This essay was written in January of 2008 by Ryan C. Stebbins.
Gun control is something that is very often discussed and disputed within the United States. Many issues regarding the subject are argued over, such as whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, whether gun control is unconstitutional, and whether gun control actually affects crime rate. In the end it all comes down to one question: whether or not gun control should be extensively exercised in the United States.
My own stance on the subject is that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right that upstanding United States citizens should always have. The right was created by the founding fathers to help keep tyranny and injustice out of the system of government. A group of people cannot be truly free unless they are able to defend themselves from harm and oppression. After all, if the honest, upstanding citizens of the United States were no longer allowed to keep and bear arms, the criminals would still find ways to acquire and use them. Disarming innocent civilians would simply be better arming criminals, not to mention the government, to commit barbarous acts upon the rest of the country.
Many studies have been conducted on the subject of gun control. To be expected, they do not all agree. Among the articles that I read, the one that undoubtedly stands out the most was “Private Gun Ownership Should Not Be Banned,” by Hillel Goldstein. Instead of being about a drawn-out, analytical study regarding whether gun control works or whether it is constitutional, Goldstein’s article is about his own personal account of why he believes private gun ownership should not be banned. Being of Jewish decent and having served in the military in Israel before returning to the United States, Goldstein also has a PhD in psychology. While walking in Chicago one Independence Day, a neo-Nazi opened fire on him, injuring him in several places. His account is an example with which all ordinary citizens should be able to relate. I agree with him that the right to privately own guns is a right that citizens should keep. The person that shot Goldstein could very well have killed him, and the criminal most likely would have had his gun despite any efforts of gun control in the area. Just as Goldstein says, if he would have had his own gun in such a situation, he would have stood a fighting chance. As it is, he survived merely by chance, although with the help of emergency medical treatment (pars. 1-17).
Researchers such as Ik-Whan G. Kwon, a business professor, and Daniel W. Baack, a doctoral student, insist in their article “Gun Control Laws Can Reduce Gun Violence” that states with strong gun control laws are shown to have lower rates of gun-related deaths, when compared to states with weaker gun control laws. Kwon and Baack used a complex ranking system with different categories about how extensive a state’s gun control laws are (pars. 1-17). However, as convincing as their argument may seem at first, when I read about other studies utilizing a similar ranking approach, they concluded the opposite to be true. An example can be found in the form of the interview conducted by Mitch Kokai with university professor John Moorhouse in the article “Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Gun Violence.” Although both articles mention other studies supporting their views, Moorhouse’s study seems to have more support. He mentions other sophisticated gun control studies that came up with the same conclusions as he did (pars. 1-17). Moorhouse says, “There just isn’t any hard evidence that gun control affects crime rates” (par. 17).
In his article “Gun Control Is Not Constitutional,” Robert W. Lee, editor and writer for The New American, gives many examples of historic figures of the United States, who believed that the right to keep and bear arms was a necessary one in order for a nation to be free. He also gives many examples of historical tyrants that disarmed citizens in order to tyrannize them. He says,
History is replete with examples of would-be tyrants who have sought to disarm the people they intended to enslave. Julius Caesar, in his account of the Gallic wars, recognized the difficulty of conquering an armed people, as indicated by such observations as “all arms were collected from the town” and “there could be no terms of surrender save on delivery of arms,” and his claim that he had “cut off the hands of all who had borne arms” and had slain “a great number of them and stripped all of their arms” (par. 31).
Other examples of tyrants that disarmed citizens include Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. Lee also references judicial decisions that determined the Second Amendment to be an individual right, and he says that it is a necessary right in order to ensure all the other rights. I have to agree with him (pars. 1-35). As Lee says, “Gun control has never been about elimination of guns, but about who will control them” (par. 8).
Many gun control advocates seem to believe that the second amendment may be a right that was originally intended to be a “collective” one given to the states, instead of a right granted to individuals. After having read “Private Gun Ownership Is Protected by the Second Amendment,” Dave LaCourse, public affairs director for the Second Amendment Foundation, gives me good reason to think otherwise. He sums things up by saying,
By combining the historic definition for the militia, “as all persons capable of bearing arms,” and a restrictive definition for “the people,” such as “the citizens,” the Second Amendment could now read as follows.
A well-regulated Militia, consisting of all persons capable of bearing arms, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It should now be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to construe the Second Amendment any other way than to ratify an individual’s right to “keep and bear” arms (pars. 32-34).
I agree with LaCourse’s reasoning. Gun control advocates seem to try to make the Constitution say what they want it to mean, instead of interpreting it as anyone normally would (pars. 1-34).
In conclusion, despite the numerous studies that have been conducted, many of which offer conflicting conclusions regarding how well gun control reduces crime rate, I see no room for argument in the fact that, all throughout history, tyranny has thrived in governments where citizens were disarmed. I stand by my original opinion regarding gun control. After conducting this research, in fact, I stand by my initial opinion all the more firmly. It is my view that disarming a nation makes the people considerably more helpless to the will of the government. If the United States wishes to remain truly free, as its creators intended it to be, then its upstanding citizens must retain their right to keep and bear arms.
Works Cited:
Goldstein, Hillel. “Private Gun Ownership Should Not Be Banned.” Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. VCCS System – used for scripted access. 14 Jan. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/ovrc/
infomark.do&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=
T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010140239&source=gale
&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=viva2_vccs&version=
1.0>.
Kokai, Mitch. “Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Gun Violence.” Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control. Ed. Tami Roleff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. VCCS System – used for scripted access. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/ovrc/infomark
.do&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=
OVRC&docId=EJ3010140278&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&
userGroupName=viva2_vccs&version=1.0>.
Kwon, Ik-Whan G. and Daniel W. Baack. “Gun Control Laws Can Reduce Gun Violence.” Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control. Ed. Tami Roleff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. VCCS System – used for scripted access. 14 Jan. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/ovrc/
infomark.do&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&
tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010140277&
source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=viva2
_vccs&version=1.0>.
LaCourse, Dave. “Private Gun Ownership Is Protected by the Second Amendment.” Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. VCCS System – used for scripted access. 14 Jan. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/ovrc/
infomark.do&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=
T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010140240&source=
gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=viva2_vccs&
version=1.0>.
Lee, Robert W. “Gun Control Is Not Constitutional.” At Issue: Is Gun Ownership a Right?. Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. VCCS System – used for scripted access. 14 Jan. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/ovrc/
infomark.do&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=
T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010334208&source=
gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=viva2_vccs&
version=1.0>.