Gun Issue Final Paper

Running Head: GUN REFORM: DOES AMERICA NEED IT? 1

Gun Reform: Does America Need It?

Ed Ferrer

GEN499: General Education Capstone

Instructor: Justin Brumit

August 4, 2014

GUN REFORM: DOES AMERICA NEED IT? 2

“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” (Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution).

Implementing gun control policies throughout the U.S. will not

make guns disappear nor will it make the criminals or those who

are mentally unstable deterred from obtaining firearms illegally.

The question of gun control is one that has been highly debated

since the founding of this country. For many decades, gun control

has been an ongoing controversy between those who believe that

guns should be very restricted or even outlawed and those who

want the Second amendment to be honored as it was written.

Although guns do have the potential to be dangerous, they are

used for self defense, law enforcement, hunting, and to protect

others from unwanted harm. Guns put in the wrong hands could lead

to catastrophic events, which we have unfortunately witnessed in

the past. As a result of these horrific events guns have been put


on a pedestal and have been labeled as too dangerous for American

citizens to handle, and the right to own a gun individually

should be taken away.

Many people who are for gun control believe “the more lax

gun laws are… the more likely one is to face someone with a

firearm who has no business owning one” (Holt, 2013), but

criminals are not called criminals because they obeyed the law.

According to Jason Howerton (2013), who is a pro-gun advocate,

societies that are against gun control believe otherwise and

consider that a gun ban has a dangerous side effect in that it

only encourages criminals since they know the citizen who is law-

abiding are unarmed and defenseless. There have been studies done

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics which shows that firearm

killings have decreased by 39 percent since 1993. Another study

done by the Pew Research Center was even more significant as

their results showed an even more remarkable decline of 49

percent (Barrett, 2013). The same research also showed that the

government had reported about 22,000 non-fatal shootings

occurring each year from 1993 to 2002 and that from 2002 to 2011


the number had gone down by close to 50 percent. Even with this

dramatic decline, anti-gun supporters still want to create

stricter gun regulations making it tougher to own a gun. A good

portion of these supporters really would like to see guns taken

completely out of society.

Gun control in the U.S. is not a new topic. It has basically

become a focus topic that comes up from time to time based on a

serious crime event. Gun control can be traced back to the Jim

Crow laws that were enacted back in the early 1800s. During the

18th and 19th centuries, guns were basically tools for survival

purposes and for defending against any foreign enemy. As America

grew and expanded to the west, guns were used for defending

against hostile Indians and other potential dangers in the

unexplored territory. Basically, guns were a vital part of

American history.

In the late 1920s as mob violence increased, Congress would

begin the quest for gun control measures. In 1927, mail-order gun

sales were declared illegal as was concealed firearms. As mob

violence increased in 1934 with the use of the “Tommy Gun”,


Congress approved the National Firearms Act of 1934, taxing

firearms and requiring gun registration. This would become the

first federal gun-control law. It didn’t end there however. In

1938, President Roosevelt was successful in the passing of the

National Firearms Act of 1938 which required the licensing of

interstate gun dealers and prohibiting the sale of guns to

individuals under indictment or convicted of crimes of violence

(Kim, 2013).

The gun control issue seemed to be a minor issue until the

1960s. The turbulent times of the ‘60s saw the killing of

President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and Robert Kennedy and Martin

Luther King, Jr. in 1968. These assassinations kick started

Congress to enact the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act would

prohibit the sale of guns to felons, drug users and those deemed

to be mentally ill, as well as require firearm dealers to get

licensed and enforce interstate restrictions on gun sales. The

act also required that a person be 21 years old to legally

purchase a handgun. There were some other attempts to pass gun

control bills that failed as well as some that were relaxed or


repealed. In 1981, an assassination attempt of President Reagan

resulted in nearly killing Press Secretary James Brady who took a

bullet wound to the head. For 12 long years after that

occurrence, Sarah and James Brady led the fight for better gun

control. With the support of NRA member and ex-President Ronal

Reagan, the Brady organization succeeded in getting The Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act approved in 1993. The key agenda

to this law was to create a system for checking the background of

potential gun buyers which was to be under the control of the

FBI. Even though this NICS system prohibits criminals and other

possible violent people from buying handguns. The Brady bill was

unable to control private sales from one individual to another.

