Issue of Gun Control Legislation

Gun Control Legislation

The Gun Control Debate & Gun Control Legislation

With reference to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to the lawful possession of firearms to private citizens as well as with reference to law & economic journals, the paper will explore the gun control debate and the network of related issues. People who are not in favor of the use of guns and favor austere gun control legislation often argue that guns do not kill people; people kill people. People who are law abiding and moral have guns because it is their right; people who are of weak character and lack ethics have guns because it is their right. Gun possession is a fact of life making gun control legislation and regulation an absolute necessity; it is not the job of the law to judge a citizen's character, but rather it is the job of the law to erect a standard by which citizens must acquire and possess their firearms lawfully.

Gun control has been a prominent issue in the United States of America for as long as there has been an United States of America. Gun control is any policy, activity, or law with the intention of restriction upon the sale, use, possession, and production of guns by non-military private citizens. (Krouse, 2012) The debate regarding gun control and gun control legislation is often heated and the argumentation varies depending on the country, as this is an issue that permeates global cultures. Gun control laws and other forms of legislation are different from country to country as well. Some countries, such as the United States of America, have relatively lax gun control laws and legislation compared to other countries whose legislation is of the utmost restriction and severity.

The second amendment of the United States Constitution, as part of the Bill of Rights states "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." According to the Constitution, the security of a free state, of every state, is partially contingent on private citizens to possess guns.

Gun rights advocates have placed greater stress on the latter part of the Amendment, which asserts the right of the people to keep and bear arms. For supporters of this individual rights view, the right to bear arms is comparable to freedom of the press, and the Constitution provides the same level of protection for guns as it does for words. For the most ardent supporters of this view, the Constitution protects the right of individuals to have firearms for self-protection, hunting, or to wage revolution against the government itself. (Correll & DeDino, A Well Regulated Right, 2004)

Certainly a militia is different from a national military, and the Constitution was written during a point in history where there was a very real threat of invasion. Proponents for guns will argue that 21st century America is in the same condition, citing the terrorist attacks of Oklahoma City, Columbine, and New York City as modern examples. Terrorism, both international and domestic forms, is very much a part of the reality for many citizens around the world, and the United States is no exception.

In response to increased fears and increasing numbers & types of guns, the government has passed such gun control legislation as The National Firearms Act (NFA), The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. (Krouse, 2012) Advocates for gun possession additionally counterargue that gun control legislation does not directly affect crime and homicide rates, crimes that advocates for strict gun control legislation say the legislation decreases and provides protection. Supporters of firearms argue that the legislation (some at least) is a social nuisance that does more harm than good.

If these laws have no effect one way or the other on crime rates, then they should be scrapped because of their other costs, which are strictly positive: they interfere with free choice, they impose punishment and deterrence costs without justification, and they consume public resources for no public benefit…[the main] critique of gun control, which is that lawful defensive users will be disarmed before nonlawful users, thus producing a net increase in crime. (Parker, Guns, Crime, & Academics, 2001)

Gun possession is a part of the American tradition and the American culture. Consider what would happen if suddenly private citizens in America were no longer permitted to obtain or possess firearms legally. There would be social upheaval. There would be political upheaval. The country would be discontent. Consider the example of the illegalization of alcohol during the early 20th century in America. When prohibition was in effect, there was still alcohol consumption in America. Illegal alcohol production and distribution became widespread, prevalent, a huge capitalist endeavor albeit in the black market, and there was a lot of violence to enforce it. Alcohol is just as much a part of the American tradition as guns.

Practically, severely limiting the possession of guns takes more than legislation, though the legislation is necessary and should be in place because to no have it would be utterly reckless. Nonetheless, greater and massive social, political, and economic changes would have to take place all over the world in order for severe gun control to truly take hold among private citizens. Some people do not even wish to engage in the debate over gun control and relevant legislation because of the manner in which the debates take place.

In recent years, the gun control debate has taken on the "anything goes" appearance of a professional wrestling match. The rules of intellectually honest debate are ignored. Illicit stratagems designed to gain competitive advantage are as likely to be cheered as jeered. As a member of the audience watching this ugly contest, I have never been quite sure whether to sit back and laugh at the absurdity of it all or to jump in the ring swinging a chair. I finally concluded that a debate in which fallacy so completely obscures reason is not simply unproductive, it is a dangerous way to decide an issue as important as gun control.

Regardless of one's views concerning gun control generally…this Article should give the reader good reason to pause and reassess the means by which the American people will decide the future of guns in this country. (McClurg, The Rhetoric of Gun Control, 1992)

Though this is an issue that many people opine about publically and privately, there is little formal research and debate relative to other important issues such as abortion. In issues that are so hotly contended such as gun control, it is up to the people to debate the issues with literacy and in a civil manner. It may seem counterintuitive to argue about guns in a civil manner, but with issues as dangerous and potentially catastrophic as gun control, it is all the more necessary to conduct the debates as well as compose the legislation with a civil attitude.