|
 |
|
|
The Issue of Gun Control
The issue of gun control has been debated for a long time, probably ever since they
were invented. The gun is a small, rather easy to obtain, weapon that is lethal if used in the
right (or wrong) way. This makes the gun an extremely dangerous factor in our lives. If
used improperly, a gun could be lethal to not only the target, but the user as well. The
availability of guns has sky rocketed in the past decade or so, and the immense population
of guns in our society make it a dangerous place to live. Gun violence claims
approximately 38,000 lives in the U.S. each year, including 5,000 children and
teenagers.(1) In the past few years, many steps have been taken to help reduce the risk of
fatal accidents or intentions. One of these steps was the ban of assault weapons.
Two years ago, congress passed a landmark bill, banning the sale, manufacture
and, importation of semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.
Due to this ban, the number of crimes traced to assault weapons has decreased almost
20% from 1994.(2) This ban was repealed by the House of Representatives. On march 22,
1996 another big legislation in the fight against guns was the Brady bill, which demands a
5 day waiting period for all handgun purchases. These legislation's are some what effective
and in different ways. The only real way to eliminate most gun violence is to eliminate the
availability of guns. Surely making guns illegal would do this but this raises a very
important issue.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Simply put, no matter how
many bans you put out, there will always be the black market to support the criminals in
the U.S. Needless to say the law abiding citizens of our country would be defenseless. The
NRA has made sure that this will never happen. What the United States needs is some one
to pass a bill that will protect all our citizens. Some men and women in Washington think
they are that some one. Some think that there should be more availability of guns. Let's
see what they both think.
Two years ago, as I mentioned, Congress passed a ban on the sale, manufacture,
and importation of all semi-automatic assault weapons. Soon after the 104th Congress
resumed power, The House of Representatives repealed the ban as a pay back to the
National Rifle Association (NRA) who had funded thousands of dollars to Congressional
candidates through their Political Action Committee (PAC). According to the Center for
Responsive Politics, the NRA has spent over $3 million in 1993 and 1994 alone on
campaign commercials. The NRA is one of the major organizations and the biggest in the
fight for pro-gun ownership. According to polls, 65% of Americans say they would be
more likely to vote for a Congressman who would not vote to repeal this. 18% said they
would vote for some one who would repeal this ban and 15% said it would not effect their
vote. It is important for Americans to know how their Congressmen stand on the issue.(3)
In 1981, the current president Ronald Reagan and his assistant, James Brady, were
both shot in an assignation attempt on Reagan. Brady was paralyzed and has been ever
since. The man who shot them had bought his gun no longer than a day or two before the
shooting.
On March of 94' a bill, quite appropriately named The Brady Bill was passed
demanding a mandatory waiting period on all hand gun purchases. The period is used to
do background checks on the customer. Each state has the right to regulate restrictions as
to what on this background check would prevent a customer from purchasing a gun. In
Massachusetts, the restrictions are as follows: The person must be over the age of 18.
The person must be a United States Citizen
The person must never have been convicted of felony
The person must never have been convicted of a drug charge, even a misdemeanor.
The person must not have any reported mental illnesses. In other states these laws are different but, they are very similar. This bill was
signed by President Bill Clinton. Although this is a federal bill a problem arises with states
not willing to accept this bill for some reason are using the 10th amendment to ignore the
Brady Bill. The 10th amendment gives the powers, not given or prohibited by the
constitution, to the states. It is a slim chance, if any, but some lawyers in these states are
fighting the Brady Bill.
Another restriction on the purchase and owner ship of guns is a mandatory permit
or License to carry firearms. These permits are issued by a citizens local police department
and must be presented when buying a firearm. These must also be shown when a police
officer request a gun owner to display his/her license. If you do not have a permit and
carry a gun it is a mandatory sentence of one year.
Politicians feel this bill will help prevent people from getting mad with some one
and going out, buying a gun and killing them the next day. This also reduces the convicted
criminals sources to the black market. Recently, there was a suggestion for a increase of
100,000 police officers. This is still being decided but it certainly couldn't hurt. What does
the future hold for gun control? It all depends on who we vote for.
