“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution
On June 7, 2013, police arrived at 2036 Yorkshire Avenue in Santa Monica, California to respond to a report of shots fired. There, they saw the house on fire, with bodies of two men inside, one dead due to gunshot wounds. At the time, the suspect – John Zawahri – had already armed himself with a semiautomatic rifle and proceeded to the Santa Monica College campus, where he was a former student. It took thirteen minutes before the suspect was neutralized by responding policemen. By then, Zawahri had taken six innocent lives and injured four others (Kemp, Knowles, & Youn).
Just a few months before the Santa Monica shooting, in December 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was rocked by another mass murder, this time leaving twenty children and six adult staff dead (Barron). Both of these incidents are just some of the reasons gun control lobbyists point out in arguing for more stringent gun control laws (Steinhauer). Among others, this argument – that stricter gun control measures will reduce crime – is a sound one, and this paper will assume a stance that favors gun control. While doing so, corresponding counterarguments that favor lesser gun control will be presented and dissected.
A categorical examination in the rise of the gun culture in most of the United States spans an era of unrest, revolution, and war. The right to bear arms actually antedates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and its adoption in December 15, 1791 (Tucker, Blackstone, 45; Heller). Prior to the U.S. Constitution, early English settlers were protective of the right to bear arms primarily because of the capacity to organize into militias to suppress insurrections. It was a time of revolution – particularly against the English colonialists (Halbrook, 7). At the time, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear: militias were allowed and the people may arm themselves. It was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right to keep and bear arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a militia (Cornell, 2). However, the present-day circumstances have muddled its meaning and interpretation. The ingraining of the right to bear arms is one of continuous debate among legal scholars, even until now, and especially in light of various violent school shooting sprees.
Gun control opponents frequently cite that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Opponents also believe that gun control limits law-abiding citizens’ access to guns that are valuable for self-defense and recreation. Furthermore, they argue that because only law-abiding citizens will obey gun laws, such laws will give the advantage to criminals. In a way, they believe that the Second Amendment confers upon the United States citizenry and absolute and unconditional right to bear arms (Valdez, 16). Furthermore, they use the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 US 570) as legal precedent to support the right.
The above arguments against gun control are starting points for critique. Although gun control opponents’ claims are rooted in the Second Amendment text itself (much like Justice Antonin Scalia’s Heller majority opinion), it is severely out of context and is not in tune with the times (Siegel 2). As discussed, the Amendment was drafted and passed in 1791 with the avowed intent of regulating a militia. The Framers’ “militia” existed at a time when the U.S. had no Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and National Guard. (Amar and Hirsch). Since then, the times have inevitably changed. In 2012 alone, the US spent $682B in military expenditures (SIPRI). It’s safe to say that America does not need a civilian milita. The right to bear arms does not fit either modern gun rights or the gun control model, since the Framers wrote the Second Amendment to solve their own problems, not ours (Kozuskanich, 446).
It must also be noted that there is a critical evidence in support of the capacity of gun control laws to prevent crime. One basic truth leads the argument for gun control: guns are deadlier than any other weapon. An assault with a firearm is five times more likely to lead to death than is an assault involving a knife. Furthermore, approximately 40 percent of U.S. households own firearms. Because of this combination of lethality and prevalence, guns are responsible for most murders in the United States (Valdez 43). In 1997, gun-related deaths accounted for 70 percent of all homicides. The United States has a notoriously high rate of handgun deaths, for which many anti-gun advocates blame permissive gun ownership laws. Other countries with stricter gun laws have lower gun death rates. The trouble in the United States is not with lax enforcement of existing laws: restrictions in effect now have too many loopholes. The Brady Act’s background check requirement has had some crime-reducing effect, and so has the federal assault weapons law, but these still do not meaningfully prevent criminals from buying guns informally or at gun shows. Meanwhile, gun control advocates argue that keeping weapons for self-defense is actually dangerous to the gun owner’s own household. They say the mentality of preparation for violent self-defense makes nobody safer and causes a continuing cycle of violence.
