BlazingSaddles
Senior member
if anyone will edit it or proof read it for me, i'd be really grateful... Due tomorrow, just finished
Littleton, Colorado. The site of the 1999 school massacre is forever fixed in the minds of Americans. It is incomprehensible to people how two high school students could have in their possession enough deadly firearms and bombs to kill thirteen people and wound twenty-one. While this atrocity was the most devastating school shooting in United States history, it is by no means an isolated incident. Although the teenage death rate has been on the rise, children?s lives are not the only ones in jeopardy; violent crimes in general have been increasing for the past fifteen years (Kids 3). Somehow, the violence has to be stopped, or at least slowed, and one of the proposals is to restrict the availability of firearms to the public. The question raised due to this suggested course of action is whether or not gun control constitutes crime control. Will the rate of homicide, robbery and assault reduce as a result of the regulation of firearm ownership? While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other anti-gun control groups have been fervently protesting gun control laws, the laws restricting gun ownership are effective against battling crime.
Two major Federal statutes regulate the commerce in firearms or their ownership: the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended. The National Firearms Act was originally designed to make it difficult to obtain types of firearms perceived to be especially lethal, most notably machine guns and short-barreled long guns. The law taxes all aspects of the manufacture and distribution of such weapons. Also, it requires the buyer and seller to register the transaction with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, contains the principal Federal restrictions on domestic commerce and small arms and ammunition. It requires all persons manufacturing, importing or selling firearms as business to be federally licensed. The Act also sets forth categories of persons to whom firearms or ammunition may not be sold. Finally, it prohibits Federal firearm licensees from selling or delivering a rifle or shotgun to a person less than eighteen years of age, or a handgun to a person less than twenty-one years of age (Gun Control 259).
One controversial bill that has led to a reduction in the use of firearms in robberies and assaults is the Brady Bill. Before the law took effect on February 28, 1994, thirty-two states had no system of background checks for gun purchasers. A felon could walk into a gun store, sign a form stating he had never been convicted of a crime, and buy a gun. However, with the advent of the Brady Law, the ?lie and buy? loophole has been closed because it requires waiting periods and background checks for all persons purchasing firearms. While initially applying only to handgun purchases, today the background check is conducted as part of all retail gun purchases (Saving 2).
Research has shown the Brady Act had an immediate impact, disrupting interstate gun trafficking and reducing the number of guns in the criminal market. Analysis of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1990 through 1998 showed that the proportion of violent crimes committed with firearms had risen steadily through 1993. In 1994, however, coinciding with the implementation of Brady, the trend reversed and gun-related crime has been dropping faster than violent crime rate ever since (Saving 4). The United States Department of Justice has stated there have been an estimated 400,000 denials of purchase for the five years the Brady Law was in effect (Preventing 5).
However, opponents to the Brady Law, saying that it is an annoyance to gun-buyers, have inserted a provision that ended the five-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a gun called ?National Instant Check System.? This system would allow background checks to be conducted quickly, thus closing the transaction within minutes. For this convenience, safety had to be sacrificed; because so many records are kept only on the state level, and many more records, such as mental health records, are not computerized at all, the chances are increased that a person who should not own a gun will get one (Waiting 6).
Another potential form of gun control is the nationwide banning of carrying concealed handguns (CCH). CCH was prohibited or severely limited in most states prior to the mid-1990s. After losing the fight concerning the Brady Bill and the assault weapon ban in 1993-1994, the NRA made the liberalization of CCH laws at the state level their top political priority. They argued that if more people carried hidden handguns, the nation?s soaring crime rates would be reduced. However, their real motive on overturning the CCH laws was to jumpstart a flat gun sales market. In the first year of their lobby, they successfully convinced many states to change their laws to allow the widespread carrying of concealed handguns. Since 1996, states have been see-sawing on their stance concerning concealed handguns (Concealed 2). However, plenty of statistical evidence shows that CCH laws should be made compulsory for all fifty states.
