Baker 1

Haden Baker Prof. Randall Cooper Composition 1 24 November 2013 Gun Control The debate of gun control has been brought up throughout United States history; however, in recent years the debate has reached new heights. I think it would be unfair and biased if I was to put my personal opinion, so in this essay I am going to do my best to be unbiased and discuss both sides of the issue. Lets take two different scenarios. First scenario; ten students at local high school get shot and killed from a mentally unstable student that had a grudge on the school. Second; a typical middle class family living in an urban suburb gets robbed by a masked male. The robber is unaware however that the father is still awake, and in an effort to secure his familys safety, the father gets his handgun and kills the intruder. Which side would you take? Should the government take away citizens guns because some mentally unstable man abuses his right, or should they keep them for self-defense? No matter which side you take, the decision is going to affect our nations future. To better comprehend this issue, I did some research and found out that both sides have pros and cons. In this essay I am going to discuss the history/progression of background checks for purchasing guns, statistics about crime and suicide in the United States, and finally about the history and actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Baker 2

While doing my research, I thought what better source to help me understand the current background checks placed by the Federal government than to visit the FBI official website. I learned that the United States uses a system named National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isnt otherwise ineligible to make a purchase (Gun Checks). Since its creation, the NICS has denied 700,000 out of 100 million checks! The controversy over this is that some people slip through the system. Like in the first scenario that I explained in the introductory paragraph, the mentally unstable man could have easily slipped through the system simply because he did not have a criminal record. Individuals that want stricter laws/regulations and improvements in the NICS have a similar scenario playing through their minds repeatedly. They argue that just because an individual does not have a criminal record does not mean that they cant inflict harm o n others. Protesters want mental/physiological tests performed to insure that the owner of the gun can handle the responsibilities of it. It is also possible for the prospective gun owner to get his/her family member or friend that does not have any criminal charges to buy it for them. Take the Sandy Hook Shooting in Connecticut; the young man took his moms rifle and sho t down an elementary school. Individuals that want the system to stay the way it is say that it is the moms fault for not locking up the case that housed the rifle. Nevertheless, innocent children died at the face of a gun.

Baker 3

The next discussion is over suicide and crime rates. Again there are two different sides to this. One side believes that if gun ownership was limited to government militia and officials there would be a strong decrease in the crime and suicide ratings; the other side states that criminals are going to have guns whether they have to right to have them or not. According to 2005 statistics, suicide was the second leading cause of death in America; this too me is a shocking statistic. Would the number be lower if there were no guns, or would the victims find other means to take their life? This is another question that civilians as well as officials are wrestling with. In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides (Miller). Researchers would argue that suicide by firearm is far more lethal than doing so by cutting or drugs. The victims chance of surviving is far better by popping back a pill rather than a blow to the head with a firearm. Some would argue that the drugs in todays market could take a persons life just as fast as a firearm could. The other issue is crime. Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms (Agresti). Although 64% of these crimes result in the offender getting prosecuted, that leaves 46% of the murderers still out on the streets, leaving a lot of Americans nervous and fearful for their lives. Our criminal justice system, although sometimes flawed does its job most of the time, but they cant catch them all. Anti-Gun individuals believe that crime would decrease if the government were to take away citizens firearms and limit them to public safety officers and the federal military. One the other end, Pro-gun people think that they only way to defend a robber or murder is to have self-possession of a gun. They argue that what if the public safety officers dont arrive in time to stop the crime, should they just stand back and watch the crime be committed? One big

Baker 4

statistics that is backing up Anti-gun protesters is this; At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered (Agresti). Almost all of these crimes will be committed with a firearm. So that leaves the question, would the number of crime/suicides decrease if there were no firearms or is it just human nature to commit crimes against others as well as yourself and taking away the right to have a gun is going to do little or no change? The last point I am going to make is on the misconception of the 2 nd Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. This is probably the largest concept that people today are arguing about; their inalienable rights. The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition (Wasserman). With that being said, every time you ask someone about their opinion about gun control, you are most likely to hear one of two things: They cant take away my right to own a gun, or The government gave us our rights and they can take them away from us. I think that the biggest problem with both of these arguments is that neither side knows the exact meaning behind what there disagreeing about. The amendment 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 (Second Amendment). When the Bill of Rights was first established as the law of the land, the United States was at war with its motherland Britain. The idea behind this right was to secure the lives of the American people during the war. It was not unlikely for a Red Coat to come into an American home and kill innocent civilians if they did not give them the information that they wanted. The fathers of the Constitution wanted every American protected, so they made it legal for people to have firearms. Anti-gun protesters state that we are no longer in war times,

Baker 5

and there is no reason for regular citizens to carry dangerous firearms. They say that we have police officers and a strong military to protect us now where back in the 1700s we didnt. Progunners believe that is there rights as citizens to have a gun and the government cannot take it away from them; they do not however take into factor that the law was written in a different time period with entirely different mind-set. I think that before people go into a full on argument about their rights, they need to do some research and find out the history and true meaning behind the foundation of what theyre speaking about. No matter if you are talking about background check laws, crime/suicide rates, or the 2nd Amendment; people are very passionate about their opinion. Gun control has been argued about for a long time and will be continued to be discussed about. This is one of those issues where it is downright black or white, there is no grey area. This ongoing disagreement is tearing our nation apart and is causing chaos and conflict in our government. I think that everybody can at least agree that not having an overall agreeing government is not the way we want to go as a nation. We better come to a common ground sooner than later because if we dont, the citizens of the Unites States are going to continue to grow apart.

Baker 6

Work Cited Agresti, James D. "Gun Control - Just Facts." Gun Control - Just Facts. Just Facts, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp>. "Gun Checks." FBI. FBI, 17 Mar. 2010. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/cjis/nics>. Miller, Matthew, M.D. "The New England Journal of Medicine." Guns and Suicide in the United States NEJM. N.p., 4 Sept. 2008. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923>. "Second Amendment." LII. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment>. Wasserman, Harvey. "The Second Amendment Demands Gun Control." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/the-second-amendmentdema_b_808384.html>.