Arguments against gun control

Anti-Gun Control

Gun control is an issue of passionate debate in the United States. In fact, the issue stirs almost as much passion as the abortion issue. Both sides are adamant about their beliefs and rights. Both sides believe that they are points are logical and true, the issue of gun control is not quite that simple, nor it is as cut and dry as many would wish. However, there is alarming evidence that supports those who wish to enforce tighter control of gun availability in the United States.

In a 2000 article, David Lampo, the publications director at the Cato Institute, points out that the surge of school shootings during recent years re-energized the gun control movement, which even led to a coalition of gun control groups organizing a "Million Mom March" in Washington, D.C. (Lampo). Lampo believes that events such as this are designed to stir emotions rather than promote rational thought, and that when facts are viewed, it is easy to understand why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to present its case (Lampo).

First, Lampo states that more children die each year from accidents involving bikes, space heaters and drownings, than from gun accidents (Lampo). And that in 1997, 142 children under the age of 15 died in gun accidents, and although the total number of gun-related deaths for this group was 642, this number includes children up to the age of 20, the great majority of whom are young adult males who are involved in gang-related violence (Lampo). Lampo also states that gun shows are not responsible for the large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals, because all commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people who are exempt is a small number of non-commercial sellers (Lampo). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, no more than 2% of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and the majority of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks (Lampo). Lampo cites the fact that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the boys responsible for the Columbine High School tragedy, violated approximately 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons, therefore he claims that it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws would have prevented the tragedy (Lampo).

According to Lampo, the states that have "shall issue" laws which allows private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24% lower violent crime rate, a 19% lower murder rate, and a 30% lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons (Lampo). In fact, claims Lampo, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states (Lampo). Moreover, according to all the studies that have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill of 1993, consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates (Lampo). Even the University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell, reveals that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides" (Lampo). And finally, Lampo states that there is no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures (Lampo). For example, in Israel and Switzerland, a license to possess guns is available on demand to any law-abiding adult, and that guns are easily obtainable in both countries (Lampo). Moreover, both countries allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, yet they "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States," and a comparison of crime rates with Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime (Lampo).

According to the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics: Firearm Injury and Death from Crime, 1993-97, of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with at firearm and resulted in jury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds (Firearm). Of all nonfatal firearm-related injuries that were treated in emergency departments, 62% were known to have resulted from an assault, and 44% were homicides that were considered firearm-related fatalities (Firearm).

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments dropped from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, marking a 39% decline, and homicides committed with a firearm dropped from 18,300 in 1993 to 13,300 in 1997, marking a 27% decline (Firearm).

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCVS, in 2003, 449,150 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm (Firearms). Incidents that involved a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault (Firearms). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations' Crime in the United States, of the 16,503 murders that took place in 2003, approximately 67% were committed with firearms (Firearms). And according to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmate, among those possessing a gun, fewer than 2% came from a flea market or gun show, 12% came from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% came from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source (Firearms). Concerning the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and roughly 2% carried a military style semiautomatic gun (Firearms). State inmates possessing a firearm received, on average, sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon received an average of 12 years sentence (Firearms). Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm (Firearms).

