just random stories, pics, and opinionated articles of mine
The Debate of the Century
Gun control is one of the most debated topics of the 21st century since the shooting in a Colorado theatre that killed twelve people and injured fifty-eight, and the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that killed several children and teachers. The gun violence in America is too frequent and too severe. This topic has been debated about for throughout America’s history, but the debates have never been more vicious. If the government passed a law that limited the amount of guns a person could own and buy, or at least taxed the ammunition, then the gun violence rates would go down drastically. Firearms claim over 30,000 live each year, so if gun laws are passed, then that death rate will be lowered considerably.
In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act designed to “provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence”. This law prohibited the private sale of rifles and shotguns by mail. Various organizations have expressed opposition to some or all of the GCA's provisions. “The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assassinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage” (Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation). This law was passed after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King to help try and prevent mail-ordered guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. Mrs. Leo Lesnick wrote in a letter on June 20, 1968 to Montanan Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield “As to registering and licensing guns, I do not know the answer. But it does seem to me that if handguns in particular were licensed and stiff license fees charged then there might be fewer people who would have them. Surely the events of the past three months make some sort of action a necessity’ (Sticking to His Guns:
Mike Mansfield, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Election of 1970). Senator Mansfield supported the GCA even while many Montana citizens did not. He later replied that he did not expect gun control would be a cure-all problem; however, he did believe that the gun was a plague to the land. When Senator Mansfield reran for Senator, he used the GCA as a persuasion for reelection. Gun control has been an issue for decades, and this act was only the beginning.
The Crime Control Act of 1990 bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. Also, "gun-free school zones" were established, carrying specific penalties for violations. The Crime Control Act is mainly a law that protects America’s children. While this law focuses mostly on keeping children and school zones drug-free, this law also created gun-free school zones and enhanced penalties when caught using short-barreled rifles, shotguns, or other destructive devices while committing a crime of violence or a crime related to drug trafficking.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, signed on November 30, 1993 by President Bill Clinton, imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. This law was passed twelve years after the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, which also lead to the shooting of Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, DC officer Thomas Delahanty, and Jim Brady, who was press secretary to President Reagan. The gun used to shoot President Reagan, Jim Brady, Agent McCarthy, and Officer Delahanty was purchased at a pawnshop in Dallas, Texas. “The gun was a Roehm Model RG14, a six-shot, double-action revolver designed to fire .22-caliber, rim fire ammunition. The shooter, John Hinckley, lied about his address when he purchased the gun and used an old Texas driver's license as ‘proof’ that he lived there. A background check would have caught that lie” (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)
Center-city teens and residents who own or carry guns do so mainly for personal security. “We asked teen inmates and students to agree or disagree: ‘in my crowd, if you don’t have a gun, people don’t respect you.’ Eighty-six percent of the inmates and ninety percent of the male students rejected this statement, most of them strongly” (James D. Wright and others). This statement clearly states that owning firearms is not about popularity or respect. “We also asked them to agree or disagree: ‘My friends would look down on me if I did not carry a gun.’ Eighty-nine percent of the inmates and ninety-one percent of the students also disagreed with this statement, again most of the strongly” (James D. Wright and others). Again, firearm carrying is clearly not a popularity issue.
Findings from a survey from 170 United States cities indicate that: “… (1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence…” (Journal of Quantitative Criminology). If certain crime rates were to decrease, then the gun prevalence levels would also decrease. A study done in Chicago this year shows that crime rates actually are beginning to decrease from last year. In March 2012 alone, there were fifty-two homicides in Chicago. This year, March 2013, there were only sixteen homicides, which is a sixty-nine percent decrease from last March. The homicide rates for the first three months of this year, from January 1st to March 31st are down forty-two percent. “This is not a victory. Zero murders would be a victory. But this is certainly progress.” (Superintendent Garry McCarthy, Chicago Police Department).
If the government restricted the types of guns available, taxed ammunition or the guns themselves, or at least required more extensive background checks, tragedies such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut or the Colorado theatre would happen less often and be much less horrific. A study of youths who were incarcerated for gun use shows that a revolver is their first choice of weapon, and an automatic gun, which have been illegal since 1934, and semi-automatics, which were banned between 1994 and 2000, are their close second. “… the revolver was the most commonly owned weapon; 72 percent had owned a revolver… Next in popularity was the automatic or semi-automatic pistol, typically chambered for 9mm or.45 caliber rounds” (James D. Wright and others). A move toward tighter gun laws seems to be happening, slowly but surely. Cook County in Illinois has passed a law that requires a twenty-five dollar tax fee on firearm sales. Even the National Rifle Association is talking change. “…perhaps a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban which, between 1994 and 2000, prohibited the sale of a list of the most militaristic weapons, or an end to the ‘gun-show exemption’ that allows people to buy weapons without the usual background checks…’ (The Economist).
Many people may argue that gun control is a terrible idea, but in reality, it is a good idea. Some will say that people will not be able to defend themselves in dangerous situations if the government pursues the gun control laws. However, this statement isn’t all truth. There are several other objects that can be used as self-defense. A person could use a stun-gun in a dangerous situation. This object can easily bring down an attacker without seriously injuring, or even killing that person. Another option is a very strong pepper spray. This will temporarily blind the attacker, leaving the perfect opportunity to disarm the attacker and flee safely.
Gun violence isn’t the only kind of violence. If the government takes away the guns, then the people who commit crimes will just find another weapon to use. While this may be true, the other weapons that criminals use will be less lethal than a firearm. The weapons they use may cause damage, but they will be less likely to cause death. A knife or another type of weapon not related to a firearm has a less likely chance of killing, paralyzing or otherwise hurting a person permanently.
Gun control will be a cause of more violence. People who are legally able to buy a gun or are legally able to own one will begin to riot and protest. There is no doubt that people will protest, but if a person is smart, they will protest peacefully. If a group of people protests with violence, then it is assumed that the firearm control will have a less likely chance of being revoked, because the violent reaction to the control of firearms shows that human beings are, for lack of a better word, addicted to guns. Humans are addicted to the false sense of security that firearms give to them, when in reality they do not see the violence that is caused by the one thing they are addicted to. “…300m guns are ’out there’ in the Unites States, more than one for every adult’ (The Economist). Guns don’t have to be taken from ALL Americans. As long as the government tries harder to keep firearms regulated and out of the hands of criminals, there is no need for protests or riots.
Guns claim over 30,000 lives every year, but with gun and ammunition control, the death tolls could be decreased dramatically. While gun control has been debated about for over a hundred years, the debates may be coming to a conclusion. The government sees the way guns impact society, and appear reluctant to pass a law controlling firearms. They see that while firearms protect Americans’ freedom by using them in wars, Americans are also using firearms to commit heinous crimes such as murders. If gun laws are passed, there is still a way of defending oneself in a threatening situation without using a gun that can kill an attacker. Also, center-city residents can feel much safer knowing that they will not have to carry a firearm just to defend themselves. Ultimately, if the government passes laws controlling firearms, then America would be much safer.
