Gun control debate in the United States and the Bush administration

Gun Control and laws regulating this issue in the United States have been a controversial topic of debate for more than a decade. Since the inception of extreme gun control laws during the end of the 1980's, the debate of how much crime is really prevented by gun control laws has raged on. It appears that the government and other anti-gun extremists have sided together against others in society who feel that public possession of guns should not be subjected to such extreme laws. Below then is an exploration of these varied opinions, including that of the Bush Administration, some of its opponents, the NRA and issues sparked by the Brady Law.

The Bush Administration

The 1994 assault weapons law entails that the manufacture and importation of certain types of semi-automatic rifles are banned, along with magazines of more than 10 rounds. Public outrage and debate has been sparked by an assertion from the Bush administration that this law will be reauthorized, as it was set to expire in September 2004. The Libertarian Party acts as one of the representatives of the public outcry. According to the Party, the fact that the President has renewed the ban on assault rifles results in a certain message being relayed to terrorists and criminals in the United States. Indeed, specifically the objection is that homeland security is being undermined by a law that is primarily aimed at law-abiding citizens. Criminals on the other hand deem themselves above the law, rendering any gun control laws obsolete and absolutely ineffective. The Party argues that Americans are vulnerable to criminals when they are not allowed to protect themselves. Furthermore it is said that the government cannot protect everyone in the country at the same time, and the only other reasonable recourse is to let law-abiding members of society protect themselves. The law then, according to these critics places power in the hands of criminals and terrorists, while disempowering those in society most in need of protection.

According to Thurman, on the other hand, the Bush administration appears to have changed its stance during 2002, and when it declared that the right of an individual to own a firearm is constitutionally protected, outcries rose from the opposite extreme, represented by anti-gun forces. The opinion in this case is that gun violence would be perpetuated by allowing individuals not so required by their profession to possess guns. Indeed, the Violence Policy Center has required a complete ban of all firearms (Thurman). This extreme position, while curbed by the new position of the Justice Department, is nonetheless advocated and advanced on the state and local levels of government.

The National Rifle Association

According to Schneider, the NRA found that the 1989 import ban on guns was aimed against military personnel returning to the United States from overseas duty. Previously, federal firearms law permitted such personnel to return from service with up to three non-Title II firearms and 1,000 rounds of ammunition (Schneider). Many of these were purchased privately overseas, and were prized highly by their owners. According to the author, the law was implemented summarily without any discussion or consideration for individual rights. The NRA has furthermore involved itself in controversial issues related to the right to possess firearms. One such issue revolves around an advertisement involving a demonstrator having been beaten by soldiers. The premise of the ad was that all persons should be allowed to carry guns in order to defend themselves and their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Furthermore a dichotomy was proposed between tyranny and armed citizens. According to the NRA then, it is easy to level a despotic style of government against citizens who are defenseless in terms of firearms. According to others, the same is true of victims of crime. Not allowing citizens to possess guns allowed citizens to become victimized either by crime or their government.

Conclusion

My opinion leans strongly to allowing citizens to possess guns. Both logical argument and academic research seems to have led even the Government to the same conclusion: citizens possessing firearms are citizens empowered against crime. The reason for this is incontestable: criminals do not abide by the law and thus possess firearms illegally. When law-abiding citizens are then forced by the very laws designed to protect them not to protect themselves, crime will of necessity increase. The NRA argument against a despotic government also holds true. While violence can by no means be condoned, an unfair distribution of fire power will lead only to tragedy, such as the China massacre that served as the inspiration for the above-mentioned advertisement by the NRA. For myself I would therefore much prefer to possess a firearm in my home against the event of criminal activities being leveled at my home. It is much better to feel safe than to lose a life over a gun control law that makes no sense.

Sources

Libertarian Party Online. " Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security." April 23, 2003. http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=639

National Review. " Gesture politics - controversy over Brady gun control bill." June 10, 1991. National Review, Inc.

Naitonal Review. " Gun law - Brady Handgun Prevention Act" Dec. 27, 1993. National Review, Inc.

Schneider, Jim. " 'The Right of the People....' Not if Newsweek and Time Have Their Way." In Shooting Industry, October 1989. Publishers' Development Corporation.

Thurman, Russ. " Bush administration takes stand for Second Amendment - Industry watch" Shooting Industry, June, 2002. Publishers' Development Corporation.