Gun Control Wouldn\'t it Be

Gun Control

Wouldn't it be great to significantly reduce murders and violent crime by simply banning all handguns? Those who favor gun control base their support on this type of emotional appeal. However, the facts show that their opinions rely on a series of faulty assumptions, most notably that the right to bear arms is not a constitutional right, the gun control will deter crime and that you can somehow disarm criminals.

This paper examines these misperceptions and explains why they simply aren't true. It concludes with a recommendation that citizens should not support gun control.

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has polarized the American people among two different views (Greenslade, 2004). Those in favor of gun control argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms because the Amendment refers to the people's collective right as members of a well regulated State militia. In contrast, the individual rights view holds that individuals may bring claims or raise challenges based on a violation of their rights under the 2nd Amendment just as they do to vindicate other individual rights secured by the Bill of Rights. This view appears to be the most valid after placing the Amendment in appropriate historical context. Prior to the Constitution, the right to arms was consistently a personal one. "Beginning with the right of individual English subjects to have arms for their defense, it was supplemented in revolutionary America with the notion that a citizen militia, comprising the armed citizenry, was a particularly important means of securing free government." ("Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right," 2004) American leaders such as Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ("The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," 1982). Following the American Revolution, several states included explicit right-to-bear-arms provisions in their declarations of rights which sought to protect an individual right and these provisions served as a basis for the 2nd Amendment ("The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," 1982).

Although gun control advocates argue that guns should be banned because they are responsible for crime, there is no evidence to support this claim. There is no direct statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crimes (Kopel, 1988). As supporting evidence, Kopel reveals that in the first 30 years of this century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold. and, between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250%, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7%. Kopel also points to a compelling country example to illustrate that guns do not cause crime. Switzerland actually distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault rifles to all adult males and requires them to store these weapons in their home. The country has practically no regulation on long-gun purchases and handguns are available to any adult who does not have a criminal record or a mental health problem. According to gun control advocates, crime should be extraordinary, but this simply is not the case. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Switzerland has far less crime per capita than the United States and almost no gun crime. Based on this example, Kopel (1988) correctly concludes that there is no direct link between the level of citizen gun ownership and the level of gun misuse.

Then there's the case of Kennesaw, Georgia where crime dropped after a law that requires its citizens to own guns passed. Lieutenant Craig Graydon, Kennesaw Police Department comments, "Well, after the city ordinance passed, there was actually a decrease in reported crime in the Kennesaw area, especially violent crime." (Wilmouth, 2007).