Interesting enough, a 1993 survey by the Pew Research Center

showed that 57% of the people said that gun control was more

important than defending Second Amendment gun rights. In 2012,

the same survey showed the percentage had declined to 47% (Kim,

2013).

Laws regarding gun control are initiated with the intent to

control the sale of guns as well as their use. While the primary


concern here is based on the issue in the U.S., let’s just take a

look at a situation where gun control did much harm. In 2001,

American Rifleman, the magazine of the NRA, published an article

by Dr. Halbrook explaining the utilization of a firearms

registration list which resulted in the seizure of firearms and

ammunition as well as the killing of firearm owners. Dr. Halbrook

(2001) makes an interesting observation about this control;

“registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to

confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects.” The author

was referring to Hitler and how he was able to take the guns out

of the hands of the German citizens. All over the world, gun

control legislation by governments has made it easy for those in

power to do whatever they want to their people. There are those

in the U.S. that believe that if the government continues to

pursue tight gun control laws that the citizens will be

vulnerable to all sorts of criminal activity.

For over 40 years, gun control activists and lobbyists have

tried to ban handguns or have attempted to create restricting

reforms in this country and they have not done very well at all.


As a matter of fact, some of the reforms that have surfaced are

really not reforms at all rather than just an attempt to appease

people. In 2013, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who is a pro-gun

advocate, “has implied he will filibuster new proposals and has

said to Obama, “Call me if any of your reforms would’ve saved

those kids at Sandy Hook” (Fetzer, 2014). He does not believe

that any new laws on gun control would prevent another tragedy,

such as Sandy Hook. Look at one of the gun control “appeasements”

that exists; the sign that says “Gun Free Zone.” This is the same

concept as the “Drug Free Zone” or the blinking 25 mph sign; it

only affects law abiding citizens. Less than a week after Sandy

Hook, Wayne LaPierre, Vice President of the NRA, had stated that

schools with posted “Gun Free Zones” only attract the criminals

who mean to do harm. He then challenged Congress to fund all

schools so that they can hire armed police officers. On another

note, other schools in the same district already had police

officer presence while Sandy Hook did not. Was Adam Lanza aware

of this fact or was Sandy Hook randomly chosen (Birdnow, 2013)?

Those who disregard the law will not pay attention to a sign that


is harmless to them. The sign will not sound an alarm or flash

bright lights if someone with bad intentions is approaching one

of these zones and it will not prevent mass shootings such as

Sandy Hook or the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting. Mind

you, these are areas that have some of the most restrictive gun

regulations (Gucciardi, 2013).

Cleta Mitchell (2013), who is a prominent Washington lawyer

as well as a director of the National Rifle Association, states

in her article in the New York Times that the justification for

gun control is due to the insane people who have had the ability

to obtain guns, and use them in criminal behavior. She also

clearly states that there is nothing wrong with gun ownership but

that there needs to be a middle ground with some control against

criminals and those that are considered insane and that the

government needs to do better. After the Newtown tragedy,

President Obama has continually stated that “We should get

tougher on people who buy guns…turning around and selling to

criminals or the insane without checking. And we should severely

punish … who do this” (Sherfinski, 2013). The key phrase that


keeps popping up in the speech is “we should.” What needed to be

stated was “we will” or “I will.” This led to Mitchell (2013)

stating that she felt that “The Obama Administration has a

pathetic enforcement record, including an abysmal failure to

enforce existing legal prohibitions on purchases of firearms by

persons adjudicated mentally incompetent.” Under the present law,

all gun sellers are required to possess a Federal Firearms

License (FFL) and are mandated to complete background checks

prior to allowing a firearm to be carried out of the store, but

“transfers between people who are regularly engaged in business

of dealing firearms fall outside this requirement.” This consists

of family to family transfers or family to friend transfers,

anyone dealing outside of a gun dealership (Rivkin, 2013). Though

universal background checks are a great idea, it will not stop a

criminal from obtaining and using it to break the law.