A 1999 study, based on FBI crime statistics, demonstrates that liberalizing CCH laws may have an adverse effect on a state?s crime rather than the favorable effect NRA suggests. Between 1992 and 1997, the violent crime rate in states that kept strict CCH laws fell by an average of 24.8% while the twenty-nine states that had liberal CCH laws dropped by only 11.4%. During that five year period, violent crime declined by 19.4% nationally. Furthermore, even high-trained police officers lose control of their firearms; according to the National Institute of Justice, an average of 16% of all police officers killed on duty were killed with their own handguns. A person carrying a concealed handgun undergoes less training than the most basic police recruit, so he cannot be trusted to think and act calmly in a dangerous situation. Furthermore, police officers know that the sight of a gun can escalate any situation; thus, almost every major law enforcement organization, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, opposes the liberalization of CCH laws (Concealed 4).
America?s children are also at great risk due to the lack of gun control laws in this country. Although the Littleton, Colorado incident was the most talked-about and published incident, there have been many other teenage homicides that have not gotten as much media exposure. In 1997, law enforcement agencies in the United States arrested an estimated 2.8 million persons under eighteen years of age. According to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 14% of all murder arrests and 17% of all violent crime arrests (Violence 266). Furthermore, with parents and gun-owners storing their firearms improperly, children who find loaded guns can use them unintentionally on themselves or other children and teenagers can use them for impulse suicides and crimes. Even if there are no guns around the house, it is not hard for a high school student to obtain a firearm; the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe they could easily get a gun if they wanted one (Kids 9).
Presently, there are very few laws governing children?s access to guns. The Brady Law made it illegal for children under the age of twenty-one to purchase handguns from licensed dealers, but a loophole still exists which allows eighteen to twenty-one year olds to purchase handguns from private or unlicensed individuals. The most prominent example is the Columbine shooters ? they used four guns purchased at gun-shows, three of them bought by an eighteen-year-old friend (Kids 13). Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws have been passed by seventeen states. These states hold gun owners criminally liable if children access their loaded weapons and hurt themselves or someone else (Preventing 6). Research shows that in the twelve states which had passed CAP laws by 1997, the deaths of children from firearms decreased 23% in the two years the law was in effect (Kids 15).
In their battle against gun control laws, the NRA?s foundation is the Second Amendment in the Constitution, where it guarantees a broad, individual right to ?keep and bear arms? and therefore precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns. This theory, however, is devoid of legal and historical evidence. Rather, it is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a distortion of judicial rulings (Myth 2).
The Second Amendment states: ?A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and beat Arms, shall not be infringed.? The NRA conveniently omits the first half of the Amendment ? the words referring to a ?well-regulated militia?. When the United States Constitution was adopted, each state had its own ?militia,? a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was ?well-regulated? in the sense that its members were required to be trained and supplied with their own firearms, while engaging in military exercise away from home. It was a compulsory military service intended to protect the fledging nation from enemy invasions and internal rebellions (Myth 4).
The militia does not, as the gun lobby will often claim, refer to the general populace at large. Even in the 18th century, the people who made up the militia had to be able-bodied males between ages eighteen and forty-five, hardly encompassing the entire nation (Myth 5). Today, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, due to the fact that the United States drastically changed the militia it was designed to protect, and no longer has a citizen militia. The present equivalent of a ?well-regulated? militia ? the National Guard ? has more limited membership than its counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Since gun control laws do not apply to arms used in military service and law enforcement, they have no effect on the arming of today?s militia. Therefore, no serious Second Amendment issues are raised (Myth 7).
Even if one does believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, it still doesn?t mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions that explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and beat arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states violating that clause (Myth 15).
Finally, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, but that does not give one the right to yell ?Fire!? in a crowded public place. The Constitution surely does not disallow reasonable gun control laws to try to reduce the level of gun violence in this country.
