Gun violence has come to the forefront of American consciousness in recent years. School shootings, public spree shootings, and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman has caused the discussion to become increasingly important. The gun violence issue is split into two basic camps-- the “gun control” camp, and the “right to bear arms” camp. Those who believe that access to guns should be restricted cite the rising level of gun violence in the United States, while those who believe in the individual’s right to carry weapons point to the Second Amendment to the Constitution to back up their argument. It is a quintessentially-American argument, as it pits the right of the individual against the betterment of society. However, research suggests that stricter gun control laws will result in fewer mass shootings, especially at school districts; thus, gun access should be controlled and monitored more closely.
One of the major issues that concern gun control activists is the issue of violence in schools. When individuals have easy access to guns, there is more of a likelihood of violence occurring in school districts. Some of the worst school shootings in American history could have been avoided had gun control laws been stricter (Grapes).
Past incidents such as the Columbine shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, and the more recent shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School have caused an increase in discussion about the easy accessibility of weapons in the United States, and the problems with current gun laws (Newman). One thing that should be noted about school shootings is that none of the individuals that committed these horrendous crimes just “snapped,” grabbed a gun, and stormed into the nearest school-- all of the individuals that committed these crimes premeditated them, and were able to seek out and acquire the weapons necessary to carry them out (Newman). If stricter gun control laws had been in place, it may have been more difficult for these individuals to acquire the firepower necessary to kill all the innocent people in these schools (Newman).
After a school shooting, there is always a flurry of discussion in the media about gun control and stricter gun control laws. However, it is rare to see gun control laws proposed, let alone passed through the legislature. This is not because many people do not support stricter gun control-- it is because the “right to bear arms” camp have a very powerful lobbying organization in Washington D.C., called the NRA. The NRA, or the National Rifle Association, is very strict on the Second Amendment-- they are very powerful, and support a nearly-limitless right of the individual to purchase and carry a weapon (Colt).
Despite the power of the National Rifle Association, school shootings almost always cause a visceral reaction from the public. When school shootings happen, the public nearly always immediately proposes stricter gun laws. These proposed gun laws are very rarely passed into law, because, as previously stated, the NRA is a very powerful lobbying and activist group. The government is very unwilling to disagree with the NRA because they have a large constituency and provide a lot of money to campaigns for elected officials.
Despite the hesitation that many elected officials have regarding gun control legislation, there have been too many school and spree shootings in recent years to completely ignore the issue. The Columbine shooting, one of the worst school shootings in American history, truly shocked the nation. The callousness of the two shooters combined with the ease with which they acquired the weapons they used to kill their fellow students was an eye-opening experience for many average Americans. It was at this time when the gun control discussion in the United States truly began to change and evolve-- no matter how powerful the gun rights lobbyists, the images of dead children on television opened up the discussion in the media like never before (Colt).
After the Columbine shootings, in 1999, then-Vice President Al Gore cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate that required background checks for firearm purchases in places like gun shows (Colt). In addition, this legislation required that new firearms purchases include safety devices such as trigger locks on new guns (Colt). Although this particular piece of legislation died in the House due to a stalemate, it still marked a turning point in the gun control discussion for pro-gun control lobbyists.
The problem with this type of gun control legislation is that it is not retroactive, meaning that even if it were signed into law, there would still be many guns that currently exist in the general population without trigger locks or other safety devices. Of course this does not mean that this particular piece of legislation or similar attempts at legislation should be abandoned, but there are definite issues that come to light when politicians try to approach the issue of gun control. A notable outcome of the death of this legislation was the public outcry that resulted. People wanted to see gun control legislation passed; its death in the House was seen as a failure by the public at large (Colt).
This was not the only piece of legislation that was proposed or even passed regarding gun control in this time period. President Bush, a noted pro-gun individual, signed a rare piece of bipartisan gun-control legislation that was designed to keep mentally-ill people from purchasing or otherwise legally obtaining and carrying guns. This legislation was originally introduced in 2002 after a church shooting, but it did not gain the support it needed in the legislature to pass until the Virginia Tech shootings occurred (Newman). When examining the history of gun control legislation in the United States, it is easy to see a pattern forming in regards to public support-- when a tragedy occurs, the public often begins to support gun control legislation; however, as the reality of the tragedy fades, the public’s willingness to support gun control legislation also fades. For gun control activists, this is incredibly frustrating, because nothing can be done until tragedy strikes.