Recent polls indicate that the public is in favor of stricter gun control laws, and while the pubic as a whole supports stricter gun control laws, differences in attitudes have been noted (Riedel). For example, past research shows that differences in attitudes towards gun control exist on several overlapping levels including region of country, gender, race, urbanization, familiarity with guns, and weapons training classes (Riedel). Research indicates that there are regional differences with Southerners more prone to opposing gun control than individuals from other regions of the country, although there is some evidence that suggests regional differences may be exaggerated (Riedel). Males are more likely to oppose gun control than females, and whites are more likely to oppose gun control efforts than African-Americans are (Riedel). Residents of urban counties are more likely to support gun control efforts, while those who live in rural counties are not (Riedel). Moreover, those who are familiar with guns are more likely to oppose gun control than those who are not familiar with guns, while those who have had weapons safety classes are more opposed to gun control than those who have not (Riedel). Specifically, those who are more likely to argue against gun control are: whites, criminal justice majors, people who own guns, people who have experience with guns, and residents in rural communities (Riedel).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, death due to injuries from firearms is an increasingly important public health problem (Fatal). In 1994, injuries from firearms were the ninth leading cause of death and the fourth leading cause of years of potential life lost before the age of 65 (Fatal). During the 33-year period covered by the CDC report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994 (Fatal). If this present trend continues, firearm-related injuries could become the leading cause of deaths attributed to injury, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes (Fatal). The CDC report reviewed the descriptive epidemiology of firearm-related mortality in the United States from 1962-1994 (Fatal). The patterns of overall firearm-related mortality and of homicide, suicide, unintentional death, deaths occurring during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent were examined by race, sex, and age group (Fatal). Throughout the 33-year period, suicide and homicide were responsible for most firearm fatalities, accounting for 94% of the total in 1994 (Fatal). According to the report, "the fluctuations and overall increase in rates of total firearm-related mortality most closely resembled the pattern of firearm-related homicide" (Fatal). Although the report found that suicide rates were high and were gradually increasing over time, they varied less than homicide rates, while rates for unintentional death from firearms, deaths during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent were low and generally declined (Fatal).

The CDC report states that firearm-related mortality affects all demographic groups, however the greatest increases in recent years were found among teens 15-19 years of age, young adults of 20-24 years of age, and older adults aged 75 and older (Fatal). The rates of overall firearm-related mortality for young people aged 15-24 were higher from 1990-1994 than at any other time during the 33-year period, and for teens 15-19 years of age, increases in firearm-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury deaths were significantly great (Fatal). Moreover, the increase in firearm-related homicide within this age group occurred among all race-sex groups (Fatal). Rates of suicide by firearm were especially high among the elderly in the United States, and increases occurred in all race-sex groups except African-American females, for whom the number of suicides were too small to produce stable rates (Fatal).

The CDC report cautions that the surveillance data in this report are intended to familiarize public health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers concerning the problem of firearm-related deaths in the United States (Fatal). And although these data help to characterize the magnitude of the problem and identify groups at risk, there are still gaps in knowledge, thus current surveillance efforts need to be expanded to include information about nonfatal injuries (Fatal). Moreover, there needs to be a greater understanding of the causes of firearm deaths to identify modifiable individual and societal risk factors, thus, further research is required to plan, develop and evaluate prevention strategies (Fatal).

According to the CDC, homicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 -24 overall, and within this age group, it is the leading cause of death for African-Americans, the second leading cause of death for Hispanics, and the third leading cause of death for Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Asian Pacific Islanders (Youth). A 2004 CDC report states that in 2001, I5,486 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered, an average of 15 each day, and within this age group, 79% were killed with firearms (Youth). Within a five-year period, 1994-1999, 182 students, ages 5 to 18 were killed on or near school grounds or at school-related activities, and more than 50% of all school-associated violent deaths occurred at the beginning or end of the school day or during lunch (Youth).

The debate over gun ownership is based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," however gun control advocates believe that this right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms, known as assault weapons (Gun). Advocates for gun control point to events such as the April 1999 Columbine High School massacre, in which 14 students, including the two gunmen, and a teacher, died, to support banning assault weapons (Gun). Anti-gun advocates also support measures that would curb gun-related violence, such as mandatory child safety locks, background checks on individuals attempting to purchase guns, limits on the number of guns an individual can purchase, and raising the age limit for gun ownership (Gun). While gun rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, argue that these and other proposals "infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens," and maintain that there is no evidence that bans on the sales of certain types of weapons reduces violent crime, and that proposals for stricter background checks at gun shows are actually designed to eliminate gun shows (Gun).

