Gunning for Improvement

Gunning for Improvement

"Guns are no more responsible for killing people than the spoon is responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell fat." Found on a bumper sticker, this saying and others reveal the rift between Americans dealing with gun control legislation. Debates about the second amendment, and what the founders meant when they put it in the bill of rights, have been discussed at high frequency. The problem in question is what gun laws, or lack there of, should be implemented to decrease violent crime? Firearms have been a key item in solving many disputes, however, it seems there are far more incidences of guns being the root of violence. This issue needs to be discussed because so many people disagree with each other about it. Well renowned scholars increasingly contradict one another on what measures need to be taken to improve crime rates in the United States. The problem with this issue is that the violent crime has remained high even while measures have been taken to decrease it. If the answer can be found to this problem, by any political party, it would be hard for any American to contradict its success. However, contradicting ideas about legislation to solve the problem have caused a delay in possible success.

The first piece of information that needs to be examined is the second amendment and the rights it gives to the American people. The interpretation of the law depends if an activist approach is taken, or whether a self-restraint approach is taken. If one believes that the constitution is made to change with time, then an entire new realm opens up for how gun control should be handled. However, the more conservative approach of judicial self-restraint leads people to believe that the founders know what's best and that they meant for the country to be run as they intended. "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 (Churchill 519)." Much like other parts of the Constitution, the founders left the second amendment open for discussion and without a definite meaning. The first part of the second amendment that talks about a well-regulated militia has been a base for the argument of spokespeople for gun control. The claim is that the founders intended the amendment for a militia means that soldiers and minutemen would be able to possess arms such as the case in the Revolutionary War. However, contradictory to public opinion, most people involved in the militia during the Revolutionary period were ordinary citizens who kept firearms for protection from Indians and insurgents (Kates 26). Taking a more grammatical approach to deciphering true meaning behind the second amendment, one can look at "well-regulated," and form some opinions. When looking at a militia, it is usually a group of individuals who come together as a group to fight off the unwanted. A well-regulated militia may mean that the founders intended the arms holders to be a organized group with military like characteristics. It may infer that the founder's interpretation of militia is a well-trained military organization intended to protect the country from rebels and enemies (Lund 64). The founders were also very concerned with giving the government too much power. Without the second amendment, the federal government would have regulation over the militia and who was able to possess a gun. The founders were scared that the government would possibly use that power in a negative way, so the power to bear arms was put to the people, but only for when they needed to assemble and solve a conflict (Lund 27). No one knows what the founders intended by the second amendment, but there are other provisions in the constitution that would probably give civilians the right to own a firearm anyway. Without the second amendment, the ninth amendment probably would have let the people make a decision on gun laws. The ninth amendment guarantees people rights if any right is not stated in the Constitution. The bottom line is that the second amendment gives the right to bear arms to the people and not to any government or other group (Kates 26). Gun control is a growing trend across the globe, and many people believe disarmament is the key to achieving world peace.

Disarmament would obviously decrease the number of civilians in the United States that would possess firearms. Other countries globally, including Canada and Great Britain have implemented heavy restrictions on gun ownership. Canada, who began regulating gun ownership in 1978 and increased in 1995 with the consent for the Canadian Firearms Program. The laws in Canada seem to be working being that in the ten years between 1989 and 1999, crimes involving a firearm went down from five to just over three percent (Boyd 473). Although many view this as sufficient evidence to show the laws are working, for now it is only an unproven connection that cannot prove the reason the rate went down was because of the laws. The Canadians believe that even though the law may not be working to prevent crime, they have taken away over 7,000 illegal firearms that may have caused harm (Boyd 473). There also may be reason to keep guns in supply to civilians. In the US in 1997, 2 million people claimed that they defended themselves by using a firearm, even if that meant simply showing it. That same year, there were only 430,000 crimes that were committed using a firearm (Lott 30). The evidence shows that guns protected more often then they harmed. However, this data does precede the attacks of September 11, which may or may not have changed. The media also plays an important role in the public view of how guns are used. There are rarely stories published about how someone protected himself or herself from harm by using a firearm. The only stories seen are the ones where someone was shot and killed, and how innocent they were (Ludwig 466). The United States has attempted at controlling the use on firearms by passing laws such as the Brady Act. The Brady Act is an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and it makes solicitors of handguns to do a background check on all individuals they sell to. The Brady Act did decrease the amount of firearms sold illegally, but the homicide and suicide rates failed to decrease (Lott 26). The United States has not taken the issue of gun control as one of the most important. London, however, decided that crime rates were so bad that the only way to solve the problem was to ban handguns. In 1997, England banned the ownership of handguns, thinking that it would solve many problems with the increasing crime in London's inner city. The problem with the law is that criminals obtain firearms illegally in most cases anyway. This leaves the citizens who abide by the laws with no