A Governments Right or an Infringement of Personal Rights, Research Paper Example

Gun control is a much debated topic in today’s society. There are a number of opinions and theories all of which have a very strong basis. While some suggest that the government should exercise their authoritative right and protect citizens against crimes committed by firearms, others cite the institution of democracy. To complicate the controversy there are a number of factors at play. Along with the citizens constitutional rights to bear arms are those theories that picking up guns would allow lawlessness to abound. On the flip side of that argument is the fact that crime would reduce because the majority of their “ability to find a gun” would be diminished. While it seems that there is not one clear answer or even correct answer it is definitely something that must be addressed by citizens, states and governments. The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of gun control, present the arguments and provide a personal analysis of the issue at hand.

History of Gun Control

While much attention has been given to gun control recently, it is not a new concept or argument. There have been many controversies and issues that date back to the dawn of time over guns, crime and freedom. Of course the right to bear arms was implemented through the Bill of Rights by the second amendment right. It gives “the people the right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed” (Bill of Rights). Congress has enacted several laws such as banning concealed weapons, however the Gun Control Act of 1968, was meant to keep weapons out of the hands of individuals that were not competent (Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 4). Some believe that the act of 1968 was because of the attack on President John F Kennedy. This would have shown that some individuals simply did not need to have the right to carry weapons because of the potential for danger because of the person’s mental instability. The act required gun dealers to keep records and also obtain a dealer’s license to ensure they met compliance. Various other laws have addressed things like guns in school zones, background checks for gun buyers and the types of weapons that can be owned. Through the many years and changes has been great controversy that has prompted the changes in the laws. There are two opposing sides of gun control and each make valid points regarding gun ownership, regulations and restrictions for those that own and sell firearms.

Much of the struggle comes within the political arena and who has the power over whether or not citizens should or shouldn’t have the right to freely own/carry firearms. While it seems that Federalism is not at play, it very much is. There is a definite struggle between states and the Federal government, as well as the beliefs of the need for separate powers. While the Federal government attempts to regulate, there must be a fine balance in order to maintain a democratic nation. The relationship must be one of cohesion and foster the ability to improve the fine line between the power of state and Federal governments. If gun ownership was restricted Federalism would be largely at play. This would be the dictation of the benefit for the government and United States as a whole, rather than that individual states power.

Governmental power is not one that can easily be divided because of the fine line between the two powers and can easily be seen in the issue of gun control.

Those Advocating For Gun Control

Of course it is easy to see how those that advocate for gun control are fueled by the debate. There is an exceptionally high crime rate in the United States and many blame the ownership of firearms. Statistics provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention note that there were over 30,000 deaths in 2005-2006 related to wounds inflicted by firearms (Heron et. Al 5). Of that 30,000, almost half were due to murders. This suggests that the prevalence of gun ownership may make it easy to commit crimes either in the heat of the moment or simply their ability to use force with it so readily available. Another commonly argued fact is the accidental injury and deaths related to young children and adolescents because of the ease of access to firearms. Contrary to popular believe not everyone advocating for stricter laws or regulations regarding guns, is completely against gun ownership. Some simply suggest that there must be stricter regulations to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, drug offenders and those that may cause harm to themselves or others. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 imposed laws that require states to conduct background checks on individuals before they are allowed to purchase a firearm. This is meant to prevent individuals that have been convicted of violent crimes or have mental illness from obtaining a weapon (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act). The theory behind this is to allow a waiting period and criminal check so that individuals are not able to purchase a gun in the heat of the moment with the intention of committing a crime.

Those that advocate stricter laws for gun control suggest that if firearms are illegal to own or harder to come by, then the crime rate will decrease (Ferrall 305). This suggests that military and law enforcement would be the only groups with guns and that they would be able to better protect citizens.