To reduce the yearly totals of deaths by firearms, America?s gun laws have to be strengthened greatly. Many current federal laws have loopholes that criminals can exploit, while state laws are essentially useless because one could just purchase arms in a state with soft gun control laws. One important federal law is the Brady Law, which has been in effect for seven years already; however, the most important aspects of the law has been abolished ? the waiting period (Federal 2). With the introduction of the National Instant Check System, the purchaser of a gun will get it in a matter of minutes. To address this concern, the Brady Waiting Period Extension Act of 1999 has been introduced into Senate. It makes a waiting period mandatory, from seventy-two hours up to five business days (Federal 4). With this re-addition to the Brady Law, people with arrest records, illegal alien status, or mental disabilities will not be able to purchase weapons.
Background checks at gun shows need to be made compulsory as well. Every year, an estimated two thousand to five thousand gun shows take place across the country. These arms bazaars provide a haven for criminals and illegal gun dealers, allowing them to skirt federal gun laws and buy guns on a cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis (Federal 9). In most states and under federal law, individuals at these gun shows can sell guns from their "private collections" without a waiting period or background check on the purchaser. Many dishonest gun dealers exploit this loophole to operate full-fledged businesses without following federal gun laws. Because so many transactions that occur at gun shows are essentially unregulated, firearms obtained at these shows that are later used in crime are nearly impossible to trace (Federal 10). An amendment has been proposed requiring background checks to be made on all purchases, but it still has not been passed through Congress (Federal 11).
To address the problem of children?s easy access to firearms, the Children?s Gun Violence Prevention Act was proposed. It imposes new safety standards on the manufacture and importation of handguns, including a child resistant trigger standard, a child resistant safety lock, a magazine disconnect safety for pistols, a manual safety and practice of a drop test (Federal 21). Furthermore, the act puts pressure on gun dealers and gun owners to lock their firearms more securely so children or teenagers cannot steal and use them (Federal 23). States like Virginia and Wisconsin currently have very lax child access laws (Child 12). Once this act passes through Congress, every state will be held liable for children who are killed by guns.
Without improving America?s current gun laws, the amount of gun violence in this nation will never be reduced. As seen in the states that have relatively harsh gun control laws, gun control does equal crime control. Pro-gun control activists are not calling for the complete banning of firearms, but rather a more thorough background check, a mandatory waiting period and laws to protect children. Once gun control laws are strengthened, it can be certain that incidents like Columbine will never occur again.
Littleton, Colorado. The site of the 1999 school massacre is forever fixed in the minds of Americans. It is incomprehensible to people how two high school students could have in their possession enough deadly firearms and bombs to kill thirteen people and wound twenty-one. While this atrocity was the most devastating school shooting in United States history, it is by no means an isolated incident. Although the teenage death rate has been on the rise, children?s lives are not the only ones in jeopardy; violent crimes in general have been increasing for the past fifteen years (Kids 3). Somehow, the violence has to be stopped, or at least slowed, and one of the proposals is to restrict the availability of firearms to the public. The question raised due to this suggested course of action is whether or not gun control constitutes crime control. Will the rate of homicide, robbery and assault reduce as a result of the regulation of firearm ownership? While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other anti-gun control groups have been fervently protesting gun control laws, the laws restricting gun ownership are effective against battling crime.
Two major Federal statutes regulate the commerce in firearms or their ownership: the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended. The National Firearms Act was originally designed to make it difficult to obtain types of firearms perceived to be especially lethal, most notably machine guns and short-barreled long guns. The law taxes all aspects of the manufacture and distribution of such weapons. Also, it requires the buyer and seller to register the transaction with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, contains the principal Federal restrictions on domestic commerce and small arms and ammunition. It requires all persons manufacturing, importing or selling firearms as business to be federally licensed. The Act also sets forth categories of persons to whom firearms or ammunition may not be sold. Finally, it prohibits Federal firearm licensees from selling or delivering a rifle or shotgun to a person less than eighteen years of age, or a handgun to a person less than twenty-one years of age (Gun Control 259).
One controversial bill that has led to a reduction in the use of firearms in robberies and assaults is the Brady Bill. Before the law took effect on February 28, 1994, thirty-two states had no system of background checks for gun purchasers. A felon could walk into a gun store, sign a form stating he had never been convicted of a crime, and buy a gun. However, with the advent of the Brady Law, the ?lie and buy? loophole has been closed because it requires waiting periods and background checks for all persons purchasing firearms. While initially applying only to handgun purchases, today the background check is conducted as part of all retail gun purchases (Saving 2).
