With the increase of mass shootings in America, many propositions have been suggested as ways to prevent or lessen the amount of these attacks with the most prevalent being to ban or reduce access to guns. America has the highest amount of gun related deaths each year in the world. “In Germany 381, in France 255, in Canada 165 in the United Kingdom 68, in Australia 65, in lapan 39 and in the United States, 11,127” (Moore Michael, 51:15-51:48).
America has 270 to 310 million guns, which is 88. to every 100 people in America, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world (ProCon). The correlation between the number of people owning and dying from guns in the United States cannot be denied. However, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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. ” (Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation).
Thus, as options to reduce mass shootings in United States are considered, we need to determine if “the right to bear arms” is always equivalent to owning personal guns, as well as whether it is constitutional to limit the types of guns that can be purchased or prevent certain individuals from having access to any gun. First of all, the main point to look at is if people should be allowed to own personal guns, or if the Second Amendment means that guns are to be used for military purposes.
From a public perspective, 73% of United States citizens believe the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns. (Jeffery Jones). Since the preamble to the Constitution starts with “We the People” banning guns would be unconstitutional if the majority of United States citizens believe that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to own guns. Thus, unless the Second Amendment is changed, we cannot take the right to own guns.
However, the government should regulate the types of gun Americans can own. Between 2009 and 2013, there were 227 fatalities in the United States due to rampaged shootings (Kyle Becker); higher than any other country in the world. Because of this, it is important to have gun-control laws that restrict people from owning firearms where one gun can kill multiple people, such as machine guns.
Some people will argue that the Second Amendment also means they should have access to any type of gun as it does define “Arms;” especially when used for “Security. Centuries ago, it may have been correct that a gun was essential to survive. However, this is no longer the case. “As Americans civilized the wilderness, they would eventually be able to rely not just on their own skills at individual self-defense for protection, but on laws and civil authorities and the other institutions of government they were building” (Whitney, Pg. 103). The United States did not have the civil authorities we do today. Times and guns were different when the Second Amendment was written, and its author’s did not envision an AK-47 being required to “Secure” an individual.
Gun control became necessary throughout history as different types of guns emerged and people began using them for violence rather than civic duty. Beyond limiting the types of guns that individuals can purchase, certain individuals should not have access to any gun. Because many people in the US are mentally unstable, giving them a way to easily kill large groups of people seems irresponsible. “Approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U. S. —10 million, or 4. %experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities. ” (National Alliance on Mental Illness). If a person is unable to complete everyday tasks because of the mental inability, the safety of others outweighs their personal rights and they should not have access to firearms.
Because of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934, “All gun sales and gun manufactures were slapped with a $200 tax on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. pproval” (Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation). The National Firearms Act was not created to make money, but to lower the crime rate and make it impossible for people to buy and sell automatic-fire weapons. However, the act was basically made unenforceable due to the fact that the registration requirement imposed on the possessor of an unregistered firearm violated the possessor’s privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives).
The Federal Firearms Act would do much good even if it is unconstitutional to arrest someone if they possess an unregistered gun. Specifically, anyone involved in the selling of firearms could still be required to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce. They could also be required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lack of permit” (Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation).
The Federal Firearms Act is beneficial today because the government can monitor who is selling illegal firearms. Requiring gun sellers to record the names and addresses of the people they have sold guns to can help police track down suspects if the person caused harm with a firearm. Prohibiting gun sellers from selling guns to people who were convicted of certain crimes could reduce gun violence because it would be harder for them to buy guns. Prohibiting guns to the people who lack a permit could also reduce gun violence.
By having a permit, it shows the person is mentally stable and responsible to own a gun because the person has a clean background and passed the psychological evaluation. The Federal Firearms Act would not stop all gun violence, but it could monitor the guns that are being bought and if they are legal or not. The Federal Firearms Act could organize the gun control system and lower the percentage of people who should not be allowed to own guns. It could also lead the way to preventing gun related deaths.
Yet there still are Americans who believe the United States does not need gun control laws. Americans who are against the government restricting the types of guns civilians should have are not aware gun control is important because there are people who will take advantage of the power firearms. A member of the Michigan Militia said in the documentary “This is an American tradition, it is an American responsibility to be armed if you are not armed you are not responsible, who is going to defend you kids, the cops?
The federal government? It’s your job to defend you and yours. If you don’t do it you’re in dereliction of duty as an American. Period” (Moore Michael, 8:37-8:56). Being armed does not make Americans responsible; paying taxes, being a good citizen and helping the community makes an American responsible. Owning firearms is a choice not a responsibility. Besides, the Second Amendment has never been updated. Before, being armed meant being responsible because the United States did not have law enforcement to protect Americans like today.
If Americans need gun to defend themselves from other Americans, it is because of fear and not because they are being “responsible”. A Canadian man states “If more guns made people safer, then America would be one of the safest counties in the world. It’s the opposite” (Moore, 82:26-82:36). We become fearful and believe we should own a gun for protection from criminals. However, every person who owned a gun in the documentary “Bowling for Columbine”, had never been assaulted. It is no clear what side will most effectively stop or lessen the number of shootings and gun related deaths in this country.
What is obvious is that the people of the United States need to compromise on the types of guns people can own and who has access to them. Compromise would make the United States able to focus more on other social problems like unemployment. America will always have guns and the fact is many Americans want to own guns. The United States government can change it the amount of guns and bullets that are being sold. They can decide what guns are not meant to be in the hands of an American citizen. Gun control is necessary not only in the United States, but in the world.
