History of Gun Laws in the United States
Following a wave of recent gun-related acts of violence and mortalities caused using firearms in the United States, the issue of gun control has turned into one of the most divisive subjects of cultural, social, and political interest. Gun control refers explicitly to the regulations that govern the production, modification, ownership, trade in and use of firearms, such as handguns and rifles. With 270 million guns in the United States, the enforcement of various requirements and regulations related to the ownership of firearms have ignited a great debate. In the year 2012, for instance, 58 percent of American citizens were in favor of the passage and enforcement of stringent gun control laws relating to the sale of arms (Cooper 342). An additional 50 percent were not contented with the way in which laws and policies associated with gun control were being implemented in the nation (Cooper 343). The interpretation of the right to bear arms as stipulated in the Constitution has had the most significant impact on the arguments for and against gun control, as well as the corresponding enactment of regulations to govern the access and ownership of firearms. However, it would be important to note that the issue of gun control is not new in the United States, and dates to 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed (Bank). The current essay delves into the history of gun laws, along with how the laws applied at that time and how they do not use to today's modern world.
1934 National Firearms Act
A series of high-profile shootings in history led to significant federal gun regulations. Some of the most stringent laws that guide production, the distribution, and possession of firearms in the US were enacted after significant incidences of gun violence. The 1934 National Firearms Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt after high-profile massacres, including the St. Valentine's Day shooting in 1929 which took the lives of 7 people. The act imposed a tax of $200 on the transfers of short-barrel rifles, shotguns, and machine guns, and also necessitated all gun owners to register their weapons (Bank). While the tax was regarded quite as adequate and severe to eliminate or discourage the sale of those guns, it is still 200 dollars when the value is $3,700 after adjusting for inflation (Bank).
1968 Gun Control Act
The 1968 Gun Control Act was enacted after the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and President John F. Kennedy. This act banned interstate handgun sales as well as weapons with no sporting purpose, and domestic mail orders of all kinds of firearms. The law barred the sale of firearms to felons, minors, drug addicts, felons, and people who had committed records of transactions. However, following intense efforts of lobbying by gun advocates, the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed and lifted some requirements of the Gun Control Act, mostly permitting dealers to sell shotguns via mail and limiting federal inspection of gun dealers (Bank).
1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Another legislation - the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - amended the 1968 Act further. Essentially, Brady Handgun required the purchasers of firearms who were not previously licensed to own a gun to go through background examinations when buying guns from sellers licensed under the federal government (Bank). Later, the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned the transfer, ownership, or domestic production of some assault weapons for ten years that effectively expired in 2004.
The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws
What is evident is that even though the US history is replete with some laws enacted to govern gun ownership, it remains challenging to link declines in gun violence and crime directly to any particular act, especially considering the limited scope and myriad loopholes in each one. However, some gun control laws had a noticeable effect. For instance, the 1934 regulations lowered access to machine guns, and therefore, crimes involving the use of fully automated firearms have almost dried up. However, even though the prohibitions of 1968 regarding who can own a gun or get licensed as a dealer are still in force, they are primarily ineffective especially considering the continuing mass shootings (Bank). With this view, one of the often-proposed legislation by gun control advocates is to ban ownership of assault weapons. However, it would be important to note that similar bill has once been passed in the country - Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - but failed to record any significant reductions in crime and gun violence (Bank).
Arguments For and Against Gun Control
However, the supporters of stringent gun control continue to argue that it would reduce violence and crime considerably. For instance, the article Anti-Gun Protest on The New York Times forms opinion founded on the recent gun shootings particularly in schools. In the section, Stafford holds that firearms are unsafe and risky due to their misuse, a factor that is difficult to control. Today, guns are in the hands of many people, some of who do not have any idea regarding how to make use of their firearms, especially when under duress. Such people would then go on to argue their legal and constitutional rights of possessing a gun. In this light, the safety of American citizens has been undermined and polarized due to the right to own and bear firearms.
