Gun Ban Safety and Legality

Gun Ban

Safety and Legality in the Gun Ban Debate

On June 26, in a monumental 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme court overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban, citing that the "right to bear arms" phrase of the second amendment applies to more than just militia (Davies 2008). The decision came just one day after five died from gun wounds in Kentucky after a mentally disturbed man opened fire at his place of employment, eventually killing himself as well as the others (Davies 2008), and just after a recent study by the CDC stated that 55% of gun deaths can be considered suicides (MSNBC 2008). Although opposition to the banning of handguns suggests that the practice is unconstitutional in regards to the second amendment, proponents to the bans suggest that guns were only intended for the use stated in the amendment -- a militia. Private citizens were never meant to hold guns for their own private recreation, they argue, while the opposition counters with the argument that individual ownership of handguns is necessary for protection. Although this argument may seem valid for the single mother who lives in an area wracked with violence, studies suggest that handguns actually cause more problems, deaths, and accidents than they solve. By studying the danger that exists when guns get into the hands of the wrong people in addition to the illegal activities made possible by handguns, one can determine that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision and a handgun ban is necessary for the safety and well-being of ordinary citizens.

Although those in opposition to handgun bans suggest that guns are necessary for individuals' protection, the danger posed to children, those suffering from suicidal tendencies, and those who accidentally misuse guns far outweighs the benefits of gun ownership. Although it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to own a gun and for those under 21 to own handguns, guns have found their way into juvenile's hands remarkably easily (Wintemute 2002, 55). This has been made possible by the very politicians that tote gun rights and the second amendment, who support special interest groups like the National Rifle Association, which in turn give funds to gun companies and their marketing agencies. With these funds, gun companies have been known to market "aggressive[ly]" to youth" (Wintemute 2002, 55). Children can also get their hands on guns in a variety of other ways, including the ability to purchase handguns from unlicensed sellers or sellers who do not operate with close scrutiny. Owning handguns puts children at risk because not only are the guns "inexpensive," so children are able and eager to buy, but also they are "poorly made," suggesting that a childhood attempt to use the gun may result in an accidental gun injury or death (Wintemute 2002, 55). According to Wintemute, whose 2002 study explores the industry of gun making, gun commerce, and essentially where guns come from with a specialization in how they come into the hands of children, the use of "policy initiatives" like the gun bans "hold promise" for decreasing the amount of youth in possession of handguns (55). Although guns are certainly dangerous for children who want to purchase them, one must also consider children who have never dreamt of purchasing a gun. With guns in the home, children can still be injured, killed, or cause damage to others by accessing their parents or another adult's guns. Recently, the issue of school shootings has also been a factor in the gun ban discussion. If access to guns is prohibited, students desiring to cause mass levels of destruction within schools will be unable to act on those desires with the degree of ease made possible by today's laws.

In addition to children, those who suffer from suicidal tendencies are also disproportionately affected by the absence of gun bans. In addition to the CDC's study that suggested 55% of gun deaths are suicide deaths, studies have also shown that homes where guns are kept are more likely to experience a suicide than homes where guns are not present. Additionally, in suicide attempts involving other types of weapons or means of death, the victim often has time to reconsider, in which he or she experiences a desire to live. Because gun suicide success rates are at about 90%, however, those who attempt suicide with a gun are far less likely to be given a second chance or time to reconsider. Success rates for other types of suicide are significantly lower, such as 2% for drug overdoses and 34% for jumping (MSNBC 2008). These statistics suggest that gun ownership in itself is dangerous for those who have suicidal thoughts, a demographic that makes up a large portion of the population. By instituting a gun ban, these homes would be safer for these individuals as well as others.

Finally, children and those who suffer from suicidal thoughts are not the only types of people to suffer at the hands of a gun. Guns are dangerous, even in competent adult hands, and guns also have the potential to misfire when used properly or improperly. By employing a gun ban, however, governments can attempt to stop death and injury due to misfiring by both adults and children.

Simply having a gun in the home, therefore, is risky for children, those who suffer from suicidal thoughts and adults. Because of these conditions, one can understand how a gun ban, like the one Washington D.C. used to employ, would protect this group of people from injury or death due to gun ownership.