President Clinton during the past four years signed two major bills for gun control.
The Brady Bill which I discussed earlier and the ban on semi-automatic weapons. Both
actions were criticized by the NRA and other pro-gun ownership organizations. In fact the
NRA's lobbying efforts are the reason it took thirteen year to pass the Brady Bill and the
why the ban on semi-automatic weapons was repealed. The NRA say's "Bill Clinton has
had the most anti-Second amendment Administration in our history, and he's proud of
it."(4) They believe that if Clinton achieves his goal for another four years in the house, he
will eventually license, tax, and ban the second amendment out of existence.
President Clinton's administration believes that he will bring many pro-gun control
supporters to the 105th congress. The NRA takes a direct approach to the second
amendment. The Right to Bear Arms, period. Clinton, an the other hand, takes a different
approach, that of a more complicated nature. He has passed different bills with different
regulations on buying a gun and has said to, by the NRA, the have created gray areas of
the law. But if the NRA were president, then this country would bleed to death. We
simply can not let anyone and everyone have the power to kill another human being by
twitching their index finger. On the other hand, the absolute ban of guns would not
successfully disarm the criminals while it would disarm the civilians of the country.
The NRA has sent many complaints to the Clinton administration about the
destruction of guns. Clinton's gun buy back program destroyed countless firearms
including collectors items and valuable guns that had never been fired. They complain that
historians, collectors and, target shooters are not happy. They claim the reckless
destruction of historical artifacts is inexcusable. However it is said that the rate of gun
violence has gone down since the passage of the Brady Bill and the gun buy back
program. This program however was very costly but, not as costly as 38,000 American
lives each year.
Maybe a different approach to the gun control question is that of Canada. Canada's
crime rate and gun violence are impressively lower than the U.S. Lets take a look at how
they do things. Aside from just guns, bow and arrows, crossbows, and just about any
harmful projectile is subject to licensing in Canada. Any .25, .32 caliber pistol, or guns
with barrels shorter than 4.14" are completely banned. Everyone must buy there own gun,
meaning not to give them as gifts or anything. Bill Clinton praises Canada's system of gun
control highly. All guns there must be registered by make, model, and, serial number. A
new law in Canada will soon ban 58% of there guns, even non-firing replica's of these
particular weapons. (I don't think this is necessary). This maybe extreme but registering
your gun is not difficult to do. I think if Clinton is reelected, some or even lots of these
laws will be implemented in this country.
Not as much can be said about Bob Dole's views because he has not been as much
of a spot light however, he has done allot for gun control as a U.S. Senator. On November
23, 1993, the Brady bill was considered dead for a year. It was killed by bipartisan
filibuster. On Nov. 24, Bob Dole agreed to stop the filibusters and pass the Brady Bill.
However, he opposes a seven day waiting period for gun purchases. Bob Dole's big claim
to fame on the gun control issue is that when only three senators were on the floor, and all
others were home for Thanksgiving, only he could have rejected the vote and the future of
the Brady Bill conceivably laid in his hands. He allowed the bill to pass. Bob Dole quote's
on his actions: "I know the Gun Owners of America, another group, have a little different view. They are
blaming me for the Brady Bill that passed because I sat there with the majority leader and
everybody else had gone home, and we made an agreement. We let the bill pass. I was
picketed, and they called me a traitor and everything else... because that happened."(5) On November 19, 1993 Bob Dole voted for the crime bill. This bill contained the
Feinstein gun ban, proposed by a California Senator, on more than 180 firearms. Two
weeks earlier Dole broke an agreement a prevented a filibuster on the Feinstein
amendment from ever happening. Dole urged Clinton while on national TV to support this
senate crime bill. On February 94' Bob Dole introduced the S 1815 a bill that made the
government pay people for turning in guns. Another of Bob Doles ideas is mandatory
sentencing for criminals who use firearms in committing crimes.
