spending by the federal government. The federal deficit today is around 16 trillion dollars and growing. The view of the Brady Act as a simple solution to the gun violence problem has been proven not to be true, as mentioned earlier. The Brady Act presents various loopholes through which greater enforcement could prevent. One loophole presented by the Brady Act is the federal licensing system (Jacobs and Potter). Practically anyone can become federally licensed by paying a small fee and submitting required information.

There is also no way to determine if an applicant has lied upon submission of their information for federal licensing. Inspections are rarely conducted upon the federal firearm licensees to ensure cooperation regarding the Brady Act (Jacobs and Potter). The federal government could increase regulation regarding the federal licensing system to ensure proper Brady Act enforcement, but this requires increased spending. Greater information requirements and increased inspections would require increased data processing and hiring of federal inspectors, both requiring greater spending.

The introduction of new gun control acts would require even greater spending than required through greater enforcement of the Brady Act, which is already in place. The recession has placed an enormous strain on federal funds. Increased enforcement of gun regulations is not seen as the greatest need at this time for government spending. There should be no further government gun control in America because additional gun control will not lower violence and it is not financially feasible to enforce additional gun control laws.

The main arguments in support of additional gun control are: banning guns would lower violence and increased purchase regulations would help prevent gun violence; however, these arguments are insufficient. There are potentially negative effects regarding the banning of guns, compared to the Prohibition era. Also, the increased purchasing regulations do not fix the problem of violence related to gun control because of the illegal or “black” gun market. Greater enforcement of the increased purchasing regulations could curb the use of current loopholes.

However, greater enforcement leads to greater spending by the federal government. Greater enforcement also does not deal with the “black” market for guns. In the current state of the economy it is important that the government focus on decreased spending or spending to pull the United States out of the recession. Focusing on increased gun control is not of any benefit to the economy. Increased government spending through greater enforcement of increased gun control laws is not necessary to lower violence, instead focus should be shifted to alternative ways for reducing violence in the United States.

By focusing on informing people on gun safety and gun laws, a new path may be made for the younger generation. Works Cited “An Updated Background Check System Will Help Prevent Gun Violence. ” Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from “A Plan to Prevent Future Tragedies. ” MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns. org. 2011. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. “Firearm Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances. ” Gun Control: Restricting Rights or Protecting People?. Sandra M. Alters. 2009 ed.

Detroit: Gale, 2009. 19-39. Information Plus Reference Series. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. Hill, Jeff. Defining Moment Prohibiton. Detroit MI: Omnigraphics, n. d. Print. Jacobs, James B. , and Kimberly A. Potter. “Keeping guns out of the ‘wrong’ hands: the Brady law and the limits of regulation. ” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Fall 1995: 93-120. Academic OneFile. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. Kates, Don B. , Jr. “GUN CONTROL: A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT. ” Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment. N. p. , 1990. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. lt;http://www. catb. org/esr/guns/gun-control. html>. Roberts, Amy. “By the Numbers: Guns in America – CNN. com. ” CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 02 Nov. 2012. <http://www. cnn. com/2012/ 08/09/politics/btn-guns-in-america/index. html>. Wright, Stephen E. “Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives. ” Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from “Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense. ” StephenE Wright. com. 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 1 Nov. 2012

Gun Control Outline I. Introduction A. American Dream, means different things to people (needs to be fought for) B To many people, freedom is owning a gun C. Gun control is strict enough. The United States government puts down laws strict enough to deal with firearms. II. Body A. Who Can Own A Firearm? 1. Why officials can use firearms a. Military and authorities use firearms to protect, not to attack b. These people have been trained and know how to handle firearms 2. Why do authorities and military need firearms a.

Military and authorities know how to use them b. They use them to protect society, when civilians have them, they will most likely be used for good B. Why Civilians Can Handle Guns 1. Responsibility a. People use firearms for protection, what do they want protection from? Other people with guns and weapons b. If guns were illegal to the public, then the need to defend ourselves against people with guns would still not even be close to gone 2. Laws a. If guns were outlawed, then crime rates would maintain their levels or increase (facts insert here) b.

