Three men lay on the ground. No pulse. No inhaling or exhaling. No life in them. The crime scene shows one obvious clue, a handgun, and one clue that can be found, the fingerprints of the killer. The killer had a motive, but the motive is not important. What is important?
If this murder could have been prevented if the killer could not legally own a gun. After a few long minutes…
The police rush over after a neighbor clicks three timid beeps on their telephone.
“I heard gunshots” a woman exclaims, “Why can the killer own a gun?”
“Ma’am, it’s not the gun’s doing. It’s the killers’.”
Since the mass murder at Columbine and even before, Americans have been strongly considering the option of banning guns in the United States of America. But will this put an end to gun-caused violence? Will mass murders stop occurring or occur less frequently if these laws are put into place? Does the gun cause the murder? If you answered yes to any of these, you may want to rethink your decision. The problem in America with mass murders is not in handguns, which are practical for defense purposes. America’s gun and mass murder problem is that people with mental illnesses should not be allowed to purchase guns. A vast majority of mass murders in the United States in the last twenty years have been performed by people who have had a history of mental illness. In addition to this, although bans have not worked in the past, assault weapons are not practical for any purposes for which someone would use a gun, especially for defense, and would only work as a weapon to kill many innocent civilians.
The second amendment of the United States Constitution 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”. In the 2007 court case Parker v. District of Columbia, the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. was repealed due to the ruling that the ban was unconstitutional because of the second amendment. So when some say that the government should be more strict and take away guns, is this unconstitutional? The second amendment and this court case show that in fact, it is unconstitutional for the government to take away guns such as a handgun which would be used for defense purposes. In short, the second amendment of the Constitution allows Americans to legally carry a licensed weapon.
Many who are for gun control say that most who are against gun control think that there is no limit to what they can do with guns because of the second amendment. But, would any sane American use a gun to do anything but defend himself or herself from a home invader, robber, or other criminal? The answer is likely no. Of about sixty mass murders in the last twenty years, almost all of the killers have likely been mentally ill. The Columbine High School shooting in 1999, the Aurora, Colorado shooting just this past summer, and the Newtown, Connecticut shooting just a few weeks ago were all common in more ways than just that they were all mass murders with a gun used as the weapon. All of the killers had a confirmed history of a mental illness or were likely mentally ill. If sane people are not going over the so-called “limit” of this amendment, this Constitutional right, then why should they be punished and not allowed to carry a handgun or have one at their home, only for defensive purposes against criminals.
Along with saying that there is a limit to the second amendment and that Americans are going over this limit because of the lack of gun control laws, pro-control advocates say that the second amendment was not intended by the founding fathers for the assault weapons and other guns of today that could be used as a weapon for mass murder. At first glance, this makes sense because there would have been no way the founding fathers would have known that 200 years in the future, a weapon would be created that could fire more than fifty rounds per minute, reload in less than five seconds, and hit targets with pinpoint accuracy. But do these facts call for an all-out change in the Constitution and an immediate elimination of all guns in America? If guns were to become illegal and the government had to take them, this would be a violation of the second amendment, and possibly the fourth amendment (no unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause). It is true that the founding fathers would not know of a weapon that has the statistics stated above, but this does not constitute a change in a law that has stood unchanged since the late eighteenth century, especially when there is evidence that shows that gun control laws are rarely effective, as well as the fact that the majority of Americans would only use a handgun and would only use it to defend themselves from criminals.
Another argument people against gun control have that those in favor of gun control try to prove wrong is the statement that guns do not kill people, and that a person is responsible for the murder of another person who was killed by the person who used the gun. Pro-control advocates agree with this statement, but say that if it were just people who kill people, than all other countries would have a gun-related death rate similar to the United States of America’s. They say that this does not happen because of more strict gun laws in other countries. One country used as an example is Japan. Japan currently uses capital punishment ? the death penalty ? against murderers. At the same time, some states in the U.S.A. do not use the death penalty meaning that murderers might think that they can get away with more because of this. This does not mean that I support capital punishment, but is just an example of why the argument those who are for gun control propose is invalid and how this form of discipline may deter some criminals from performing a murder or mass murder. Although their arguments seem valid at first, they have flaws and are not one hundred percent true.
