Nikki Hess
Poli 1
Professor Lundgren
June 8, 2015
Gun Control
In 1787, the Constitution was written as a way of replacing the Articles of Confederation due to the lack of power it granted the federal government. Though the Founding Fathers intended to give the federal government a stronger set of powers, they still wanted to limit them. Aside from granting power, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all U.S. citizens. As times changed, modifications were made to the Constitution, eventually creating the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments, which make up the Bill of Rights, were written in order to protect individual liberties as well as list prohibitions on governmental power. However, nearly 200 years later, there are problems with the interpretation of a few of these Constitutional rights, especially within the second amendment.
The second amendment of the Constitution states that "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". Since ratified in 1792, there has been much controversy regarding this freedom given to American Citizens. The biggest problem is the interpretation of the amendment. Not only do citizens have trouble with the interpretation, but the Supreme Court does as well. They, along with lower courts, initially believed that mentioning “militia” overruled the mention of “bearing arms”, basically stating that state militias, not individuals, are granted the right to bear arms. In 1980, a re-interpretation by Orrin Hatch recognized that the “second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms” (Toobin, Jeffrey. "So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker."). In 2008, after years of debate and the help of the National Rifle Association, the Supreme Court agreed on the individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment.
Though it was agreed that this interpretation of the second amendment grants us the right to bear arms, there have still been proposals on possible changes that could be made as a way of controlling the violence that comes with this freedom. The White House is trying to take action and President Obama has publicized his thoughts and potential actions in reducing gun violence. After the tragedy that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Obama stated that “we won’t be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try” (Frederick, Susan. "Now is the Time"). Alongside the Sandy Hook incident, there have been many other tragedies that make Congress even consider such gun control changes.
In the past 30 years, there have been over 70 mass shootings. Among these mass shootings, with the exception of two, the massacres were each done by a lone shooter, each of whom attained their gun legally (Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America."). Also, in result of all these shootings, at least four were killed, and with the exception of three, they were done in public and nonaffiliated to gang or robbery crimes (Follman, Aronsen, and Pan). A big problem the United States faces with these incidents is that the guns were bought legally. This is the reason that many feel the need to create a safer community within the U.S., as well as the reason that the White House is attempting to make strides towards gun control laws.
In addition to the mass shootings that have been happening in the U.S., there are also gun related deaths every day from homicides, suicides, and even accidents that occur while handling them. “In 2000, Almost 30,000 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, more than the number of deaths from HIV, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse” (Kwon, Ik-Whan G., and Daniel W. Baack. "The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage: A Holistic Measure of Gun Control Legislation.") and since then, that has been the yearly average of deaths caused by guns. Additionally, in 2010, 19,392 people successfully committed suicide with the help of a gun, 11,078 homicides were done with the use of firearms, and 606 died from unintentional shootings, a substantial amount of them being children. It was also found that these incidents occurred more often in states and households with high rates of gun ownership ("Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence"), yet another reason explaining why the President is trying to control the purchases and use of firearms.
Obama believes that the Second Amendment does guarantee our right to bear arms and is confident that most gun owners are indeed responsible and safe gun users. However, in order to prevent tragic mass shootings, there are certain steps that we can make towards protecting our communities (Frederick). His plan involves four steps. These include closing loopholes in background checks, banning military-style assault weapons as well as high capacity magazines, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services (Frederick). He acknowledges that no law will end gun violence, but believes that taking these steps will ultimately decrease mass shootings and potentially prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands.
Though nearly everyone would agree that these steps are necessary in preventing gun violence, there is still a group of people that do not completely agree with Obama’s four step plan. Because the second amendment grants the individual right to bear arms, any ban on assault weapons seems to be unconstitutional. In Obama’s plan, the second step, banning military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, includes the prohibition of three things. Like any other political issue, it is important to acknowledge both the conservative and liberal opinion.
The first step to the ban is to prohibit semi-automatic guns. The problem that the conservative side faces in agreeing with this is that semi-automatic guns are not technically military style assault weapons. Many believe that these types of guns, such as the AR-15, are designed for war or the battlefield. However, military forces only use fully-automatic guns which, unlike semi-automatic that fire only when you pull the trigger, will fire for as long as you hold the trigger ("NRA-ILA | Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject "Assault Weapon" and "Large" Magazine Bans). Not only are they not military assault weapons, but they are also not any more powerful than other guns. In fact, some rifles used to hunt deer and other large game are more powerful than semi-automatic guns ("NRA-ILA | Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject "Assault Weapon" and "Large" Magazine Bans). Banning semi-automatic guns simply because they are supposedly more powerful than handguns and rifles, or because they belong only on a battlefield, is not justifiable to the conservative side of this issue.
The second part of prohibition towards firearms in Obama’s plan is the limitation of ammunition. The limit would only allow 10 rounds per magazine and is intended to prevent mass shootings as well as its violent crime in general. In 1994, there was an assault weapon ban to which prohibited certain semi-automatic guns and large-capacity ammunition magazines (Koper, Christopher S., and Jeffrey A. Roth. “The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation”). This short-term ban which expired in 2004 seemed to have no effect on gun violence. Since the termination of the ban, there has actually been a negative correlation between purchases of large magazines and gun violence ("FBI Stats"). In fact, since there has been an increase in high capacity magazines, as well as assault weapons, the violent crime rate has been cut in half ("NRA-ILA | Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject "Assault Weapon" and "Large" Magazine Bans).
