Gun Control Analysis and Discussion

Gun Control: Analysis and Discussion

Introduction

It is difficult to even briefly survey the current media without coming to the clear understanding that gun control and the debate surrounding it has become a fixture of the American experience within the past few months. Although this issue has long existed below the surface, several instances of extreme brutality via the instrument of the gun have spurred lawmakers and the Democratic controlled Senate to attempt to revive the debate and attempt to gain some traction where none has previously been possible. This paper looks at gun analysis and the issues/arguments surrounding the control.

Background

Specifically, the events of the Aurora, Colorado Theater shooting alongside the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre have galvanized public opinion on both sides of the issue. As such, this brief analysis will seek to consider the debate from the perspective of the pro-gun control movement. In such a way, it will be the express goal of this author to relate to the reader some of the most powerful arguments in favor of further gun control and the rationale behind these. As such, it is the author’s hope that the reader will gain a more nuanced and complete understanding of the main arguments for further gun control by an analysis of the following 4 arguments: the Second Amendment does not, nor did it ever, provide for individual gun rights, the high rate of gun related violence and death, as well as the societal needs for reasonable gun control laws, and whether or not further testing should be put in place for those individuals that have a propensity to instability. Finally, an examination of an even more vehement argument with regards to gun control will be entertained and discussed.

Evidence Pro

The first, and perhaps most contentious of the issues that this analysis will seek to discuss, is the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution sought to convey individual gun rights to the citizen. Although the law has long been interpreted to mean just this, the fact of the matter is that when one reads the Second Amendment from a literalist perspective, it is quite clear that the Second Amendment is speaking to the needs of the states and individual regions of the newly formed United States to form a militia as a means of protecting the Republic (Kopel 1530). In such a way, the Second Amendment can and should be interpreted as little more than admission from the Federal government that it promises not to infringe upon the rights of the militias (National Guard and Army Reserves) to maintain a stock of weaponry for the purpose of defense and securing the borders of the new nation. This particular argument hinges upon interpretation of the Constitution; one of the most contested documents within the political spectrum (Saenz 1). However, from a rhetorically honest standpoint, the text of the bill specifies specifically what it denotes; i.e. the right of the states and by extension the militias under their control to retain weapons. In short, such argument is valid; however, it cannot be used to effectively engage those members of the pro-gun persuasion due to the fact that they have almost invariably chosen to interpret the document by a wholly different standard (Winkler 12).

The second argument which will be utilized within this brief analysis is the fact the extraordinarily high rate of gun crime and the increasingly gruesome nature that it has taken within the past several years demands stricter gun laws. There have always been cases of extreme violence, even massacres, within American society; however, the fact of the matter is that almost all of these hideous crimes have a single factor in common; the widespread and pervasive use of semi-automatic weapons, readily obtained by individuals who can easily be described as unstable, as well as the implementation and usage of high capacity magazines. Whether or not guns should be allowed is not the central issue that is up for debate; rather, the issue at hand is the ease and availability that is unilaterally shared by almost all of the purveyors of these massacres. As such, a correct level of gun control could at least attempt to lessen the availability of certain aspects of these instruments of destruction. Naturally, the issue that is up for discussion hinges not upon whether these deaths may have occurred regardless; but rather upon the question of to what level the bloodletting would have happened if proper societal and governmental constraints were in place to restrict the availability of certain aspects of weapons, high capacity magazines, and the means by which they could be procured.

Ultimately, the third and final argument which will herein be discussed hinges upon the level of societal need for reasonable gun control laws. When one examines the rate at which laws and governance has grown and evolved since the time of the founding fathers, it is easy to note that key differences in the means by which the citizen integrates with concepts of property taxes, public education, and emergency services (not to mention a whole host of others); the reader can quickly come to the realization that the means by which government interacts with the citizen is undeniably far distant from the means that originally existed. However, with respect to gun laws, hardly anything has changed. Certainly, there have been a few exceptions with regards to the way that the federal government has sought to limit automatic weapons from the markets or the existence of sawn off shotguns. However, speaking broadly, there has been little change to the way in which the government has sought to regulate the use and procurement of weapons among its citizens in the past 280 plus years. This naturally represents a definite shortcoming. As such, the reader should consider the fact that at the time the Second Amendment was written, pistols were invariably non rifled and used a lead ball that had an accuracy of no more than 25 yards. Alternatively, the long guns or rifles of that era were also single shot; requiring priming of approximately 30 seconds prior to even the fastest shooter being able to reload. When one considers these facts, it becomes nothing short of shocking that the government has not sought further regulation of the different types of advanced weaponry that is now available to the general public.