The communities of pro-gun control firmly believe that gun

control legislation is a necessity to the wellbeing of our

nation. Control advocates feel that many of the deaths caused by

guns can be prevented by controlling the ownership of guns within


the U.S. In a Businessweek article, Paul Barrett (2013), states

that the focus of gun control advocates for years is that more

stringent restrictions on firearms is required to cut crime. This

has been proven wrong; the states with the highest amount of

murder rates by guns had the some of the strictest gun control

laws. An FBI Uniform Crime Report in 2011 showed that California

was the number one in the number of gun-related murders in the

country while maintaining one of the strongest gun control laws.

The District of Columbia, having very strict gun laws, had the

highest gun-related murder rate (per 100,000) in the United

States (Howerton, 2013). To support the statistics, a group

called Slate had been tracking gun deaths since the Sandy Hook

tragedy. From January through July 2013, the studies showed that

California, once again, had the most gun deaths at 677. In that

same time frame, the top 10 states with the most stringent gun

laws had 2,002 gun deaths while the 10 states with the least

stringent gun laws totaled 696 gun deaths (Gucciardi, 2013).

In reviewing these reports and studies, states that have the

toughest gun laws do not show a relationship with the idea of


fewer guns equals less crime, in reality it is just the opposite.

In an article published on a web site called TheBlaze.com, the

author makes a great statement, “Guns in the right hands help

public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety” (Holt,

2013). Is this not a true fact? Societies with strong gun control

laws really have a tough time with this argument except that the

clinically insane or others with any mental illnesses should not

be able to obtain a gun. Taking Sandy Hook Elementary into

consideration, “Connecticut has among the most stringent gun

control laws in the country—There are ample laws on the books

that restrict gun purchases by those who shouldn’t buy them”

(Mitchell). Yet, Adam Lanza was still able to gain access to the

weapons. In Fetzer’s (2013) article, he explains that the weapons

allegedly used by Adam Lanza were obtained legally by his mother

in accordance with Connecticut gun laws. This shows that no

matter how many gun laws are passed out there, criminals or the

mentally incompetent will find a way to obtain a weapon.

The gun control advocate and the pro-gun advocates have

looked at and interpreted the Second Amendment to try to justify


their cause. As a result of our founding fathers creating a

nation, the Bill of rights was created as the first 10 amendments

to the U.S. Constitution. As we all know, the Second Amendment

gives citizens the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates have

often said that the Second Amendment was added due to a need for

an American citizen militia to be able to defend America in a

time of need and for that reason it does not justify individual

ownership of numerous guns. However, the Supreme Court has made

the interpretation that the Second Amendment is the law of the

land which allows the people the right to bear arms and it will

not be infringed upon (Fetzer, 2013). Basically, banning guns

would take away the rights that are given in the U.S.

Constitution and therefore illegal.

The Supreme Court has not interfered much with the gun

control issue. Obviously if a case happens to be accepted into

the Court, then the judges will have to make interpretation

according to the law of the land. This is exactly what happened

in 1939 in the case of U.S. v. Miller wherein the Supreme Court

had decided that the regulations in the National Firearms Act did


not in any way violate the Second Amendment. To go along with

this ruling, the Court also ruled that the Second Amendment

concerns only a citizen who is in service in a government

organized and regulated militia (Gucciardi. 2013). This would

have been an interpretation that would have made gun control

advocates happy since the Supreme Court, in its ruling, viewed

the bearing of arms as the right of a militia and not as an

individual. For the next seventy years, the Supreme Court did not

openly address the Second Amendment. The analysis that the

Amendment was solely for the protection of state militias was the

basis for many states affecting legislation which imposed gun

restrictions as well as the District of Columbia passing a total

ban on handguns.

