Posted: 12/3/2004 11:31:29 AM EDT
I was tasked with writing a paper to provide critical analysis of the right to keep and bear arms last year as an assignment for school (I'm a full-time employee adult back in school for a degree, so skip the age remarks please  ). I thought some people here might find it an enjoyable read. Enjoy it if you have the time to read it!  Kozmic University of ????? May 14, 2003 This paper examines the varying opinions of gun control in the US. Research used involves reviewing the works of a proponent and an opponent to gun control as well as specific studies. The opinions of why more stringent gun control legislature should be implemented will be stated along with opposing views of why it should not. Finally, the paper will try to help the reader go away with the ability to make a more informed decision about the subject. The opinions of retired United Methodist minister, Mr. C. Emory Burton and a fellow of the Claremont Institute, Mr. Glen Otero will be taken into consideration. Proponents of gun control legislation argue that with fewer guns there would be less violent crime. Opponents to gun control measures claim that a good number of the facts that the proponents cite are in fact only myths that have been used to mislead the public. In order to critically analyze this issue, one must look at both sides of the issue. One proponent of increased gun control measures, Mr. C. Emory Burton (2002), a retired United Methodist minister, feels that gun ownership contributes to increasing violent crime. In his opinion, the level of accessibility of handguns contributes to increasing numbers of suicides and gun accidents. Burton goes on to say that the majority of the general public wants tougher gun control legislation. Citing a few incidents of violence, which involved a gun, Mr. Burton makes the argument that “in spite of the bumper sticker’s claim, guns do kill people”. One incident was at the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Forth Worth, Texas. During a prayer service, a man with no prior criminal record opened fire, killing seven people and injuring seven others. Then the gunman turned the gun on himself and ended the tragedy. Mr. Burton feels that gun ownership is to blame for this and other events such as the widely publicized incident at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. From another prospective, Mr. Burton states that records of The Journal of the American Medical Association show an annual cost of gunshot wounds of $2.3 billion. It is also Burton’s position that almost half of that is paid for with taxpayer’s money. Most of the other half of that figure is paid for by insurance, driving up insurance costs. Burton states that many studies confirm that the use of guns in violent crimes increases or decreases with the level of gun ownership, but does not cite the specific studies. He goes on to say that, “The simple fact is that murder and other crimes committed with firearms occur more frequently where guns are most plentiful and gun control laws least stringent”, but again fails to provide specific reference to source of such findings. The basis provided for these findings is a claim that States’ laws are “obsolete, unenforced, or unenforceable.” In regard to use of handguns for self-defense, Burton states that a gun-toting homeowner is more likely to be shot than a robber. He states that those that live in a house with guns are four to six times more likely to be accidentally shot, than an intruder will be stopped. The comment is also made that owning a gun only provides thieves another item to steal. Mr. Burton’s does not provide many examples of proof of the statements he makes. It seems as though most of his statements are based on personal opinion. Even as such, it is Burton’s opinion that strong federal gun control legislation be enacted. The chosen representative from the opponents’ side of gun control is Glen Otero. Mr. Otero is an adjunct fellow of the Claremont Institute. The Claremont Institute is a California-based libertarian think tank. His views are that proponents of increased governmental gun control are being misled by many “myths” about guns and crime. The first myth that Otero (2002) addresses is that an increase in crime rate in the US is due specifically to the increase of gun presence. The misconception stems from the coincidental proliferation of guns, along with a great deal of crime perpetrated with firearms. Otero cites a 1978 study by the National Institute of Justice that examined the relationship between guns and violent crime. The outcome of this study was that there was not a direct relationship between gun ownership and the crime rate. The study also showed that the there was not much evidence to show that homicides occur more often, only because guns are more abundant. Since the 1978 study, many other studies have shown that there is no significant relationship between private gun ownership and crime. Some studies actually showed a decrease in crime with the increase of private gun ownership. Between the years 1974 and 1994, homicide rates increased for about half the time but also decreased the other half, resulting in a net unchanged rate. At the same time, the number of guns privately owned increased by about 75%. This would also detract from the argument that an increased number of privately owned guns directly causes more crime. The next myth Mr. Otero describes is the idea that one can just compare the US and its high guns/high crime ratio to that of another country where a low guns/low crime ratio exists. This is not possible. Each combination of the number of guns and level of crime can be found in countries around the world. For instance, if one compared the US’ ratio to that of Mexico, low guns/high crime, it would seem that lowering the number of guns really won’t help deter crime. Another myth is that reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of violent crimes committed. Otero cites 21 of what he terms the “most accurate” studies. Of these 21 studies, 17 found that gun control laws did not reduce crime. Two other studies resulted in ambiguous results and the other two showed the opposite, a significant decrease in crime as gun ownership numbers increased. Otero places a great deal of blame for the miscommunications on the media. MediaWatch, an organization that tracks media outlets, studied the amount of gun control verses non-gun control programs that were aired on ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. What was found was that during the period from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1997, MediaWatch noted 157 pro-gun control stories, 77 neutral stories, and only 10 stories against gun control. With the amount of trust that people place in the mentioned news outlets, it is easy to understand how myths have propagated so easily. With the statements of Mr. Burton and Mr. Otero aside, there is another area of concern with regard to gun control, the movement to systematically