Gun Rights in America

 Alex Taber

Nicole Payne

English 9 GT

30 March 2015

 Gun Rights In America

Throughout history, guns have been employed as a weapon of both offense and defense. A movement that advocates for the banning of these weapons has been ongoing for a number of years in America. Fortunately, the United States Constitution's Second Amendment has blunted the drive to outlaw firearms. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms and has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as meaning individuals may own and carry weapons on their person. There are many different categories of gun possession laws, sometimes referred to as carry laws. These include concealed carry, open carry, and no carry. Concealed carry laws have three subsections: unrestricted, shall-issue, and may issue. Unrestricted carry, sometimes called constitutional carry, means that no license is required to carry a concealed gun. Shall-issue means that a series of requirements must be met by the applicant. If these qualifications are realized, the state must issue the gun permit. May issue carry laws are the same as shall-issue, except licensing is at the state’s discretion, independent of qualification status. In present day America, the government should do no more to restrict gun ownership and may be wise to liberalize gun possession. The absence of guns produces a dangerous environment, as most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. In addition, the presence of a gun is well documented to protect against in-progress crimes. Lastly, as gun ownership rates and carry licences issued increase, attempted and perpetrated violent crime rates actually decrease.

The main objection to gun rights is the belief that unrestricted gun access will result in more violent crime. For example, if anyone could purchase a gun, a mentally unstable individual could buy a weapon and commit mass murder. Alternatively, anyone could access a gun and use it for revenge or suicide. However, this argument in favor of eliminating legal gun ownership or possession fails when placed under scrutiny.

The conclusion that guns lead to more crime has the cause and effect backward as is evidenced by the consequences of instituting gun-free zones. These areas are theoretically intended to prevent violent crime from occurring. However, every American mass shooting since 1950, except one, has occurred in “gun-free” zones (Lott Jr., A10 DB - SIRS Issues Researcher). The reason for this is simple: mass killers will choose their venue based on the likelihood that they will not be easily stopped. Therefore, these “gun-free” zones are soft targets for someone wishing to commit mass-murder. This mentality is exemplified by the Fort Hood shooting. Military bases are, surprisingly, gun-free by law, meaning that soldiers are unarmed while on base. The exception to this is the military police. In this instance, thirteen people died, and an additional 33 were injured before the military police arrived at the scene (Stockman, P. A.8 DB - SIRS Issues Researcher). Gun-free zones are targets for crime because criminals know no one will fire back, and the evidence proves this point. Some would argue, however, that many mass shootings are not a byproduct of the gun-free zones.

Those who advocate for gun-free zones would argue that it is rare for a mass shooter to target an area specifically because it is gun-free. Follman writes that, “Among the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location” (Follman, “NRA’s gun-free zone myth”). Follman continues by listing the other motives discovered, including workplace dissatisfaction and personal ties. However, this does not change the fact that with the exception of one, all American mass shootings since 1950 have been committed in a gun-free zone (Lott and Landes, "Multiple Victim Public Shootings" 12). While these shooters may have had connections to their targets, they would likely have been far more hesitant to act if they believed that someone was there who may fight back immediately and with deadly force.

Guns, in many instances, scare off criminals before an assault can be successfully carried out. Civilians use firearms 2.5 million times per year to deter crime, and approximately 200,000 of these instances are women defending themselves against sexual assault (Kleck and Gertz 185). Furthermore, guns are often not fired, with their mere presence preventing the crime. Guns, in fact, only injure the would-be attacker 8% of the time (Kleck and Gertz 173). In addition, during robberies and burglaries, an armed victim acts as a defense against the criminal. During a robbery, the defensive measure with the lowest losses to property or occurrence of personal injury to victims was using a gun to attack the criminal, or threatening to attack the criminal with a gun. For burglaries, a victim armed with a gun had the second lowest injury or property loss rate (Kleck and Kates 291). These studies demonstrate that defensive gun use is effective in stopping crime and reducing injury to victims.

Proponents of stricter gun laws, however, often argue that more guns result in more deaths due to increased suicides and accidents; thus, guns do not make people safer. Therefore, it follows that it is logical to ban guns (McElwee, "Smashing the Absurd Myth That More Guns Make Us Safer"). However, guns rank as the seventeenth leading cause of accidental death in America with only 505 accidental gun related deaths in 2013 compared to 38,851 deaths caused by accidental poisoning, which ranks number one. In addition to the 505 accidental deaths due to guns in 2013, guns were used in approximately 21,000 suicides ("WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports"). Therefore, in 2013, only 21,680 accidents and suicides involved firearms. In comparison, as previously stated, guns are employed to deter as many as two and a half million crimes per year (Kleck and Gertz 86).

Finally, increased gun ownership and license issuance results in less violent crime attempted and perpetrated. John Lott argues this in his book, More Guns, Less Crime, providing an exhaustive review of every county in the U.S. over a 29 year period, controlling for multiple factors to determine that, in general, increases in shall-issue concealed carry permits cause violent crime to decrease greatly. Since violent crime greatly decreases, it is logical to allow gun ownership (Lott 94). In addition, when looking at violent crime in Europe over the centuries of 1200 through 2000, the rate of violent crime decreased greatly over the period of 1500-1920, though not at a constant rate (Moody 36). Dr. Moody argues that this can be attributed to the invention of firearms. As firearms became more easily used and more readily available, the amount of violent crime decreased. Furthermore, Dr. Moody argues that this correlation is due to potential criminals being deterred by fear of a weapon, stating that, “Given the primitive medical knowledge of the time, even a minor bullet wound in a relatively unimportant and otherwise non-vital spot would frequently lead to blood poisoning and eventual death. The mere possibility of encountering such a deadly weapon might be expected to deter potential assailants” (Moody 7). Dr. Moody’s research also reveals that in 1920, European violent crime rates reversed their trend and began to increase. Dr. Moody asserts that, as England and other European nations passed  more restrictive gun control laws, the risks associated with violent behavior concomitantly decreased (Moody 17). Lastly, in Britain, a nation with an almost universal gun ban, “hot” burglaries, or burglaries where the resident is still in the home, account for 45% of all home burglaries, compared to America, where they account for 13% (Kleck, “Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control”). Clearly, gun ownership is a deterrent to break ins of this frightening type in America. Taken together, the research of Lott, Kleck, Gertz, and Moody constitutes an impressive breadth and depth that reaches the conclusion that, indeed, increased gun ownership results in less violent crime.