In 2008, another case came to the Supreme Court concerning

gun control. The case of Heller v. District of Columbia was a

landmark decision that would turn the Courts view on the Second

Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court submitted that

the Second Amendment does protect the right of an individual to

own a firearm for legal purposes such as self defense. The


decision also found that the D.C. Firearms Control Regulations

Act of 1975 as unconstitutional and had removed the part of the

Regulations Act that required all firearms be kept "unloaded and

disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" and removed the ban of

ownership of handguns (District of Columbia v. Heller). With this

decision the Supreme Court, the highest authority of all that is

legal in the U.S., views that it is an individual’s right to bear

arms which is where we stand today.

“Gun control is not about guns – it’s about control”

(Mitchell, 2013). The thought that controlling the type of gun

that you can buy or putting limits on the size of the magazine

will stop unfortunate murders or school shootings is just not

being rational. Sure, there are some basic federal laws

pertaining to guns such you must be 21 to purchase a gun; being

convicted of a crime prohibits you from buying a gun; any dealer

who buys and sells guns must be licensed. Background checks are

a good thing to try to eliminate criminals from getting their

hands on guns. But are these laws and background checks working?

Maybe to some small degree but none of these laws will block a


criminal from buying or selling a firearm.

We can all listen to the politicians rant and rave about

what should be done. They already know what needs to be done it’s

just that they don’t act until something happens. The way to

really gauge the feeling about gun control is by talking to

people. As I started this project, I would ask people in the

community about how they felt about gun control. I spoke with

friends, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, parents, I even asked

people I do not know. The one aspect I found amazing was that

nobody turned away from me when I was asking them about this

issue. Many of them wanted to express their opinion for quite

awhile, some too long but worth it. As I started asking people, I

decided to try to take in some numbers. I had approached 75

people and asked them about their opinions about gun rights and

gun control; 56 were against strict gun control, 14 were for

strong gun control and did want to own a gun and only 1 person

wanted a total ban of guns. Everyone, except the 1 person, agreed

that gun control should only pertain to criminals and the

mentally ill but that the government needed to work harder to


achieve that goal. A majority felt that the law abiding gun owner

should not be punished because of the actions of a few.

The way that a gun is used is totally up to that person that

is holding it. Guns of any type will not and cannot hurt anyone

one on its own. Someone has to decide its use and whether it is

good or bad. I do not agree that gun control laws will end the

violence when you consider that a terrorist, criminal or

disturbed person doesn’t even need a gun to be violent or

destructive. All you have to do is go back to April 15, 2013, the

Boston Marathon bombing. The Tsarnaev brothers used two pressure

cookers to create bombs that exploded killing 3 people and

injuring 264 others. Was there a cry to ban or control the sale

of pressure cookers? No, how absurd would that be. The point is

that they could have used any other material or item to make

their bomb.

Believing guns are the reason there is more crime rather

than there is just violent people in the world just seems a bit

ridiculous. Take into consideration the fact that human beings

are the ones that control objects, such as guns, not the other


way around. If that were the case, why not ban all sorts of

weapons; anything could be a weapon. In relation to that theory,

Gucciardi (2013) offers some statistics from the 2009 FBI report

that shows homicides committed with firearm and non-firearm

sources. During that year there were 9,146 firearm deaths. The

breakdown is as follows:

6,452 from handguns 348 from rifles 418 from shotguns 94 from other guns 1,834 from unknown guns

In relation to the statistics above, here is the breakdown and

comparison of non-firearm deaths for 2009:

Clubs, hammers and other blunt objects – 611 deaths; 263 more than rifles and 193 more than shotguns.

Knives and other cutting tools – 1,825 deaths; 965 more thanrifles, shotgun and other gun related deaths combined.

Hands, fists and feet – 801 deaths; 35 more than rifles and

shotgun.

The question can be asked why is banning or controlling clubs,

hammers, and knives any different than doing the same for guns?

Rather than creating extreme legislation to regulate these items

they are discounted as common incidents that are to be blamed on


the possessor and not on the item itself. In contrast, a gun is

often portrayed as a weapon of murder rather than a weapon that

is used for defense of self, family, and innocents.

From a paper clip to a car, all could be used as an object

to harm others. In any case, completely ignoring the Second

Amendment and banning guns would create uproar with many pro-gun

citizens. Though some gun control is a good thing, such as

background checks and at least 21 of age to purchase a gun, there

should not be any reason to put anymore laws into effect. As said

before, criminals will get their hands on a weapon one way or

another. If it’s not a gun, then it could be anything else.