Besides, the gun control proponents are deeply concerned about the current high levels of violence and crime that is committed using firearms in the United States and therefore call for firm restrictions as an effective way to reducing violence. The activists suppose that granting gun rights would account for increased suicide crimes and other undesirable outcomes, and hence the need to have strict enforcement of gun laws to save human life. In their article, Cook and Goss hold that the risk attached to having firearms in the wrong hands carries negative externalities that call for government intervention (36). Even though the prevailing gun control laws at the federal level prevent mentally ill people, criminals, and children from possessing guns, there are some instances whereby young people and shooters have gained access to weapons and used them in committing mass shootings (Cooper 339). The mass murder of people in a movie theater in Colorado and the fire that happened at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 comprise some incidences where private gun ownership has only served to increase insecurity and human bloodshed rather than foster self-defense (Cooper 339). In this light, the proponents of gun control use such shooting realities to highlight the need for more stringent gun control regulations.
However, those who oppose stringent gun control argue that it cannot lower gun violence and crime. While the advocates of gun control hold that such regulations would make it more difficult for one to purchase a firearm, and if a significant number of weapons are banned, American citizens would be safe, state-level crime and violence data shows that this claim is false. The evidence indicates that gun control regulations have do not functions, and even if they were to work, it would be difficult to enforce across the nation (Haskins). For example, many of the states that record the lowest rates of crime, inclusive of homicide rates, also have enacted minimum limits about the ownership of guns. The data indicates that a connection does not exist between high gun ownership and higher levels of crime. In particular, there are only six states in the entire nation in which over 50 percent of household's firearms, and this includes Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, West Virginia, Alaska, and Arkansas (Haskins). Therefore, if the supporters of gun control were to be correct about the dangers posed by firearms, then these states should also be having significantly higher rates of crime. However, the exact opposite is true. In that, the data supplied by the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention ranks four among these states in the top half of all other as having the lowest rates of homicide. Wyoming and Idaho ranked in the top six in CDC's 2017 release. On the contrary, many cities with stringent gun-control regulations and deficient levels of legal gun ownership, such as Chicago, record the highest rates of gun-related murder.
Case studies from other countries also emphasize the case by opponents that gun control cannot prevent violence and crimeher countries. For example, it is alleged nations such as Russia where the citizens are barred from possessing firearms, violence, and crimes related to gun ownership are more than the United States (Cooper 339). In this light, gun-control laws at ineffective at lowering the rate of crime and violence. Besides, the principal reason that makes one possess a firearm is for self-defense. Therefore, if the ownership of guns is outlawed, gangsters and other criminal sects would be the only ones with access to weapons, leaving the larger population defenseless. It is also imperative to note that while gun control centers of creating more stringent laws to guide the manufacture and acquisition of weapons, the people who wish to commit crimes often tend to ignore such regulations (Cooper 358). In this light, such people will acquire firearms by manipulating all loopholes despite the strict laws in place. Cooper seems to indicate that guns do not kill people, but rather people kill others. In this light, to solve the problem of the increased crime rate, there is a need for mainly commonsense via preventive solutions instead of enforcing strict laws aimed at gun control.
In his article, Haskins Justin - a gun control opponent - cites data from an analysis conducted by statistician Libresco Leah to show that gun control laws cannot prevent shooting cases. In the study, Britain, and Australia that have enacted stringent gun laws have not experienced a reduction in mass shootings or crimes related to gun possession. Nonetheless, even if it were to be proven that gun control laws can lower crime and violence rates, enforcing such sweeping legislation in America is almost impossible. In that, there are currently over 270 million guns among the members of the public and spread across households. How the US law-enforcement officials can go about implementing such a decision remains indefinite. Besides, as to other issues that currently affect the American society, gun control should be among the least discussed. In that, in a nation of about 320 million people, crime associated with legal gun ownership is almost nonexistent (Haskins). Of the average 33,000 deaths caused by gun shootings per year, suicides comprise two-thirds, and the remaining 11,000 are gang-related, with the use of illegally acquired firearms. By contrast, for example, nearly 90,000 individual die annually from alcohol. This implies that is suicides are excluded. Ethanol is 650 percent deadlier than guns (Haskins). Therefore, rather than penalize law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect their families and save the lives of thousands of people, legislators should work to lower crime by improving the nation's rate of economic growth and provide educational opportunities.
