Alexandra Mangano and Nick Oszczakiewicz
Staff Writers
Although
some believe that widespread access to guns tends to result in increased deaths
due to gun violence, decreasing the number of guns through gun control and
other restrictive laws would serve to do more harm than good, and would
disregard a constitutional right. Provided in the constitution is the right to
bear arms, second on the list only to freedom of speech, press, and religion.
To place restrictions and controlling laws on ownership of guns is not only a
violation of a constitutional right, but belittles law abiding citizens.
Additionally, crime rates would not diminish as criminals do not tend to
legally purchase and carry firearms. Restrictions would only serve to benefit
the criminals, as those who purchase lawfully would be unable to protect themselves
and prevent crime. Institution of gun control would, furthermore, detract from
those who hunt and partake in competitions.
In laying the groundwork for what is now
the great nation of the United States of America, the Founding Fathers composed
a set of given rights. One of those rights is the Second Amendment, provided by
the United States Constitution. The second amendment ensures the right to
individual ownership of guns. With that being said, the amendment does not
provide unlimited rights within the realm of owning a gun. In fact, gun control
laws have been around since before the constitution was drafted and ratified.
Such early restrictions include: criminalizing the transfer of guns to
Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the
storage of gunpowder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and
mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys
about guns owned. Times have changed drastically since, as have gun control laws.
The lack of clarity within the amendment is the constant cause for debate,
specifically on topics such as the right to concealed carrying, which is not
explicitly mentioned. What is undebatable is that the Second Amendment protects
individual gun ownership. As the amendment reads: "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." To surrender the
right to bear arms would be a step in the direction of surrendering liberty,
which is not something we should give up easily, nor should our responsibility
to protect our families be turned over to others for a false, temporary feeling
of security.
In terms of crime, guns are not
necessarily the problem. In fact, statistics show that gun ownership serves to
deter crime, rather than to promote or work consequently. A 2014 article about
concealed carry laws and gun-related murders, written by Mark Gius, found that,
“assault weapons bans did not significantly affect
murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the
carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.” That same study
concluded that as “gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the
murder rate decreased.” Furthermore, “States
with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in
violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these
crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states
passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84
percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and
injuries by 82 percent" Another study presented that, “Based on survey
data from a 2000 study published in the Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves
and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.” Additionally, a survey
conducted in 1994 found that about half a million Americans had used guns to
scare off intruders. Overall, the data provided by countless studies validate
that gun ownership is an effective form of deterring crime.
Switzerland is an excellent example of
this. According to a Business Insider article written by Hilary Brueck,
Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership without any mass
shootings. Their last mass shooting was in 2001. The country has around 2
million privately owned guns in a nation with 8.3 million people. Compared to
the average American gun owner who owns three guns. In fact, three percent of
Americans own half of the guns in the nation. In the year 2016, Switzerland had
only 47 attempted homicides with firearms. America had roughly 38,658
gun-related deaths in 2016 and 300 mass shootings in 2018 so far. Switzerland’s
overall murder rate is near zero. The NRA often uses Switzerland to argue that
guns do not need to be further restricted. However, Switzerland does have a few
regulations that lead to the miniscule level of gun-related crimes. Switzerland
has an annual shooting competition for boys that dates back to the 1600s. This
teaches their citizens how to safely use guns. Additionally, most Swiss men are
required to learn how to use a gun due to their mandatory military service
requirement. Because of this, roughly a quarter of armed citizens use their
guns for military purposes or police duty. Those who are allowed guns have to
follow a strict licensing process. Swiss authorities decide on a local level
whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a
gun in their region. People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol
or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland. Some American
states, like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are
considering implementing similar regulations. In New York, a gun owner must
also register with the local police department. This would account for if the
population of Americans with mental disorders, like addiction, who are prone to
violent behavior, should have guns.
Other than for needs of protection, guns are
used for hunting and sport. To quantitate, in 2011, there were 13.7 million
hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, and they spent $7.7 billion
on guns, sights, ammunition, and other hunting equipment. Every year, high
power rifles are used in competition, sport, and hunting by many Americans,
those who chose to exercise their given rights. Often, so-called “assault
rifles,” which appear to be too powerful to need for protection and to hunt,
are much less powerful than they appear. Rather than being used senselessly,
assault rifles are used by those who choose to exercise their Second Amendment
right in competition venues, in addition to hunting and protection. According
to The Tribune Papers, the term, ‘assault weapon’ is often misconstrued and was
conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these
firearms are something out of a horror movie,” but in fact, “the Colt AR-15 and
Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for
marksmanship competitions in the United States.” As Gary Lewis, outdoorsman and
hunting enthusiast, put it best: “When you climb to the top of some ridge or
mountain peak, pitch your tent beside a clear blue lake or take to the woods to
hunt deer, remember you live in a free country and that our ancestors had the
foresight to help keep it that way.”
Even so, our founding fathers were not
thinking of sport shooting or hunting when they wrote the second amendment into
the Constitution. They were talking about human’s eminent right to self-defense
and the security of a free state. A popular belief of those wanting stricter
gun control is that a semi-automatic weapon is not necessary for hunting. The
second amendment is about the collective right of each individual American to
lawful defense. If the second amendment is infringed upon, it gives leeway to
violation of the rights owed to us as American citizens. Any imposition of blind restrictions or bans
would be unconstitutional and infringe upon citizens’ rights and feeling of
security. Therefore, it would be a violation to regulate or prohibit gun
ownership. Still, some continue to believe widespread access to guns results in
increased deaths due to gun violence. In the end, it is actually more
detrimental to decrease the number of guns through gun control and other
restrictive laws, in terms of both human rights and safety.