Research has shown the Brady Act had an immediate impact, disrupting interstate gun trafficking and reducing the number of guns in the criminal market. Analysis of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1990 through 1998 showed that the proportion of violent crimes committed with firearms had risen steadily through 1993. In 1994, however, coinciding with the implementation of Brady, the trend reversed and gun-related crime has been dropping faster than violent crime rate ever since (Saving 4). The United States Department of Justice has stated there have been an estimated 400,000 denials of purchase for the five years the Brady Law was in effect (Preventing 5).
However, opponents to the Brady Law, saying that it is an annoyance to gun-buyers, have inserted a provision that ended the five-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a gun called ?National Instant Check System.? This system would allow background checks to be conducted quickly, thus closing the transaction within minutes. For this convenience, safety had to be sacrificed; because so many records are kept only on the state level, and many more records, such as mental health records, are not computerized at all, the chances are increased that a person who should not own a gun will get one (Waiting 6).
Another potential form of gun control is the nationwide banning of carrying concealed handguns (CCH). CCH was prohibited or severely limited in most states prior to the mid-1990s. After losing the fight concerning the Brady Bill and the assault weapon ban in 1993-1994, the NRA made the liberalization of CCH laws at the state level their top political priority. They argued that if more people carried hidden handguns, the nation?s soaring crime rates would be reduced. However, their real motive on overturning the CCH laws was to jumpstart a flat gun sales market. In the first year of their lobby, they successfully convinced many states to change their laws to allow the widespread carrying of concealed handguns. Since 1996, states have been see-sawing on their stance concerning concealed handguns (Concealed 2). However, plenty of statistical evidence shows that CCH laws should be made compulsory for all fifty states.
A 1999 study, based on FBI crime statistics, demonstrates that liberalizing CCH laws may have an adverse effect on a state?s crime rather than the favorable effect NRA suggests. Between 1992 and 1997, the violent crime rate in states that kept strict CCH laws fell by an average of 24.8% while the twenty-nine states that had liberal CCH laws dropped by only 11.4%. During that five year period, violent crime declined by 19.4% nationally. Furthermore, even high-trained police officers lose control of their firearms; according to the National Institute of Justice, an average of 16% of all police officers killed on duty were killed with their own handguns. A person carrying a concealed handgun undergoes less training than the most basic police recruit, so he cannot be trusted to think and act calmly in a dangerous situation. Furthermore, police officers know that the sight of a gun can escalate any situation; thus, almost every major law enforcement organization, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, opposes the liberalization of CCH laws (Concealed 4).
America?s children are also at great risk due to the lack of gun control laws in this country. Although the Littleton, Colorado incident was the most talked-about and published incident, there have been many other teenage homicides that have not gotten as much media exposure. In 1997, law enforcement agencies in the United States arrested an estimated 2.8 million persons under eighteen years of age. According to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 14% of all murder arrests and 17% of all violent crime arrests (Violence 266). Furthermore, with parents and gun-owners storing their firearms improperly, children who find loaded guns can use them unintentionally on themselves or other children and teenagers can use them for impulse suicides and crimes. Even if there are no guns around the house, it is not hard for a high school student to obtain a firearm; the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe they could easily get a gun if they wanted one (Kids 9).
Presently, there are very few laws governing children?s access to guns. The Brady Law made it illegal for children under the age of twenty-one to purchase handguns from licensed dealers, but a loophole still exists which allows eighteen to twenty-one year olds to purchase handguns from private or unlicensed individuals. The most prominent example is the Columbine shooters ? they used four guns purchased at gun-shows, three of them bought by an eighteen-year-old friend (Kids 13). Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws have been passed by seventeen states. These states hold gun owners criminally liable if children access their loaded weapons and hurt themselves or someone else (Preventing 6). Research shows that in the twelve states which had passed CAP laws by 1997, the deaths of children from firearms decreased 23% in the two years the law was in effect (Kids 15).