An attempt to get armor-piercing bullets of the streets is the third action Obama wants to take in order to limit gun related violence. Currently, it is already illegal to import and manufacture these types of bullets for uses other than military or law enforcement. The conservatives would argue that these bullets are of importance while hunting large game, and that restricting use of these bullets, also know as green tip bullets, is unconstitutional as well.
After reviewing the more conservative opinions of Obama’s proposal, it is clear to see that there are definitely some down sides to the potential ban on military-style assault weapons. There also seems to be some possible problems in regards to violating constitutional rights in the attempt of gaining safety for the public. All in all, such a ban could prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands which in turn betters the protection of the public from harm such as mass shootings, homicides, suicides, and even accidental deaths caused by misuse of guns. Those with more conservative views do want to prevent these tragedies, however their views on the constitutional right to bear arms is stronger than those with a liberal view.
In contrast to the conservative views, the liberal views seem to be more in agreement with Obama’s plan. Though it could be seen as unconstitutional, they would agree that a ban on semi-automatic guns would be beneficial in helping protect our community, especially since these are the types of firearms that are commonly used in mass shootings, including the AR-15 assault rifle that the conservatives seem to believe is not as harmful as its reputation shows. On the contrary, these semi-automatic weapons are not used as often for recreational purposes than non semi-automatic guns (Follman, Aronsen, Pan). Aside from the role they play in mass shootings, semi-automatic weapons are also a threat to the number of accidental deaths that happen when handling guns. “Some people also experience accidental discharges when, after removing the magazine, assume that the weapon is empty and fire the round in the chamber” (McDaniel, Mike. "A Semi-Automatic Pistol Primer – The Truth About Guns."). This is especially common in semi-automatic weapons because they load automatically after the shot is fired. A ban on these weapons would be harmless, while simultaneously protecting our country from being harmed.
With the ban of these firearms, it would be much easier to implement a limitation on ammunition magazine size as well. Since semi-automatic guns require high-capacity magazines, and are the majority of firearms that do so, there would be no reason that a limit on high capacity magazines would even be necessary. “A 2010 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum found that more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004” (Frederick). If the law puts a limit on high-capacity magazines like there was in the years of 1994 through 2004 the amount of assault weapons would decrease, ultimately reducing gun violence.
Though there is currently a law forbidding the importing and manufacturing of armor-piercing bullets, the problem is that it is not illegal to possess or transfer these armor-piercing bullets (Frederick). The liberal side wants Congress to take action in implementing a full ban on these types of bullets, getting rid of them for any use other than that of military or law enforcement. “Teflon-coated bullets are designed to pierce protective vests. People do not use these bullets to pierce the vests on a deer or a squirrel, on a target or a clay pigeon. They use them to pierce the vests on people, usually law-enforcement officers” (LaFollette, Hugh. "Gun Control."). These types of bullets serve no purpose other than one that causes harm. Assuming that the implementation of this law would save even a few lives, it is selfish for the conservative side to be unwilling to compromise the use of these harmful bullets in order to achieve such safety.
Disregarding both sides, I personally find myself in the middle. I do believe that as American citizens we are granted the right to bear arms. However, I am willing to compromise and put restrictions on this freedom. I do not think there is any reason that any other citizen who loves their country would not be willing to do the same, especially if it means that our community will not be in harm of mass shootings, while additionally limiting suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Whether it be a ban on certain types of guns, or more restrictions when attempting to buy one, some sort of control can be nothing but helpful in today’s society. Though there are pros and cons to this proposal, it is important to understand that a slight change to a constitutional right could ultimately lead to fewer lives taken, and no one should be so selfish to not give up a small part of their freedom to do so. With the implementation of Obama’s proposal, there would be a decrease in deaths caused by firearms and we would be creating a more protected community among the citizens of the United States.
Works Cited
Toobin, Jeffrey. "So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker."
The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 01 June 2015.
Frederick, Susan. "Now is the Time." Canadian Journal of Public Health Revue
Canadienne De Sante'e Publique 48.11 (2015): 482-83. The White House. Web. 7 June 2015.
"NRA-ILA | Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject "Assault Weapon" and "Large" Magazine
Bans." NRA-ILA | Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject "Assault Weapon" and"Large" Magazine Bans. NRA, n.d. Web. 03 June 2015.
"FBI Stats." FBI. FBI, 17 Mar. 2010. Web. 03 June 2015.
Koper, Christopher S., and Jeffrey A. Roth. “The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon
Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation.” N.p.: Journal of Quantitative Terminology, 1 Nov. 2001. PDF.
Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America." A
Guide to Mass Shootings in America CQ Researcher: n. pag. Mother Jones. 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 5 June 2015.
Kwon, Ik-Whan G., and Daniel W. Baack. "The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun
Usage: A Holistic Measure of Gun Control Legislation." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 64.2 (2005): 533-47. JSTOR. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Web. 09 June 2015.
Jost, Kenneth. "Gun Violence." CQ Researcher 25 May 2007: 457-80. Web. 8 June
2015.
"Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence RSS. Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence RSS, 16 Nov. 2012. Web. 07 June 2015.
McDaniel, Mike. "A Semi-Automatic Pistol Primer – The Truth About Guns." The Truth
About Guns. N.p., 16 May 2014. Web. 06 June 2015.
LaFollette, Hugh. "Gun Control." Chicago Journals 110.2 (2000): 263-81. JSTOR. The
University of Chicago Press. Web. 7 June 2015.