Gun Politics in America
Today in the United States there are few issues that spark as much heated debate as the issue of gun control does. Thousands of issue advocacy groups across the United States push to persuade policy makers to regulate firearms more, and there are thousands that push for just the opposite. This issue always seems to make its way in to the center of debate during the election cycles, and has made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court several times; so what is everyone so fired up about?
Supporters of firearm regulation use many statistics of gun violence, firearm concentration, the rarity of guns being used for self defense, how less firearm regulation costs taxpayers, and many more points to make their argument. Statistics show that, unfortunately, even though the minority population makes up less than a third of the population, they account for over half of all gun related deaths in the United States. This propels their side of the argument, saying that one could stop, or substantially reduce, racial violence by restricting the availability of firearms.
Supporters of firearm regulation would also argue regulation is needed despite the claims that firearms are needed for self defense. The supporter would claim that self defense is almost never the case in gun related violence, and it is more likely to result in an accidental injury or death, a crime committed, or suicide involving the use of the firearm. They go a step further, and explain that less than a quarter of gun owners actually lock up their firearms. One could argue that with the increased chances to access the firearm, there is an increased chance it will cause accidental or purposeful violence.
Another argument for the pro-firearm regulation movement, is the issue of taxpayer dollars going towards paying the medical bills for the uninsured involved in gun related violence. Since many victims with gun related injuries are not insured, the tax payers end up picking up the medical bills of these uninsured individuals. Of course the argument is: if there is more gun regulation, it will be harder for these victims to be injured by guns, thus driving down costs to the tax payer substantially.
On the other hand, opponents of firearm regulation say that studies show areas with less firearm regulation actually have decreased crime rates, it is against the second amendment to restrict the use of firearms, and firearm regulation only makes it harder for average citizens to gain possession of a firearm, not a criminal. These are the most profound opposing arguments of the firearm regulation opponents, however there are many more points they use to defend their point as well.
A firearm regulation opponent would first address, that the right to bear arms is protected under the second amendment of the United States' Constitution. This point is pretty self explanatory, and most firearm regulation opponents would state that because the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, the whole argument of firearm regulation should be laid to rest.
The opponents of this type of regulation do not buy into the argument that more guns, lead to more violence. In fact, they believe the exact opposite. Opponents believe that if a criminal knows that one might be armed, they will be less inclined to try and commit a crime involving that person. They use statistics of the United States being one of the countries with the lowest rate of crime committed in someones house when the owner is home. Because of this belief, opponents not only believe that guns should be allowed in the home, but outside the home as well—in public areas, restaurants, parks, etc. This is called concealed carry, and many states have adopted this. Opponents will argue that every state that has concealed carry laws, it also has lower crime rates.
Finally, a firearm regulation opponent would argue that creating more regulation on firearms would actually make the general public—law abiding citizens—less safe. They argue that waiting periods, background checks, and other methods of regulation delay the citizens ability to protect oneself. They argue that criminals are not going to buy these guns legally, and therefore will have quicker access to firearms. Thus, crime rates increase due to the lack of the citizens self protection.
When comparing the two sides to this heated argument, there are actually some similarities in the way each side makes their respective arguments. For example, both sides use the second amendment to defend their argument believe it or not.
The supporters of firearm regulation highlight the fact that the second amendment does not mention individual use when mentioning the right to bear arms. The supporters say that the language of the amendment clearly shows the founders intended the firearms to only be in possession of members of the state militias. They use historical evidence that says the founders wanted to give the right to the militias to overthrow the federal government if the states deemed the federal actions as tyrannical. However, the opponents also use historical context to defend their point, saying at the time the language of the amendment was written, there were no formal militias, and the “militias” consisted of anyone who was capable of using a firearm. They say that this clearly promotes individual ownership of firearms, and therefore regulation of firearms is unconstitutional.
Another point the two sides both use to promote their view, is the role of firearms in abusive relationships in which the woman is the victim. The supporters state that there are significant increases in fatalities in these relationships when a firearm is involved. The supporters say they can save lives through increased regulation of firearms. The opponents however, believe that women can stop these violent relationships by having increased access to firearms. With easier access, women in abusive relationships may consider buying a gun for protection, thus decreasing the violence in the relationship substantially.
The two sides have different views on this issue, but base their arguments on the same fundamental principles—protecting women, decreasing violence, decreasing crime, etc. There is evidence that both sides of the argument have prevented gun related violence in certain areas, but in the world of politics, this issue is too heated and highly controversial to find a happy medium between the two sides—at least in the eyes of the supporters, and opponents of firearm regulation.
In addition, I tend to agree, through my recent proliferation of knowledge on the firearm regulation issue, to believe in less regulation on firearms for a number of reasons.
First, I believe that criminals having the simple thought cross their mind that perhaps they might get shot if they choose to commit a crime is a good thing. Not only has crime decreased in neighborhoods with many gun owners, but it has also decreased in states that have enacted concealed carry laws. More firearm regulation only produces the opposite of these results—increased crime rates.
Second, the second amendment, including the historical context of when the amendment was written, clearly produces a individual right for citizens to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers knew how precious freedom was, and also knew that an individual right to bear arms would instill freedom in America for years to come. History has clearly shown that populations that are forced to be unarmed by their governments, are way less likely to have the same freedoms that armed populations do. It also shows that it takes little effort for the government to abuse its power—for example Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Fidel Castro have abused their power, and their people for that matter.
Lastly, I believe firearm regulation only leads to law abiding citizens becoming more vulnerable. These criminals are not going to obey the law when coming into a possession of a firearm, hence the name criminal. I believe that background checks, and waiting periods are not helpful at all, and perhaps unconstitutional. Most opponents of firearm regulation tend to agree that rights cannot be restricted solely because of the fact they might be abused. In the text they used the example of the cars, and tell how just because someone might abuse the rights of a car, that is not a sufficient reason to enact regulations such as background checks, or waiting periods for buying a car. I agree wholeheartedly with the opponents on this point.
I want society to be safe, and crime rates to be low. Whether it be firearm regulation, or firearm proliferation that achieves that. However so far, evidence shows that the latter is better at achieving this goal. Although if firearm regulation were able to achieve these goals more so than firearm proliferation, I would choose firearm regulation.
Posts