In their battle against gun control laws, the NRA?s foundation is the Second Amendment in the Constitution, where it guarantees a broad, individual right to ?keep and bear arms? and therefore precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns. This theory, however, is devoid of legal and historical evidence. Rather, it is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a distortion of judicial rulings (Myth 2).
The Second Amendment states: ?A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and beat Arms, shall not be infringed.? The NRA conveniently omits the first half of the Amendment ? the words referring to a ?well-regulated militia?. When the United States Constitution was adopted, each state had its own ?militia,? a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was ?well-regulated? in the sense that its members were required to be trained and supplied with their own firearms, while engaging in military exercise away from home. It was a compulsory military service intended to protect the fledging nation from enemy invasions and internal rebellions (Myth 4).
The militia does not, as the gun lobby will often claim, refer to the general populace at large. Even in the 18th century, the people who made up the militia had to be able-bodied males between ages eighteen and forty-five, hardly encompassing the entire nation (Myth 5). Today, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, due to the fact that the United States drastically changed the militia it was designed to protect, and no longer has a citizen militia. The present equivalent of a ?well-regulated? militia ? the National Guard ? has more limited membership than its counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Since gun control laws do not apply to arms used in military service and law enforcement, they have no effect on the arming of today?s militia. Therefore, no serious Second Amendment issues are raised (Myth 7).
Even if one does believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, it still doesn?t mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions that explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and beat arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states violating that clause (Myth 15).
Finally, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, but that does not give one the right to yell ?Fire!? in a crowded public place. The Constitution surely does not disallow reasonable gun control laws to try to reduce the level of gun violence in this country.
To reduce the yearly totals of deaths by firearms, America?s gun laws have to be strengthened greatly. Many current federal laws have loopholes that criminals can exploit, while state laws are essentially useless because one could just purchase arms in a state with soft gun control laws. One important federal law is the Brady Law, which has been in effect for seven years already; however, the most important aspects of the law has been abolished ? the waiting period (Federal 2). With the introduction of the National Instant Check System, the purchaser of a gun will get it in a matter of minutes. To address this concern, the Brady Waiting Period Extension Act of 1999 has been introduced into Senate. It makes a waiting period mandatory, from seventy-two hours up to five business days (Federal 4). With this re-addition to the Brady Law, people with arrest records, illegal alien status, or mental disabilities will not be able to purchase weapons.
Background checks at gun shows need to be made compulsory as well. Every year, an estimated two thousand to five thousand gun shows take place across the country. These arms bazaars provide a haven for criminals and illegal gun dealers, allowing them to skirt federal gun laws and buy guns on a cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis (Federal 9). In most states and under federal law, individuals at these gun shows can sell guns from their "private collections" without a waiting period or background check on the purchaser. Many dishonest gun dealers exploit this loophole to operate full-fledged businesses without following federal gun laws. Because so many transactions that occur at gun shows are essentially unregulated, firearms obtained at these shows that are later used in crime are nearly impossible to trace (Federal 10). An amendment has been proposed requiring background checks to be made on all purchases, but it still has not been passed through Congress (Federal 11).
To address the problem of children?s easy access to firearms, the Children?s Gun Violence Prevention Act was proposed. It imposes new safety standards on the manufacture and importation of handguns, including a child resistant trigger standard, a child resistant safety lock, a magazine disconnect safety for pistols, a manual safety and practice of a drop test (Federal 21). Furthermore, the act puts pressure on gun dealers and gun owners to lock their firearms more securely so children or teenagers cannot steal and use them (Federal 23). States like Virginia and Wisconsin currently have very lax child access laws (Child 12). Once this act passes through Congress, every state will be held liable for children who are killed by guns.
Without improving America?s current gun laws, the amount of gun violence in this nation will never be reduced. As seen in the states that have relatively harsh gun control laws, gun control does equal crime control. Pro-gun control activists are not calling for the complete banning of firearms, but rather a more thorough background check, a mandatory waiting period and laws to protect children. Once gun control laws are strengthened, it can be certain that incidents like Columbine will never occur again.