Guns can lead to many terrible things such as school shootings that have taken place in the past BUT 3. Guns hurt people, people dont hurt people. Guns need to be in the hands of responsible people. III. Conclusion A. Guns are not bad things, it’s what you do with them that makes them bad B. In years to come, the use of guns will soon get out of hand C. Banning guns will never solve the problem completely.. it will make criminals more determined to get what they want with other, possibly more dangerous methods other than using a firearm.

Argumentative Essay against Gun Control Since 1980, forty-four states have passed laws allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons outside their homes for personal protection. (Five additional states had these laws before 1980. Illinois is the sole holdout. ) A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004.

In 2005, Florida passed the Stand Your Ground law, an extension of the so-called castle doctrine, exonerating from prosecution citizens who use deadly force when confronted by an assailant, even if they could have retreated safely; Stand Your Ground laws expand that protection outside the home to any place that an individual “has a right to be. ” Twenty-four states have passed similar laws. Guns, therefore, are necessary in today’s society for our protection There is no point to implement gun control considering the reality that criminals will still find a way to procure guns if they want to do so.

Criminals will always make sure to have access to the guns that they need to execute their crimes successfully. They usually have connections to other influential people that can provide them with the guns and weapons that they need in order to execute their crimes. The bottom line is that if the criminals want to have access to guns, they will be able to get them even if there is a gun control policy in place. This law will not stop them from having guns if they are desperate to have them.

Implementing a gun control policy will not really be effective in making all guns vanish in society. This policy will also not do anything to make guns safer in society. The reality is that guns have become necessary at present so that people can safeguard themselves, their families and their properties from any harm or danger that could be done to them by criminals. Thus, if guns are already banned in society, the people can no longer have access to something that can be very effective in ensuring their safety and security (Jacobs 2002, p. 6). It is undeniable that guns have an intimidating presence and can help prevent criminals from executing their evil plans. While it may be true that people can learn self-defence to protect themselves and their families from criminals in the absence of guns, the reality is that not all people have the time and commitment to actually learn this. They will find it hard to make the necessary adjustments and be forced to learn something that is not natural for them. Thus, the gun control policy will be more detrimental to society.

It is important to also face the reality that implementing the gun control policy will not do anything to make society safer. The truth is that it is not the guns that kill people. People are the ones killing one another. Thus, even if there is a gun control policy in place, people will still kill others with guns that they secured illegally if they are really desperate to do so. It can also be noticed that in most cases where guns are involved, the guns were purchased illegally and therefore unregistered (Spitzer 2009, p. 24).

This only proves that guns can still be acquired by people with the ill intention to kill or hurt others even if there is a gun control policy in place. Aside from this, guns can have the capability to prevent criminals from executing their crimes without them even being used by their owners. This is because the criminals will start hesitating to pursue their evil intentions once they are able to see that the people they are trying to kill or hurt also own guns to protect themselves. This is how guns can help to reduce the crime rates in society (Lott 2010, p. 38).

However, if a gun control policy is in effect, all of this will not be possible anymore as the criminals who obtained their guns illegally will have an easier time in victimizing their targets. In addition, if a gun control policy is in effect, the criminals will simply find ways to use other weapons so that they can still execute their evil acts. Guns are not the only weapons that can be used at present by criminals. Even the ordinary things that can be found in the environment can already be converted to dangerous weapons by criminal at present. This reality makes the gun control policy even more futile and ridiculous.

You might have heard of gun powder, but do you know who invented it and when it was created. It was first created by the Chinese during the tang dynasty. This particular dynasty was active in the 18th century. Gunpowder contains 3 important ingredients: sulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal. Ironically today we use gunpowder to kill but before used in weapons the Chinese thought it could cure skin diseases. Soon after gunpowder’s total potential was discover. The Chinese then invented the cannon. Three major empires saw the power of these cannon and began to create and experiment with this new technology.

