Does the Tucson tragedy reveal a need for increased gun control?
Before we jump to any conclusions, maybe we should first look at the facts about gun control.
Obviously, the point of gun control laws is to decrease violence in our communities. However, most people do not know that gun control does not necessarily decrease gun violence. There is no solid evidence that shows that gun control laws decrease gun accidents and crimes. Besides, if a criminal does not obey homicide or robbery laws, what incentive would they have to obey gun control laws? Guns are easily attainable on the black market or in other countries and we certainly have more than enough in circulation already. Who's to say the criminals would not have even more incentive to rob someone if they knew that the victim did not have a firearm?
We also have to ask ourselves if it's worth infringing upon our Second Amendment rights to possibly reduce firearm violence. First of all, (according to the article) there are 500,000 gun crimes per year in the United States. Americans own around 250 million guns. This means that no more than .2% of guns are used to commit a crime each year. Do we really want to infringe upon the rights of 98.8 % of responsible gun owners?
Jared Loughner attained a firearm through a licensed dealer. So, instead of gun control laws, we really need to focus on background checks (which are required when purchasing a firearm in most places) and mental illness outreach.
What do you think? Do you believe that gun control laws would help? Do you think that gun control laws would have prevented the Arizona tragedy?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
How important is the right to own a gun exactly? Yes, it is most likely enumerated in the Constitution, but I really don't see why it's such a big deal. I don't know if gun control works, but I think the possibility of reducing violence is worth it.
Background checks are part of gun control. I don't think people for stricter gun control are arguing for banning all firearms completely, just for stricter measures to make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands.
Personally, I find it very important to own a gun. Being able to carry a gun for self defense saves lives.
Those who enjoy the wilderness know that animals pose a fatal risk. I, personally, would not like to be attacked by a bear or a mountain lion and have nothing but a knife to defend myself.
That also holds true for armed robbery. If someone breaks into my home and they have a gun, I would be able to defend myself.
Gun laws would not stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. They would only make the process more difficult for responsible and trust- worthy people. As it is, in CA there is a background check and a two week holding period in order to purchase a firearm. However, there are also many illegal ways to aquire a firearm. Stricter background checks are not going to stop criminals and they are not going to stop gun violence.
Although guns are easily attainable on the black market, many of the worst shootings of U.S. history were committed by people who had acquired guns legally (Tucson Giffords shooting and Virginia Tech are two examples), so obviously better, stricter gun control laws are obviously necessary. I think that if more stringent laws exist that limit who can obtain guns, and for what purposes, then gun violence will probably definitely decrease.
Gun control laws will not infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners because if they are deemed responsible, then they will still be able to get a gun. Gun control laws only help prevent those deemed unsafe or irresponsible from getting guns.
Finally, the Second Amendment does not necessarily guarantee the right of all individuals to bear arms. According to a recent Time magazine article, "Even such a conservative stalwart as Judge Robert Bork said, in 1989, that the Constitution's Second Amendment guaranteed 'the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms.'" Thus, gun control laws are absolutely necessary, and they do not necessarily infringe on rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Why do you really need to own a gun? People claim it is for self defense but in reality when are you actually going to have to use it. Gun's make people feel safe because they have some sort of fear from something, but they are unnecessary. Also in your crime rates are you including misdemeanors, and fines because if so then that will take up over 70% of the crimes.
@Rashmi:
Our textbook says that in the D.C. v. Heller case in 2008, the court declared that the Second Amendment guarenteed 'the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home' (153). Therefore, Borks statement in 1989 is outdated.
However, I do not disagree with the fact that certain people who shouldnt have guns are attaining them legally. The issue is: how can we assess whether or not someone is responsible enough to own a gun? Should we require mental health examinations to purchase a gun?? ((I personally think that mental exams wouldn't be such a bad idea)
Taking that into consideration, Virgina Tech and many other shootings could be stopped much faster if more responsible citizens had firearms ((By no means am I advocating bringing firearms onto any school campus)). The Police can't always protect you.
@Chris:
The stats are from CNN.
There are many situations in which someone might use a gun for self defense:
1)Home Invasions
2)Armed Robberies
3)Animal attacks
4)Shooting rampages
Guns also deter criminals from committing crimes. (Incarcerated criminals have admitted that they avoid people who are known to carry a firearm).
Also, self defense is not the only reason for someone to own a gun. Here is a list of other reasons someone might own a firearm:
1)Hunting (sport/hobby/commercial)
2)Target Shooting (sport/hobby)
3)Collections (Investing/ Historical Value)
Are you suggesting that we allow automatic assault rifles since they will be better "Self Defense", and for activities such as "Hunting, Collecting, and Target shooting." If guns aren't harmful and only .2% of crimes are used with guns then why not allow regular citizens to legally own these guns? Gun control shouldn't be pick and choose, either allow it all or don't allow any of it.
I think its just a case of people wanting to freely exercise their rights. Infringing on an already established people's right is likely to cause upheaval by those who really need guns or by those who just want to keep the same rights they already are guaranteed to. Its also difficult to say in this case since the United States covers so many geographical regions. In Boston you probably will never need to own a gun while in Alaska or Montana many people do. Its just part of a way of life in some areas. Now, addressing the issue here, I think this was just an example of a horrible tragedy. The man had a right to own a gun, but he chose to commit a crime with it instead of for his own personal safety. If restricting guns is like restricting anything else that people want, we might see a decrease in crime with guns if restrictions are eased just as there was a decrease in crime after the era of prohibition.
Chris-
I completley disagree with your logic. Personally, I hunt duck and geese with a 20 gauge shotgun. I think that it is entirely reasonable for a person to own a 10, 12 or 20 gauge shotgun for the purpose of hunting. The same goes with low calliber rifles and pistols. I hunt because I like fresh meat with no preservatives. I have been trained to use a firearm responsibly and safely and I have never had any problems. However, I would not attempt to purchase an assault gun. I am not trained in the use of any assault weapon and I feel that it could result in an accident if I did not use it properly. However, assault weapons are rather unessecary for a civilian. You cannot hunt with an assault weapon. Also, they are much more dangerous than normal firearms and are rather unecessary for self defense.
Also, I think you misread the statistics. It does not say that .2% of crimes involve guns. It says that only .2% of guns in America are used in crimes.
Post a Comment