Gun Control Debate Issues

Gun Control Debate Issues

Written by: Renee' Todd

Written for: Dr. Jason Morrison

US Government Class

April 6, 2013

Abstract

Debating firearm control issues crosses political, ethical, and ideological paths. Should we add more regulations or should we just take a look at the ones already in place and enforce them more stridently.

Politicians appear, at times, to be using this issue as a campaigning manipulator to gain support in certain areas.

The importance of becoming knowledgeable in the area of gun control and weapons use can be conducive to making a reasonable decision on which end of the spectrum to side with in regards to amendments to our Constitution regarding firearms.

The debate over amending gun control regulations has become a central topic of our top political leaders, national lobbyist groups (NRA and The Brady Center), Internet Chat sites, and individual dinner tables. A good question for consideration is: should we be lending this much energy into adding to the almost twenty-thousand gun regulations already in place in the United States (Hess, 2009).

The second amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted on December 15, 1791 under the Constitutional Bill of Rights, reads: Militia and the right to bear arms: 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. "Well-regulated" appears to be what many Americans are debating today. Should guns be taken away from everyday citizens and left just to the government? Should the people have the right to protect themselves? These are questions that are now attempting to be answered.

Since the Second Amendment was established in 1791, there have been only two main changes to the statutes regulating firearms. Prior to these landmark rulings, the main debate was should the government make it harder for those convicted of violent crimes to obtain firearms. In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment referred to individuals having the right to own firearms for self-protection, not just the formation of militia. Then in June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled to expand the right to bear arms, in that cities and states should follow the Federal guidelines (Library, 2013).

President Obama is constantly brought back to the subject of increasing gun control regulations by the onslaught of violent crimes committed with the use of some type of firearm. Not a day can go by where you do not get exposed to some story about a crime happening involving a firearm. Newtown School; Columbine School; Fort Gibson School; Westside Elementary School - these incidents only chip the top of the iceberg of mass school shootings. However horrific these tragedies have been, does the media have such a need to sensationalize them to the degree that they do (Hess, 2009)? It appears that this may put additional pressure to rush into making new regulations that may or may not have any effect at all on the percentage of violent crimes committed with the use of a firearm. The Brady Center contends that when individual citizens have more access to firearms, more children die from gun injuries. One statistic they present is a comparison of a year in the United States where over 5,000 children died from gun injuries to the same year in which Great Britain (which imposes great restrictions on gun ownership) only 19 children died from gun injuries (Library, 2013). However, we can also take a look at Americas' history and guns have been an integral part of this history. Guns were the only reason America has its freedom from Britain and throughout history guns have helped American keep its freedom. Now considering this issue, most individuals would argue that most use of firearms discussed in history relate to militia or military incidents, but then you can look at early homesteading families who had to use firearms to protect themselves or their families from dangerous animals. In today's society, there is not much fear of that, but the possibility still remains. Should the government take away the right to protect yourself in the event that you are being attacked by an enraged bear at your vacation cabin in the mountains?

Issues being presented to legislature today regarding the restricted availability of assault weapons does not seem to be unreasonable. However, this amendment appears to be leaving the table as far as being included in the main gun control issue. The ban on assault weapons put in place in 1994, but which expired nine years ago, may continue to be debated, but not radically pushed through as part of the whole new amended gun restrictions (Halloran, 2013). Instead it appears that the basic weapons control package will scale down to cover more universal background checks, increased punishments for illegal weapons trafficking, and more funds for increased school security. Supporters of gun control believe that if there were harsher firearm regulations, a lot of the school shootings may have never taken place. Some individuals argue that gun makers had flooded southern states with guns, where control laws are more lenient, i.e. carrying a hunting rifle on a rack in the back window of your pick-up truck, which fueled a black market of availability of firearms to states with more stringent controls, like New York (Halloran, 2013). New York has been a central focal point of passing stricter firearm control. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has raised 12 million dollars in funding to back the campaign for