Argument Con

The final argument is considered a hotly contested topic. This relates to the type of individuals that invariably commit the horrific crimes that have been used as a poster child for this particular case study. Invariably, these individuals have psychological issues that spur them to create horrific acts of violence on large groups of oftentimes unrelated individuals (Spitzer 220). However, regardless of the fact that this continues to repeat itself over and over again, little if any focus has been placed upon this by either the government or the medical community.

Ultimately, it has been tacitly decided that seeking to curb any gun rights is an issue of such dire consequence that the entire situation should best be left alone entirely (Brownholz 1). However, due to the recent situations that have prompted this response, it should be painfully obvious to the reader that ignorance of the situation or of the precipitating factors can no longer be feigned (Mekhalko 300). Rather, one of the primary needs and motivations for a further level of gun control within the current system is the need to ensure that weapons stay out of the hands of individuals that are at an increased likelihood of performing such a horror in the first place. While the right to carry guns is within the constitutional rights, new laws and bills are still being established about gun control in terms of who has to carry and who should not (Lott, pg.20).

Refutation of Arguments

Up until this point, the arguments that have been used have been concentric upon limiting access, and increasing laws regulating gun usage. According to Lott (pg.10), many studies have considered the importance of owning a gun with respect to crime limitation. However, there are many within the anti-gun camp that insists that the only way to reduce gun related crime entirely is to outright ban guns (Olsen 1). Although it is not the point of this analysis to put forward such a claim, this author will briefly discuss this claim and seek to bring it in line with the intent of those that put it forward. Firstly, when one considers the massacres that have occurred within recent memory, as well as the many instances of crime that occur, many of the weapons used are not legally obtained (Owens 1). Rather, they are stolen from friends or relatives and used in the commission of these crimes. In such a way, merely seeking to reduce the number of guns in society or implement a further layer of gun regulation will not result in a drastic decrease in gun crime; according to individuals that espouse such a view. As such, this particular thought process demands that the only reasonable means by which gun crime and the massacres that exhibit themselves on an increasingly more common scale, is to outlaw guns entirely. To the benefit of such an approach, it is one of the only approaches that would most certainly have a direct and noticeable impact upon the commission and rate of gun crime. However, with regards to the most salient drawback that such an approach exhibits, one must consider the strain on the prison system that such a plan of action would take. Moreover, along the same lines of those that support guns, this particular point of view falls prey to the age old logic of “if all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. Though it is not the belief of this author that such an understanding is entirely true, it is quite probable that to a certain extent, it is partially true.

Conclusion

From the preceding analysis, the full depth and complexity of the gun control debate can be briefly seen. Regardless of the political beliefs of the individual, the fact of the matter is that the current prevalence of gun crime as well as the technologically advanced mechanics of the weaponry involved make the issue one that must be integrated with. The stage is ultimate set, the issue perfectly well understood, the ultimate question is therefore of what to do and how to do it in a way that will contribute to the greatest degree of civil liberties and personal rights while at the same time safeguarding the lives of the many innocent citizens that are put at risk as a result of gun ownership. Whereas completely outlawing guns will likely cause a great deal of political upheaval as well as other societal pressures, the shareholders within the political system as well as those within society must consider whether or not the momentary pressures that restrictions might impose upon society will ultimately be worth the benefit that can be gained over time.

Works Cited

Brownholz, Tara. “Scarborough: Republicans that filibuster gun control ‘put rapists’ rights over parents’ rights’ [VIDEO].” The Daily Caller. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

Mehalko, Laura. “This Is Gun Country: The International Implications Of U.S. Gun Control Policy.” Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 35.1 (2012): 297-330. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2013.

Olson, Alexander. “Gun Control Advocates Showing How Much They Like Guns.” The Huffington Post. N.p., 8 Apr. 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

Owens. “Newtown families voice support for gun control.” CBS News. CBS News, 7 Apr. 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

Kopel, David B. “The Great Gun Control War Of The Twentieth Century-And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 39.5 (2012): 1527-1616. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2013.

Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. E-book Source.

Saenz, Arlette. “Gun Control Fight in Focus for President Obama.” ABC News. ABC News, n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

Spitzer, Robert J. The politics of gun control. Washington, D.C: CQ Press, 2008. Print.

Winkler, Adam. Gunfight : the battle over the right to bear arms in America. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2013. Print.