Gun control opponents point out that gun control laws will not prevent crime (Moorhouse and Wanner, 103). The National Rifle Association’s mantra sums this position resolutely: “Guns don’t kill people – people kill people” (Valdez, 62). Opponents also rely on the self-defense capabilities of gun ownership. This may be true, but what gun control opponents don’t point out is that guns kept in the home are more likely to be used in suicides and to be involved in accidental deaths than in self-defense (Dahlberg, et. al., 934; Hemenway, 508). Concealed weapons also mean concealed risks: if people are allowed to carry guns at all times, average people who are afraid, racist, angry, or intoxicated would be more likely to gun down the people around them (Valdez, 60). In most cases, the possession of concealed weapons will only cause continuity in a cycle of gun-related violence.
Based on the discussion above, the opposition side of the fence will still invariably be benefitted even if gun control laws are passed. In an America where guns are controlled strictly and effectively, one would not need self-defense in the first place. Moreover, there are a host of other non-lethal alternatives to guns, such as pepper sprays, air soft guns, tasers, and other neutralizing agents. In this way, careless loss of life may be better prevented.
Although it may not seem like it, the grounds between gun control oppositionists and gun control supporters are similar in some respects. Both agree that civilian police or the military should have guns – this is so because they are law enforcement agencies. If the police or the military are deprived of the right to arms, then the monopoly of the state over power is severely compromised. Opponents and supporters also agree on not letting convicted felons own guns. Finally, they also agree on the freedom not to have a gun if they so desire.
Opponents of gun control believe that it limits law-abiding citizens’ access to guns that are valuable for self-defense and recreation—and that they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own and use. Opponents of control argue that because only lawabiding citizens will obey gun laws, such laws will give the advantage to criminals. They believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, almost unconditionally.
The gun control debate is a multi-faceted and multi-sided issue that is as current as any other in American society. This is especially true in light of the increasing crime rates and culture of terrorism and violence produced after 9/11. However, fighting violence with violence is not the way to solve the problem. Gun control is a crucial step in ensuring a better, safer America for the next generation, and is a legitimate and logical development to achieve a more peaceful society. Whatever the motivations, though, the public debate is based on law and policy—on interpretation of the Second Amendment, on the relationship of gun incidence to crime rates, and on the risk of gun-related injury to the public (Valdez 17).
WORKS CITED
Amar, Akhil Reed, and Hirsch, Alan. For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights. Simon and Schuster, 1998. Print.
Barron, James. “Children were all shot multiple times with a semiautomatic, officials say.” The New York Times. 15 December 2012. Web. 16 June 2013.
Cornell, Saul. A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
Halbrook, Stephen. A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1989. Print.
Dahlberg, L.; Ikeda, R.; Kresnow, M. “Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study”. American Journal of Epidemiology. 160 (10), 2004. Print.
District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 U.S. 570. Supreme Court of the United States. 2008. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 16 June 2013.
Kemp, Joe; Knowles, David, & Youn, Soo. “Santa Monica gunman kills four, injures at least five others in a rampage that spilled onto college campus.” NY Daily News. 7 June 2013. Web. 16 June 2013.
Hemenway, D. “Risks and benefits of a gun in the home.”. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 5 (6), 2, 2011. Print.
Kozuskanich, Nathan. “Originalism, history, and the Second Amendment: what did bearing arms really mean to the Founders?”. Journal of Constitutional Law. 10 (3). 2008. Print.
Moorhouse, John; Wanner, Brent. “Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control?” Cato Journal 26 (1), 2006. Print.
Siegel, Reva. “Dead or alive: originalism as popular constitutionalism in Heller. Harvard Law Review. 122 (191), 2008. Print.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Military Expenditure Database. SIPRI, 2013. Web. 16 June 2013.
Steihauer, Jennifer. “Senator unveils bill to limit semiautomatic arms.” The New York Times. 24 January 2013. Web. 16 June 2013.
Tucker, St. George; Blackstone, William. Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Contitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States, and of the Commonwealth of Virginia: In Five Volumes. The Lawbook Exchange, 1996. Print.
Valdez, Angela. Point Counterpoint: Gun Control. Chelsea House Publishers, 2003. Print.
