law essay

law essay

The Importance of Strict Gun Control Laws

1. Introduction

It is very hard to believe that there can be a positive side to the availability of firearms when they are in the hands of the wrong people. However, there are those who say that it is a basic constitutional right for an American citizen to own a firearm. To some, this may seem like an ideal solution to a large problem. Handguns are the most abused type of firearm, and they are also the type of firearm that is most easily concealed. This makes for a situation in which a criminal can gain access to a handgun and either commit a crime with it or use it in self-defense against another who has a handgun. This creates a very dangerous and volatile situation, but given the amount of handguns in America today, it is a situation that may only be resolved if law-abiding citizens are able to possess handguns in an effort to defend themselves from those who have used them with malice.

If there is one issue that has been a constant in American society, it is the issue of firearms and their control. Owning a gun in America is a freedom that has been the source of much debate. It has been misused and misrepresented, but it has also been valued and used for good. This issue means many things to many people, and this essay will address some of the most salient issues regarding the effects of the availability of firearms on our society, and whether the availability of firearms has a positive or a negative effect on our society.

2. Current State of Gun Control Laws

There are two major Supreme Court cases which further interpret the 2nd Amendment. The first case was United States v. Miller that took place in 1939. Basically, Jack Miller and one other man were charged with unlawful transportation of a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas. This act was in direct violation of the National Firearms Act, which required these types of weapons to be unattainable by a typical civilian. When their case was brought before the U.S. District Court of Western Arkansas, the charges were dismissed on the grounds that the 1934 Act violated the 2nd Amendment. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, due to the disappearance of Miller, the appeal was never argued before the Court. However, briefs were still filed by the government, which stated its position that the National Firearms Act was constitutional, and the case was still decided by the Court. It set the standard that in the absence of Miller’s appearance, the Supreme Court presumed that the government position was correct, and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. So the great thing the Miller case did for gun control is that it allowed the Supreme Court to indirectly support any regulation on the 2nd Amendment by construing that it is constitutional, so long as it had reasonable relationship to a substantial government interest. Then in 2008, the Supreme Court heard the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The United States brought this case to the Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the District’s long-standing gun control laws for incompatibility with the 2nd Amendment. On June 26th, 2008, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. It also stated that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited and that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon by any person whatsoever and for whatever purpose. But in regards to the Heller case, the decision would invalidate the DC gun ban, and allow a city known for its high levels of crime to now implement its own form of gun control that does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

3. Benefits of Strict Gun Control Laws

When polite societies forget their purpose, they precipitously slide into the soft despotism found in many Western alleviated societies. It is imperative to remember when speaking of gun control laws that the thesis of the Second Amendment is not to offer protection to the individual. That thesis was laid out in the Declaration. The Second Amendment serves as a hedge against tyranny. The understanding was that an armed citizenry would be well able to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government. Advocates debate as to whether or not the United States meets its requirements for a state militia on the federal level. However, recent events in both Australia and Great Britain are enough to make advocates weary of an outright banning of firearms. An outright ban leaves the citizens completely defenseless against a tyrant. That being said, there are nations with gun control that is not aimed at complete confiscation, but there are nations with successful gun control laws that have decreased crime and sought to keep the citizens’ best interests at heart. Both Japan and Switzerland have per capita gun ownership rates exceeding those of Great Britain, though crime is noticeably less in both nations. Gun control laws in both countries require a lengthy application process, a government-issued permit which must be renewed, and weapons storage separate from ammunition. Many similarities may be drawn between Japan and Switzerland’s gun laws, suggesting a formula that includes strict background checks and lengthy registration.

4. Counterarguments and Their Refutation

All of this being considered, a person has the right to protect himself and his property, and gun control laws severely decrease that possibility. It is for the previously stated reasons that there are many people who are against strict gun control laws.

Also, in a research article released in 2000 by Kates and Mauser, it was found that the United States has fewer burglaries involving a household member present than in countries with strict gun control, and that in these countries when a burglary does occur, the rate of assaults on the occupants is significantly higher. This suggests that the possibility of encountering an armed victim deters criminals from carrying out the act and results in less injury to the victims.

Finally, another reason against strict gun control laws is that they take away the element of self-protection. High crime areas are generally in areas of poverty, and the people who live there are often victims of crime. Laws that make it difficult for these people to obtain guns would leave them unable to protect themselves from criminal activity. A study done by the Police Foundation with interviews of convicted felons in ten state prisons holding felons with a total of 18,403 prior gun-related offenses showed that 34% of these inmates had been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed victims. This fact shows that even those who have already shown a propensity to use guns for crime are quite hesitant to use them when there is the likelihood of encountering an armed victim.

Another argument against strict gun control laws is that they simply would not be effective. There are many countries who have tried to impose these laws in the past, and the failure to stop the flow of guns has resulted in laws being loosened. This was the case with Canada when in 1977, they required all gun owners to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate. This law was later repealed and a cheaper and simpler system of gun registration was put into place in 1995.

So what are the reasons for not having strict gun control laws? Well, the first reason is that those against strict gun laws feel that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which 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,” prohibits the government from banning or heavily restricting guns. Now whether this is a correct interpretation of the amendment is quite controversial, but supporters of the Second Amendment tend to oppose any laws that would seem to infringe on this right.

Now there are those who are against gun control laws. Also, there are those who want some form of gun control and those who want a lot. For example, those who want a little gun control may think that having universal background checks before someone can obtain a gun is going too far. Others may feel that the government should have some form of control over who can and who cannot obtain a firearm, but the extent of the laws should go as far as the state level and not the federal level. The bottom line is, there are those who feel the strict gun control laws are needed and those who do not feel that they are necessary.

5. Conclusion

The United States has very lax gun control laws, and with each public shooting, these laws are coming under fire. Different presidents have tried their hardest to make these laws more strict to prevent more weapons from getting into the wrong hands and being used for the wrong reasons. An example of this is President Clinton signing the Brady Bill in 1994. A study shows that a household is 43 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident if a gun is kept in the house. This alone should be a reason to fix this problem. If a new policy reduced gun ownership to half the present level and the rest were stored ‘safe and sound’ in gun clubs, only 1% of fathers would ever use a handgun to shoot their wives. This new law could greatly reduce the amount of firearms-related deaths and injuries by mainly getting rid of firearms in households. This makes strict gun control laws seem like a great idea. Steps in the right direction were being taken. In an ABC interview, President Reagan was reported to have said, “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for the defense of a home.” This is a very reasonable statement, and laws need to reflect this. Guns are part of American tradition and history. They are used for many different activities, whether it is sport, protection, hunting, or collecting. With guns being restricted, all of these could still be practiced, just with a little more effort. Gun control laws will minimize access to guns and subsequently prevent gun violence. Measures must be taken to attack the gun problem. Let it be known that it will not be tolerated. Only these laws can change the current system and result in a safer future for all with less gun violence.