Lawmakers may be tiptoeing around gun control issues because the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups wield enormous influence in Washington, D.C. (Gun). Since 1989, gun rights groups have contributed more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money to federal candidates and party committees, in which approximately $15 million, or 85% of the total, going to the Republican party (Gun). By far, the National Rifle Association is the gun rights lobby's biggest donor, having given more than $14 million over the past 15 years (Gun). Meanwhile, gun control advocates have contributes far less money, a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94% went to the Democratic party (Gun). By far, the leading contributor among gun control advocates is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, which has contributed some $1.5 million during the last 15 years (Gun). Gun rights groups have a significant advantage in campaign contributions, and basically dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying (Gun). From 1997 to 2003, the National Rifle Association alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials, however they were not the gun rights lobby's biggest spender, that was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbying during the same period (Gun). While the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent less that $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent some $580,000 (Gun). The National Rifle Association has an additional advantage over all other groups in the debate, because as a membership organization, the NRA is able to spend unlimited funds on communications to its 4 million members that identify pro-gun candidates (Gun). Moreover, those members also contribute millions of dollars in limited donations to the National Rifle Association's political action committee, which in turn runs ads aimed at the general public that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate (Gun). During the last 15 years, the National Rifle Association has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures, and more than $18 million went support Republican candidates (Gun).

It is important to understand that no right is absolute, including those granted by and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (Case). For example, although the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, that right is limited, thus an individual cannot publish a claim that a certain public figure is a drug user, if that fact is known to be untrue (Case). This is called libel, and it is a valid abridgement of rights (Case). Nor can an individual stand up in a crowded theater and scream that there is a fire, when there is not a fire, because the ensuing panic may cause injury (Case). Abridgement of rights is sometimes valid because rights can very easily clash, such as the fact that screaming fire in a theater may result in people being harmed (Case). Therefore, advocates of gun control believe that the same analysis can be applied to the Second Amendment (Case). In other words, if the right to own a gun interferes with public safety, then that right can morally be abridged in order to protect public safety, and several court decisions have agreed (Case).

Throughout American history, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms, such as the Miller case in the early twentieth century, which limited the right to own certain classes of weapons (Case). More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, indicated that the clause "a well regulated militia" did not mean that the average citizen is a part of that militia, citing,

Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm"

Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, (Sixth Circuit, 1971) (Case).

Furthermore, a similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia... We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment" (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982) (Case).

Recently, a 1992 decision by the conservative majority stated that "Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871" (Case). This opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Chief Justice William Renhnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, shows that the Supreme Court has a right to limit Second Amendment rights, thus the Second Amendment is not absolute, and cannot be used as a prima facie reason why any gun should be legal (Case).

However, gun supports believe that the Second Amendment is the Constitution's guarantee that the government can never become tyrannical, and therefore ensures that should this happen, the citizens will be able to overthrow it (Case). Yet, there are several reasons why this is not a very good argument concerning the "right to bear arms" (Case). The Constitution was a document intended to create a government by which its citizens could change through peaceful means, and the last 200 years is proof that it has succeeded to that effect (Case). Another argument that is often cited by gun supporters is that is the government disarms the population, then its citizens are vulnerable for a dictatorial takeover, and will not be able to fight back (Case). Gun control advocates point to the simple fact that "America has over 270,000,000 citizens...No dictator could 'take over' without popular support of these citizens" (Case).

Jeffrey A. Roth points out in his 1994 "Firearms and Violence" that in 1989, approximately 60% of all murder victims, some 12,000 people, in the United States were killed with firearms, and according to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims (Case). Moreover, in 1985, the cost of shootings, either by others, through self-infliction, or in accidents, was "estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death" (Case).

There are different types of gun murder, for example there is first degree, premeditated murder, in which case the murder would have probably taken place and the gun simply made it easier, then there is acquaintance murders and criminal negligence (Case). And of course there are the non-lethal injuries from firearms, which have actually been going down during recent years, but this is not due to less number of shootings, but is due to the fact that emergency room doctors and technology are better equipped to deal with gunshot victims (Case).