On April 19, 1993, Cynthia Coston was driving home with her two sleepy little girls in the back seat of her car. As she was driving along, she came upon a black Mustang sitting in the middle of the road. Not being able to pass the Mustang, she waited for a while and then honked her horn. When the Mustang finally did move, it pulled forward and turned a corner. She drove on, not noticing the gleam of the barrel of a 9mm pistol being aimed at her car. She heard an odd popping noise, but did not really think much of it until she saw her nine-year-old daughter, Loetta, slumped down in the seat. She pulled over and crawled into the back seat, gasping at the hole in her daughter’s head that had been made from the bullet coming through the back window. She held the dying girl while a passerby called for help.
Cynthia Coston is one of the many people who are for strict gun control laws. However, there are also many people against gun control. Guns kill more Americans every two years than were killed in all the years of Vietnam. And those are just the ones who are killed at home. For this reason, some people believe that stricter gun control laws would lower violence by making it harder for the bad people to get firearms. They think that laws that would ban most purchases of handguns would greatly reduce deaths that are gun related.
On the other hand, some people believe that any gun control measure that makes it harder for the good people to get guns instead of the bad people would most likely not produce less violence, but much more instead. They believe that widespread gun ownership would be a benefit for all of society. They say that guns would empower the weak against the strong. And since felons are generally stronger than their victims are, guns would give the weak a foothold against the felons. Convicted felons say that when they think their intended victim is armed with a gun, it deters them from attacking. Fewer Americans die each year from all homicides and suicides combines than from pneumonia and influenza.
The question is whether gun control laws would make it harder for the bad person to do his dirty work, or whether it would make it harder for the good person to defend himself from his attacker. Whether or not we should have gun control laws is a big problem in America. Let us say violence is a disease, and guns are the pathogen. Then the cure would be extremely simple: eliminate all guns. However, what if violence is a disease and the guns are the antibodies? Then getting rid of the antibodies would simply allow the disease to spread more and get worse. We need to find a cure, no matter whether the guns are the pathogens or the antibodies. It is important to look at the pros and cons of gun control because polls show that Americans are concerned about this issue.
Gun control is an effort to stop the rise in violent crime by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms. The means that gun control laws would make it much harder, if not impossible, to get a firearm. Gun control’s purpose is to cut down on violence cause by guns.
In the 1800s, almost everyone had a gun. It was a common thing to have a gun in the house somewhere. Guns were used for hunting and for safety purposes while traveling and around the homestead. There was no such thing as gun control because most people were very responsible with guns, so violence that involved guns was not a big issue. However, more guns have been used in more and more acts of violence. Guns have been the weapons used in murders, assassinations, thefts, and many other crimes. John Wilkes Booth, who used a gun, assassinated Abraham Lincoln. John F. Kennedy and the Archduke of Austria-Hungary were both casualties of gun violence. Because of this increasing violence, the push for gun control has increased.
Those who advocate gun control cite several approaches to laws. A longer waiting period before being able to purchase a gun is one possibility. Requiring people to take gun safety courses is another approach. Raising the legal age has also been suggested. Eighteen is currently the legal age. Gun control laws might involve raising this age to twenty-one, or even older. Some want to outright ban all civilian ownership of firearms. The problem with making firearms illegal to civilians is that the government would have to confiscate and recall millions of firearms. It would be nearly impossible to confiscate all the guns in the United States. That means that there would still be gun violence.
Because this issue is such a hotly debated one, it would be advantageous to discuss some opposing viewpoints. The first viewpoint we will investigate is “Does private ownership of guns cause violence?”
The Nation Rifle Association says that guns do not kill people, it is the people who kill people. Guns are not sentient beings. They are not even beings for that matter, they cannot kill people. They can be used by people to kill, however. In fact, more than 24,000 Americans die each year by handguns. And for the first time in history, in 1992, guns killed more people in Texas than were killed there in automobile accidents. Would a society that had no guns whatsoever be safer and less violent than our present society? As the old NRA slogan goes, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” The least controlled and regulated consumer products on the American market are said to be firearms.
In order to get tactical superiority over another person, both criminals and victims want to have a firearm. Criminals want their guns because they plan to be hostile with them. Law-abiding citizens, however, want them to protect themselves from these criminals. In the real world, would distributing more or less firearms enhance security?
Should private ownership of handguns be banned? According to Carl T. Bogus, studies have shown that gun control laws that ban handgun purchases have significantly reduced gun related accidents. But according to Don B. Kates, banning gun possession by civilians is counter-productive. In order to get effective gun control, the government would have to gain supporters. This would be a hard task because there are many people against gun control. The only two approaches to gun control is either everyone can have a handgun except for those who are prohibited from doing so because of a criminal record, or that nobody may have a firearm except for those who have the permission of the government, such as policemen and United States Government agents. The first is called a general eligibility system and the second is called a restrictive permitting system. The first system, the general eligibility system, could not work because we cannot tell if someone is a dangerous person or not. We cannot read someone’s mind, so we cannot tell if they have suicidal tendencies or if they tend to be violent, or if that are just plain, peace loving, law -abiding citizens. Therefore, the only way to still have guns, but not have gun violence, would be the restrictive permitting system. With the restrictive permitting system, over two million people would not be able to purchase handguns. This could help control what might be called a public health hazard.
Sarah Brady led the fight to make the Brady Bill into a law. Her reason for doing so is that she has had an experience with the problems of gun violence. Her husband, Jim Brady, was the press secretary for Ronald Reagan. Jim was shot in the head in John Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate the President. Jim ended up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, severely wounded. The Brady Bill stated that we should have stricter gun control laws, making it much harder for a person to acquire a handgun. The Brady Bill eventually became a law.
Are guns a public health hazard? Even though some suicides are just totally impulsive, keeping handguns out of the house probably would not lower the rates of suicide. There are many more ways of committing suicide that just using a gun. Hanging, poisoning, and jumping are some, just to name a few. Gun control proponents are quick to point out, however, that handguns are small, and can be used for deadly purposes. Handguns are so small that they are easily hidden in a pocket, so they are our number one weapons used in murder and suicide.
A highly charged question and one that concerns both proponents and opponents of gun control is the question of children and guns. Children seem fascinated with guns. When they are young, they play cowboys and Indians, where the cowboys have the guns and are shooting at the Indians. They play with GI Joes, pretending they are in a war, shooting at the enemy with AK-47s and machine guns and other military firearms. Imagine what they would do if they found a real gun in daddy’s drawer or closet. They would probably think it was a toy and start playing around with it, and, if the gun were not locked, they might even shoot someone by accident. More and more children are appearing on the list of gun fatalities and accidents. Those who are opposed to gun control say that we should teach out children about the importance of safe gun handling. The NRA and other organizations teach gun safety. Parents are the ones responsible for locking up their guns and keeping them out of reach of their children, and we should push for more firearm safety education.
The final question is about the 2nd Amendment. Does the Constitution guarantee the right of Americans to own a gun? The 2nd Amendment states, “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.” This means that citizens of the United States of America have the right to keep and bear guns and weapons, and that this right cannot be taken away. It is right for citizens to have guns, not privilege. Those who believe in gun control say the government has no right to take away our right to own firearms. The 2nd Amendment does protect our right to own firearms, but that does not mean that we have the right to go around and threaten people with firearms. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us, not to put us in danger. Therefore, if guns were a great danger to society, maybe it would be right to limit the possession of firearms.
Are guns the danger to society? Or are the people who wield them the greater danger? This is a question that may continue to be hotly debated on the American scene. Rationally looking at both sides of the issue is one step toward coming to a consensus.