As known technology advanced so did cannon building and other small arms. This allowed the empires that invested in this technology to strengthen and spread out and conquer more lands. As these empires expanded they began to intrude on European cities. Naturally Europeans didn’t appreciate the intrusion. The Europeans began to fight back and start wars, most importantly at the battle of Vienna. Vienna was a very important city for the Ottoman Empire to conquer seeing how it is the easy passage through the mountains to Europe, a sort of doorway. The Ottoman Empire attacks the best they could fighting the Europeans.

The fighting was so close that only the long waited Calvary from Poland was able to save the Europeans from total disaster. Maybe if the ottomans gunpowder was more powerful and closer to today’s formula they would have won. If the Calvary had never showed up the entire history of Europe would be different. Another example is when the Ottoman Empire managed to conquer Istanbul. You may be wondering how anyone could get past the 50 by 40 foot walls of Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire developed huge cannon. These cannon were twenty six feet long and 18 inches thick. It shot carved stone balls that weighed in excess of six hundred pounds.

These alone weren’t enough to take down the wall; however the ottomans came up with a clever strategy. What the ottomans did was build twenty six of these bad boys and divide them into three groups each group fired at one desired point along the wall with days of constant battering at one point the wall came down. The gunpowder undoubtedly changed history, even though some people believe that if gunpowder was never discovered the world would be a safer place. They might be right but I don’t see how we could have reached this point in development without technology.

It is truly conspicuous that crime rates are rising in almost all societies around the world. There have been debates about whether or not the gun control laws could decrease the atrocity. One part of the society maintains that there should be restrictions on purchasing guns, while another part convincingly argues that arms limitation does not reduce the amount of crimes committed.

Laws on gun restriction do not have direct relations to the felony. People who perpetrate crime do not obey laws, and regulations can not deter these human beings. Gun control would make innocent civilians even more weak and defenseless. Besides, restrictions would lead the development of black market for guns. World has number of problems regarding crime but gun control is not the solution. There are several reasons why gun regulation is not the effective way to decrease crime.

First and foremost, gun control laws decrease the sense of self reliance and personal safety.  If firearms were restricted only the criminals would have access to them and law-abiding citizens would be defenseless. If people do not have the means for self protection and they are waiting for police to protect them, then they obviously have decreased personal safety. According to Pew Research 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed maintained that stricter gun laws would interfere with the human rights to defend themselves.

National Rifle Association (NRA) maintains that people use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. Moreover, people who own firearms may be obstacles for criminals. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne La Pierre stated, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Owning a handgun may truly be an effective way to protect lives of people. According to survey (May 9, 2013) 48% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided to perpetrate crimes because they knew that the victims were gun owners.

Secondly, criminals are not averted by regulations. Gun restriction does not deter felons to obtain guns or violate laws. A person which wants to kill people, will kill people no matter if this person has a gun or not. If somebody wants to do something, for instance commit crime, there is nothing that really can be done against. In several countries drugs are prohibited, driving drunk, not wearing seat belts, exaggerating speed limit are illegal but people still continue to do this. Someone, who does not live in accordance to law, does not obey the law on prohibited items.

For instance, in US it is illegal for a certain class of persons to possess firearms or ammunition. This people are called “prohibited persons” and they include felons, those convicted of crimes, unlawful users, etc. However, the shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas (November 5, 2017) was committed by “prohibited person”, it means that this person broke the federal law. The code failed to stop the people from violation.

Correspondingly to the above mentioned, there is no correlation between the assault weapons and crime rates. Guns are not at fault for the felony, they are just tools used to do so. If guns are taken away felons just do not kill with guns, they will find other subjects, such as knives or other sharp things, they will find more violent ways to commit crime. Prohibition will not end atrocity.