No other gun control legislation can or could have prevented

the catastrophes that happened in Connecticut or Colorado. Each

of these events had a mentally incompetent person involved in the

massacres, and we have laws for these types of people.

Furthermore, more gun regulations will not stop violent crimes in

America. It is how we use our resources to stop these people from

creating even more violent occurrences, and that is letting

citizens have the right to own their guns. Gun control is not


going to save lives as many pro-gun control advocates believe.

The only thing that will actually save lives is educating those

who know nothing of guns, and knowledge to be widespread through

our nation. There are too many people who have never even held a

gun, and even be in the same room as a gun to decide if they are

for gun control or anti-gun control. The only way people will

actually get an understanding of the information is to be

informed, rather than going off other opinions. History has shown

that when disarming citizens, governments will gain too much

power leaving the citizens defenseless and unable to fend for

themselves or their families. It is highly doubtful that the

American government would ever come to that point and strip the

people of basic rights, but it is always better to be prepared

than not being prepared. Thomas Jefferson also had an opinion on

gun rights, “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The

strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and

bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the

tyranny in government” (Quotes on Firearms Rights).


References

Barrett, P. M. (2013, May 7). Good News on Gun Violence Could

Shape Gun Control Debate. Businessweek. Retrieved July 17,

2014, from

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-07/good-news-

on-gun-violence-could- shape-gun-control-debate.

Birdnow, T. (2013, January 26). Articles: Gun Control: A Failed

American Experiment. Retrieved July 17, 2014, from

www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/gun_control_a_failed_american_exp

eriment.html.


Cornell, S. (2006). A well-regulated militia: the founding

fathers and the origins of gun control in America. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. (n.d.). District of Columbia v. Heller.

Retrieved July 18, 2014, from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

Fetzer, J.H. (2013, April). Why gun control is bad for America.

Veterans Today. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/06/why-gun-control-is-bad-

for- america/.

Fetzer, J. H. (2014, April 3). Why gun control is bad for

America?. PressTV -. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/03/296377/why-gun-control-

is-bad- for-america/.

Gucciardi, A. (2013, April 29). DISARMED: A History of Gun Control

Documentary Film [Video File]. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Vu6fWro68

Halbrook, S. (2001, June). Registration: The Nazi Paradigm.

American Rifleman, 149, 52.


Holt, M. (2013, April 22). Do Strict Gun Laws Really Stop Gun

Crime? TheBlaze.com. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/do-strict-gun- laws-

really-stop-gun-crime/.

Howerton, J. (2013, May 6). The Firearms Statistics That Gun

Control Advocates Don’t Want to See. TheBlaze.com. Retrieved

July 17, 2014, from

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-

statistics-that-gun-control- advocates-dont-want-to-see/ .

Kim, C. (2013, October 2). A look back at gun control history.

msnbc.com. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/look-back-gun-control-history

Mitchell, C. (2013, April 18). At the Center of the Gun Debate, a

Bad Enforcement Record. NYTimes.com. Retrieved July 17, 2014,

from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/18/on-gun-

legislation-why-did-the- senate-defy-voters/at-the-center-of-the-

gun-debate-a-bad-enforcement-record.


Quotes on Firearms Rights. (n.d.). Quotes on Firearms Rights.


http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html.

Rivkin, D. B., Jr., & Grossman, A. M. (2013, April 15). The rush

to a bad gun-control law. Washington Post. Retrieved July 17,

2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rush-

to-a-bad-gun-control- law/2013/04/15/af89abb4-a5ff-11e2-a8e2-

5b98cb59187f_story.html.

Sherfinski, D. (2013, June 20). Gun control: Good for law-abiding

Americans, bad for the 'insane,' Manchin says. Washington Times.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jun/20/s

en-joe-manchin- wide-open-finding-comfort-level-gu/.

Gun Issue Final Paper

Documents

Transcript of Gun Issue Final Paper