A study conducted by two Ohio coroners and two professors from Case Western
reserve University conducted a study proving the ineffectiveness of a gun for protection.
Their result was surprising. It is seventy percent more likely for a gun in the home to kill
some one you know than an intruder. They can out to the fact the for every one intruder
killed by a gun, four family members are killed. To put it simply, if you come for a large
five person family and you shot a burglar coming into your house, statistically, you have
killed your entire family. Another study has proven that seventy percent of murders in the
U.S. were committed by family members or acquaintances. People allegedly get so
angered they use the protection gun to shot a family member. This contributes to the
percent of family members killed. Would people think twice before killing or committing if
they had to use a knife or a bat? Some people think so. I agree. Researchers have proven
also that area's of the country that have high gun control, have lower crime rates. If no one
has a gun, you need not protect yourself with one, true? Toledo used to be the highest gun
populated gun city in America, they passed a gun control law and successfully dropped the
crime rate 22%.(6)
Countries with gun control as liberal as the United States' are hard to come by.
This may contribute to the nearly 85 times more gun deaths per year than England, who
have a strict gun law. Japan has the lowest murder rate of all. Standing at a low, .02
percent per 100,000 people Japan is a country to learn from. In 1972, Japan suffered a
astoundingly low 28 gun deaths. The U.S. on the other hand incurred 10,017 deaths.
Japan has completely outlawed the possession of hand guns for civilians. This may not be
as bad of an idea as I though. Although Japan holds the idolized lowest rate, they are
closer to the rate of other countries than the U.S. They, in fact, are not at the extreme end
of the spectrum the U.S. is. England, France, and the Netherlands are all examples of
major countries with low murder rates. They all have one this in common, they require
citizens to register all guns. Point being, if you won't protection, protect yourself by
keeping guns out of the house.(7)
My practical thoughts on gun control in the U.S. are this, one can not follow the
Second amendment literally and give the country complete freedom to bear arms or,
completely take away a citizens right to protection. Because not all citizens are fit to own
a gun and, not all guns are fit to be owned by common citizens. My thoughts one the
matter lie in the middle, most near the ideas of the Canadian system of gun control.
I think that a mandatory waiting period for the purchase of a gun is an extremely
good idea in that it will not allow minors, criminals, drug users, or mentally ill people to
buy guns. A permit is good idea so that police may check to see if a gun owner is legally
certified. Since protection and hobby are the main (and should be the only) reason for a
civilian to buy a gun, guns that are made for killing, for example all assault weapons,
should be banned. There is simply no need for them. This would put only protective guns
into the hands of law abiding citizens.
Now what about criminals. They get guns by making them, buying imports or let's
not forget stealing them. First off, In my opinion it should be illegal to import guns or gun
related material to anyone accept the U.S. government. The black market would surly
suffer. For those who make guns, there should be a restricted supply of materials to make
guns. This supply should be government regulated. All firearms should be registered by
make, model, and serial number, and police should be able to run checks on this mass
catalog of guns and owners. While I am on the topic of police, the number of police
should be increased to help increase the number of confiscated guns. Not much in my
opinion can be do about stolen guns. If a criminal takes a gun from a citizen who should
have a gun, there is no way any bill or law can stop him. Since it is obviously already
illegal. The only way to stop that is more police.
Simply put, an intense amount of regulation should be put on guns. It's like having
a fire. If you keep it in your fire place, know exactly were it is, and control it, it will heat
your house and cause no danger. If you randomly spread fire everywhere forgetting where
you placed it, lighting it where it doesn't belong, you then have a problem and you may get
hurt. Well, the fire is spreading fast and people are burning everywhere. The government
has no idea where the guns in this country are or where the next piece ,of what once was
our home, will burst into flames. If we don't act quick, this country will burn to the
ground. We need a giant fire extinguisher and a responsible person operating it. We have
to put the fire back in it's place. |
|
 |
|
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
The copyright for this content entitled "The Issue of Gun Control" has been specified by the contributor as:
Public Domain
The copyright for this content has been relinquished by the author. The content may be used freely by anyone.
|
|
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