Those against Gun Control Laws

Of course the argument against stricter gun control laws are opposite of those that advocate for the changes. Organizations and individual groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) speak of the restriction or control that the government would have if citizens were not allowed to own firearms. The suggestion is that the Bill of Rights gives individuals the right to bear arms and that any changes to that would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States (Gibeaut 53). The NRA argues moral terms that state that the right to bear arms is a constitutional and God given right in the United States and any different would be a blow to the separation of state and federal government. They talk about things like protection, freedom of governmental control, right to privacy and place an emphasis on their own preferences. The major argument is one of security and the inability to protect oneself and family without a firearm. The suggestion is that just like drugs or other illegal activity, guns would be bought on the black market and would only leave those law abiding citizens unarmed, therefore unprotected. To counter the claims that firearms are used to commit murders and other crimes, they cite that guns do not kill; people use them inappropriately, therefore committing crimes.  Democracy is at play within this issue. The people have spoken and the majorities do not want stricter gun laws.

A democratic world is one of freedom and the right to own a weapon and protect oneself is a freedom that the majority of Americans desire.

When addressing freedom as a nation, one study suggested that the countries with the highest density of civilian firearms were the “freest” of nations (Kopel, Moody & Nemerov 20).

Now guns themselves certainly do not create a “free nation”, but what the theory suggests is that individuals allowed to own and carry weapons have a feeling of freedom within their respective state. They have the perception that they have the right and ability to protect themselves against criminals and possible illegal activities.

Argument Analysis

Both sides present great arguments and valid points. The literature shows that there are a large number of deaths and injuries that occur because of guns. Opposing literature also shows that nations that allow firearms have a better sense of morale and personal freedom beliefs. While both groups typically make a black or white assumption for gun control, it seems that the answer may be somewhere in the middle. After a careful review of the arguments, it seems to me that the laws and government are correct in their addressing how individuals purchase weapons. There should be guidelines and restrictions to ensure safety. Gun dealers should have to follow the rules and ensure that safety is their first priority. I do not believe that guns should be banned and only allowed for the military or law enforcement. I believe that crimes committed by guns would continue as criminals would simply purchase them illegally. The right to own firearms is a constitutional right and I believe that there should be restrictions imposed, however the right should remain intact.

According to Wolpert & Gimpel, “crime and disorder play a role in the gun control issue, creating both the need for control and the opposition to it” (243). While protection and freedom is the platform for those against strict gun control there are issues that are present. While it appears that the issues are centered on and all about guns, which may truly not be the issue at all. The arguments are good and related to firearms and the issues that they bring, however the truth of the matter may be the struggle for control, power and say so. People are notorious for wanting their own way and believing that their own beliefs should prevail. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the fact of the matter is that it must be balanced between ones person’s rights and another person’s freedom. Each individual under a democratic society has the right to feel safe, be free and make their own choices.

In conclusion, the debate over gun control is likely not one that will see be laid to rest. There will always be those that oppose guns and advocate that they lead to higher crime rates and a lawless society. On the opposite spectrum of the debate, those that are gun owners will continue to express their Constitutional rights to bear arms. While each and every person is entitled to their opinion, individuals must learn to respect the rights and opinions of others. There is a middle ground that would allow tougher laws and possibly even penalties for those that violate the law, yet freedom to own firearms. This may possibly appease both sides and allow individuals to continue their living in a democratic society with all rights and privileges intact.

Works Cited

“Bill of Rights Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute.” LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 July 2011. <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment>.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,” Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO/GGD-96-22 Gun Control, January 1996.

Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2005 Print.

Ferrall, Bard.  “Can Gun Control Work? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology  93.1 (2002): 305.

Gibeaut, J.. “A SHOT at the Second Amendment. ” ABA Journal 93.(2007): 50-56.

Heron, Melonie, Donna Hoyert, Sherry Murphy, Jiaquin Xu, Kenneth Kochanek, and Betzaida Tejada-Vera. “Deaths Final Data for 2006.” National Vital Statistics Report 57.14 (2009): 1-135.

Kopel, D., C. Moody, and H. Nemerov. “Is There a Relationship Between Guns and Freedom? Comparative Results From Fifty-Nine Nations. ” Texas Review of Law & Politics  13.1 (2008): 1-41.

Wolpert, Robin M., and James G. Gimpel. “Self-Interest, Symbolic Politics, and Public Attitudes

Toward Gun Control.” Political Behavior 20.3 (2003): 241-262.