revoke one’s right to bear arms. Some leaders if the US have been trying to introduce legislation that would leave every citizen defenseless against possible tyranny of the federal government. The right to bear arms is afforded every citizen of the United States of America by The Constitution through The Bill of Rights. The great importance of this right, stated in the Second Amendment to The Constitution, is apparent, as it was required to be added before the Constitution could be ratified. “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” (United States Constitution, Second Amendment) This piece of the country-defining document, known as The United States Constitution, provides a guaranteed defense, against a possible tyrannical central government. Although some reviewers have tried to tear the Second Amendment apart, saying each piece applies to a different right, the Amendment must be looked at as a whole to understand what the intention of the author was. The first part, “A well-regulated Militia” refers to an organized group of people, which is either regulated by the State or by the Militia itself. The next part, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” allows the use a well-regulated Militia, to protect the freedoms granted to the people by The Constitution or more specifically, The Bill of Rights. The next section, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” re-iterates the previous sections with a specific reference of the means. The use of the term, “people” anywhere else in The Constitution means nothing less than the entire general population of the nation. Why then would anyone consider its use in the 2nd Amendment to mean anything less? There is no mention of what arms can be. This allows for keeping and bearing anything from sharpened stones to handguns or even backyard cannons. The last part, “shall not be infringed” is pretty simple. It basically states that these rights cannot be taken away. It should be noted that the word “shall” is used and does not allow for deviation. Although most gun control advocates feel otherwise, America’s Founding Fathers’ specific purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the people from governmental tyranny. Statements regarding an armed populace, from the Founding Fathers’ are found in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. John Marciano gives a few examples: George Mason states, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them", and Andrew Fletcher stated, "Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave" (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1707). The Founding Fathers were very specific in the rights they were giving the people through the Bill of Rights, rights to remain a free citizens. History has proven that countries, whose citizens are not afforded the right to keep and bear arms, are more susceptible to tyrannical rule and violent crime. When citizens yield all power to the government, a window of opportunity opens for the misdeeds of those that would weald this power for their own gain. Pierre Lemieux points to one such example of tyranny: The Vichy Regime of 1942 to 1944 (Lemieux, 1992). During the Second World War, the total German occupation of France resulted in thousands of Jews being arrested by their own French police, in order to be shipped to Nazi death camps. The right to keep and bear arms might have prevented the atrocities that occurred to the Jewish people that were never seen again. Some pundits of gun control argue that preventing violent crime is the motivating force behind their actions. The argument usually sites theoretical figures of a would-be utopia, if people were not allowed to own guns. These pundits state that if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. The facts prove otherwise. A bill to ban the ownership of all handguns in England, that was supposed to limit gun crime, was voted on, and passed by the Members of the English Parliament (Copley, 1997). A recent study in London showed a threefold increase of crimes committed with the use of a gun, in one year, from February 2001 to February 2002. Statistics produced by the Internal Home Office, in February 2002, show handgun crime to be at its highest level since 1993 (Bamber, 2002). Laws only affect law-abiding individuals. The effect on law-abiding individuals is one of disadvantage, against criminals that will continue to commit gun crimes. The Second Amendment was added to The Bill of Rights do to a genuine fear that the central government would become too powerful and controlling. This right also limits violent crime, and provides every citizen an avenue of defense against would-be predators. The movement to revoke one’s right to keep and bear arms cannot be allowed to continue and create a state of fear or uncertainty of the central government. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "When the government fears the People, that is Liberty. When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny" (Bamber, 2002). - Bamber, D. (2002, Feb. 24). Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities. Retrieved February 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web: www.guncontrolnetwork.org/uk8.htm - Burton, C. E. (2002). Gun ownership contributes to violent crime. Retrieved May 13, 2003, from: galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=37&ste=17&docNum=X3010223209&bConts=127&txb=%2522Gun+Control%09%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=uphoenixcustom - Copley, J. (1997, June 12). MPs vote to ban all handguns. UK News. Retrieved February 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web: www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/06/12/ngunn12.html - Lemieux, P. (1992, Sept. 8). Gun control: what are the real issues. Retrieved February 4, 2003 from the World Wide Web: www.pierrelemieux.org/artaim.html - Marciano, J. J. (n.d.). Handgun control, inc discredits itself. Retrieved February 4, 2003 from the World Wide Web: www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1707 - Otero, G. (2002). Gun ownership does not contribute to violent crime. Retrieved May 13, 2003, from: galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?c=39&ste=17&docNum=X3010223210&bConts=127&txb=%2522Gun+Control%09%2522&tab=1&slb=SU&tbst=ts_basic&srchtp=basic&fail=0&locID=uphoenixcustom |
|
you might also point out that the Bill of Rights was added in order to allay many states fears that the government would infringe on people's rights that they had in their respective states. In other words, the Bill of Rights was not added to guarantee the government's rights (those were layed out in the constitution itself), they were added to protect the PEOPLE'S rights. Its ridiculous to say that the first and third amendmandts apply to the people, but not the second. They were ALL included as rights of the people. If the bill of rights hadn't been included its highly possible that the United States of America would be a confederation right now. |