Recently, the gun-control legislation issue has been taken up by President Obama. Obama’s plan involves gun-safety checks that are designed to reduce gun violence in the United States (The Associated Press). The plan includes background checks for all gun buyers, restrictions on the size and capacity of magazines, and a renewal of the assault weapon ban that Congress has previously enacted. This ban is a ten-year ban on the sale of nineteen different types of military-style assault weapons (The Associated Press). This is a notable program because it also includes safety and mental health programs that will be designed for and inserted into schools, in the hope of staving off any further gun violence in schools and helping individuals with mental health problems that may be driven to violence by the issues in their lives (The Associated Press).
The Second Amendment is a divisive issue within American politics, but many people who discuss Second Amendment issues do not have a good grasp of the reality of the laws governing gun ownership. The Second 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” (Henigan). People who support the right to bear arms often frame the issue in the context of “individual rights,” but the Supreme Court, in the past, has focused more heavily on the issue of the well-regulated militia and the security of a free state (Henigan).
The right to bear arms was initially considered important because of the newly-formed country’s experience with the British military. When the colonies began to have trouble with British forces, the British began to make attempts to restrict the right of colonists to assemble militarily; when the Bill of Rights was written after the war, the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that in the future, the people had the right to arm themselves against a tyrannical government (Henigan). The purpose of this Amendment was never truly for the individual to own and use weaponry against other individuals. From the very beginning, it was designed as to be for the individual to protect him or herself against the government (Henigan). Like all of the Amendments, the Second Amendment is primarily concerned with the relationship between the people and the government, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held this view when considering gun control laws and legislation (Henigan).
The Supreme Court has always stopped short of truly restricting the right of the individual to bear arms. The Supreme Court, especially in recent years, has been unwilling to restrict individuals’ rights in this sense, often citing an unwillingness to begin the process of curtailing the individual’s rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (Henigan). The most famous gun-rights case, District of Columbia v. Heller, held that the individual did, indeed have the right to own and bear arms, and that right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Henigan).
The fact remains that America has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world, whereas other countries with lower rates of gun ownership do not have the same levels of gun violence (Newman). Curtailing the individual’s right to own a gun does not necessarily guarantee that the amount of violence in society at large will be reduced, but it does suggest that the amount of gun violence that is present in American society will be reduced overall (Bonilla).
When she was shot, Congresswoman Kathy Giffords narrowly avoided death at the hands of an assassin. However, she survived, and she now stands at the forefront of the gun control debate today (Fram). She is one of the few politicians who can say wholeheartedly that they have been personally affected by gun violence and survived; her support for gun control legislation, particularly President Obama’s new legislation, could be a turning point for the gun control debate.
References
Bonilla, Denise ed. School Violence. New York: H. W. Wilson, 2000. Print.
Colt, Harry. "Lott nearly passed gun control in post- Columbine panic." Human Events.15 12 2012: n. page. Print.
Ferner, Matt. "Universal Background Checks For Private Gun Sales Bill Passes Colorado House Committee ." Huffington Post [Denver] 12 02 2013, n. pag. Web.
Fram , Alan . "Giffords pleads for gun curbs; NRA fights back." Kansas City Star 4 02 2013, n. pag. Web. 12 Feb. 2013
Grapes, Bryan J. School Violence. San Diego: Greenhaven Pr, 2000. Print.
Henigan, Dennis. "The Right to be Armed: A Constitutional Illusion." Handgun Control Inc.
page. Print.
Levy , Robert A. "Reflections on gun control by a Second Amendment advocate." LegalTimes [Washington] 11 02 2013, n. pag. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
Liptak, Adam. "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling." New York Times. 2010. Web. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?src=me&_r=0].
Newman, K. S. Rampage, the social roots of school shootings. Basic Books (AZ), 2004. Print.
Scotusblog.com. "Circuit Court bolsters gun rights." 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2013.
The Associated Press. "Biden Says gun curbs won." Las Vegas Sun [Las Vegas ] 05 02 2013, n. pag. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