As it has already been stated, there has been research done that proves that gun control laws are not completely effective, especially when weighed against the benefits of widespread gun ownership. Many college professors and other respected researchers have studied the effects of such laws and have found them to be ineffective or only slightly effective. Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University, used to be a gun control law supporter. He has since started to support less gun control after years of research. He has discovered that gun control laws have a minimal, if any effect on crime or violence rates. One main reason he gives is that if many people owned guns, this will make criminals less likely to strike or get away with what they wanted to do.
Imagine yourself as a criminal. Your goal is robbery, and of course you have a gun. Would you commit a crime you would not get out of? Think, “would I have a better chance to get away with the crime in a place with strict gun control, where citizens will probably not own guns, or a place with less gun control, where close to half of all people own a gun?”. If it were me, I would go to the place where there are only a few people with guns, making it less dangerous for me. Many agree with the fact that guns are used only to kill, though. This is not true, however. Between 800,000 and two and a half million times every year, a gun is used defensively. Compared to the 1,800,000 emergency room visits caused by guns in the United States, it shows that guns are just as much if not more for protection as they are a weapon used to kill.
Professor Gary Kleck also says that gun control laws do not reduce gun related crime. Kleck’s research, which other professors back up and agree with, shows that crime rates in the United States have dropped at a fairly consistent rate since 1990, before major gun control laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act or the Assault Weapons ban were passed, in 1993 and 1994 respectively. This decrease in crime is not due to stricter gun control laws, but some other factor, such as a change in the American people. Professor Kleck is one of many professors and respected researchers who have studied this issue and agree that stricter gun control does not always have a positive effect.
Along with Professor Gary Kleck are two other former gun control advocates who have also done research that shows exactly what Kleck has realized. Peter Rossi and James Wright, professors at the University of Massachusetts, both have supported gun control for most of their respective lives. They then researched the effect of gun control laws as well as the effect of guns on criminals for about one year, and after interviewing almost 2,000 criminals, they found that most criminals go through extensive measures out of the fear of getting shot. Rossi and Wright’s research showed that widespread gun ownership decreases violence because it deters criminals from committing the crime or shooting a mass amount of people. They found that a majority of criminals fear a citizen with a gun more than a police officer, almost seventy-five percent of criminals would not enter an occupied home because of the chance of getting shot, and that about eighty percent of criminals said that intelligent criminals will try and see if a possible victim will have a gun, because these criminals fear being shot. Their research shows that widespread gun ownership works better than gun control laws for deterring criminals. Eighty-eight percent of the criminals they interviewed agree with the statement, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.”, meaning that if there were to be stricter gun control, such as Americans not being able to own guns, the criminals would have guns to use as they see fit, but normal American civilians would not have a gun to protect themselves. Research by three different college professors all give the same end result, gun control laws are not effective, when compared to widespread gun ownership.
Before American lawmakers agree to put strict gun control laws into place, they might want to think about some alternatives. First, if almost all of the mass murders in the last twenty years have been caused by someone with a mental illness, why not address better mental illness care? When many respected researchers have proven that widespread gun ownership cancels out the minimal effect of gun control laws, is there any reason to put these laws into place? Although the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did not work all that well, a new ban on assault weapons may end up having some effect, because criminals and civilians alike will likely only have a weapons such as a handgun, to aid their crime, or to defend themselves. These could possibly work as alternatives to a full-out gun ban or major change in gun laws. The second amendment has been part of the United States Constitution for over 200 years. Although its meaning is complicated, a 2007 trial has helped us decide that this “right to keep and bear Arms” applies to all, and taking away guns would be against this amendment. In other countries, they have a low violence rate and strict gun control, but these two facts are not necessarily true because of each other. So, if you were about to be a victim of a murder, would you want a gun? Would you try to reason with a would-be killer because of their possible mental illness? Would you rather be staring at a high-tech assault weapon, or a handgun that you might also have, ready to be fired as defense? This criminal would have a gun even if he or she could not legally, so wouldn’t you rather have the odds closer in your favor?