Accordingly, it may just reduce the gun-related violence, but the amount of crime as a whole will not change. There are some countries that have strict gun control but still have murder, rape, robbery or other types of crime. Mexico has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The country has only one legal gun store, which is located on the secure military base and consumers must present an ID, go through the metal detector, show proof of income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, be fingerprinted and photographed.

If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun. Despite this fact, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders. Also, there are some countries with little restrictions but have low crime rates. For instance, Switzerland has little regulations and high rate of gun ownership, country has 2 million private guns in 8.5 million population. However, the overall murder rate in Switzerland is near zero and country has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Moreover, the regulation of purchasing weapons would stimulate the black market for gun. Criminals may steal the gun or obtain it through illegal way, as it happened in case of drug prohibition. The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs published the report which demonstrated that nearly 12 million guns are not registered and are held illegally.

Despite the fact that Russia has relatively restrictive gun control and regulation to purchase the firearms, there is a huge black market for weapons, and most weapons used by criminals are stolen military or police guns, or firearms made from modified nonlethal guns. The analogous situation is in the Brazil, where there are number of laws that restrict gun ownership, but there are approximately 18 million guns and almost 60% are illegal and unregistered, and most of those weapons are home made weapons by felonies to commit crime.

In contrast to the above mentioned arguments, gun control proposers may say that more gun control laws would reduce gun deaths or homicides. For example, Great Britain and Australia have one of the strictest laws and as the survey (2010) demonstrates these regulations led to decrease in gun-related death. But restrictions do not stop the murder, rape mugging, robbery… Consequently taking guns away resulted in more deaths, not fewer, even though the number of deaths by gun had dropped.
Gun control is truly controversial and complicated issue. It is full of moral and legal arguments, which affect a large amount of people in society. Gun restrictions have worked for several countries but failed for others. Furthermore, gun play critical role in the protection of people’s lives. Some countries had massive regulatory system for decades, but it has failed to deter felonies and keep guns away from the criminals. This indicates that assault weapon is not the problem, but crime itself is the problem, and gun restriction is not the solution for this dilemma.

References

• NRA, “Chris Cox’s NRA Armed Citizen,” www.nra.org/armedcitizen, June 2, 2018
• Pew Research Center, “Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason,” www.pewresearch.org, June 2, 2018
• Washington Post Editorial Board, “The NRA’s Simplistic Response to Newtown: ‘Good Guy with a Gun,'” www.washingtonpost.com, June 2, 2018
• James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed Criminals in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, 1983,” www.ncjrs.gov/, June 2, 2018
• Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2013-2014 – Statistical Tables, at www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft1314st.pdf, June 2, 2018
• Andone, Dakin; Hartung, Kaylee; Simon, Darran (November 6, 2017). “At least 26 people killed in shooting at Texas church”. CNN, June 2, 2018
• Simon Rogers, “Gun Homicides and Gun Ownership Listed by Country,” www.theguardian.com, June 2, 2018
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), “Global Study on Homicide,” www.unodc.org , June 2, 2018
• Damien Cave, “At a Nation’s Only Gun Shop, Looking North in Disbelief,” www.nytimes.com, June 2, 2018
• ATF, “Report of Active Firearms Licenses – License Type by State Statistics,” www.atf.gov, June 2, 2018
• William Booth, “In Mexico, Only One Gun Store but No Dearth of Violence,” www.washingtonpost.com June 2, 2018
• Crime Index for Country 2018 www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp, June 2,2018
• Switzerland -Gun Facts, Figures and the Law www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland, June 2, 2018
• John Burnet “Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking up Illegal Guns,” www.npr.org, June 2, 2018
• Peter Roudik , Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Russian Federation www.loc.gov June 2, 2018
• Eduardo Soares, Senior Foreign Law Specialist, February 2013 www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/brazil.php June 2, 2018
• Gun related death in high income countries, 2010 https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html June 2, 2018