Conclusion
Overall, gun control in the United States has a long history dating back to the early 1930s when the first legislation was enacted. The arguments in the gun control debate have also scarcely changed for all this time. The proponents of stringent gun control argue that regulating the sale of and prohibiting access to some types of guns would help reduce violence and crimes. However, opponents assert that gun control is ineffective. On their part, gun owners hold that the registration of firearms is by itself already a harsh step as it often leads to confiscation. What is evident is that the regulation of gun ownership and access is overly tricky and ineffective today. Most of the violence and crimes recorded are carried out by known criminals and gangsters. In this light, even if additional regulations are enacted, they should be directed towards the illegal acquisition of firearms rather than those who genuinely acquired their weapons.
Annotated
Bibliography
Cooper, Alexander C. "Fully Loaded: An Alternative View of the Gun Control Debate." Albany Government Law Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2015, pp. 337-380.
While the recent increase in gun violence and criminal activities have resulted in increased calls for gun control, Cooper's article holds a contrary view. Mostly basing on federal regulations and the judicial precedent on the right of Americans to bear arms, the report paints a clear picture as to why stringent gun control would violate the Constitution. The author cites a range of legal cases – both at the Supreme Court and at the state level – where judges reaffirmed the right to bear arms as one granted to all American Citizens.
Using this source, I will introduce my paper and argue the case against stringent gun control laws. I will explain that gun control legislation would violate the rights bestowed upon all American citizens within the constitution. However, a part of the article detailing previous cases of gun violence will help in arguing the evidence in support of gun control.
Bank, Justin. “Major Shootings Led to Tougher Gun Laws, but to What End?” The New York Times, 23 Feb. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/fact-check- mass-shootings-gun-laws.html. Accessed 6 Nov. 2018.
This newspaper article explains that the current debate on gun control has been ignited by cases of misuse of guns that has caused suffering to innocent citizens, including children. However, the author explains that gun control is not a new issue, but has a long history. He then provides a chronology of significant developments in the gun control debate.
With this article, I will detail the history of gun control. Major acts that have been passed that influence the ability of citizens to possess firearms will be reviewed. Similarly, the article will help in whether these regulations can apply to today’s world.
Stafford, John E. “Anti-Gun Protest: Elders, Time to Listen and to Act.” The New York Times, 15 March 2018, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/opinion/guns-protest- parkland.html. Accessed 6 Nov. 2018.
While some individuals believe that controlling the ownership and access to guns would be the most effective way to limit gun violence, Stafford holds the view that the misuse of firearms is the major problem. Therefore, using this article will elucidate the case against gun control. In that, to reduce the rate of crime, it requires an analysis of why people engage in misconduct and not the tools used.
Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know?. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Founded on the premise that a "weapon in the wrong hands is insecurity to all," this book provides a detailed view of the gun control debate. It reviews arguments both from the proponents and opponents of gun control while identifying the fallacies in reasoning. However, I will use the content of this book to argue the need for stringent gun control laws. In that, often, weapons get in the wrong hands, leading to crime and violence.
Haskins, Justin. “Strict gun control will never work in America.” The New York Times, 13 Oct. 2017, https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/strict-gun-control-will- never-work-in-America-1.14453352. Accessed 6 Nov. 2018.
In this article, the author debunks the view by gun control proponents that stringent gun control regulations can help in solving the problem of increased crime and violence. The author cites multiple examples, both from within and outside the nation where gun control did not lower the crime rate. I will use this source to argue against gun control.
