http://www.seark.net/~jlove/guncontrolessay.htm

Gun Control

Richard Moore

English Composition II

Judi Reed
13 April 1995

Thesis Statement: Society benefits from firearms in the hands of responsible citizens.
Attempts to keep firearms away from these citizens do more harm than good.

Outline

I. Introduction

II. Political

A. Legislation

1. Rights

2. Restrictions

3. Prejudice

B. Crime prevention

1. Effects on criminals

2. Effects on crime victims

III. Practical

A. Hunting

B. Competition

IV. Personal

A. Recreation

1. Family activity

2. Teaches responsibility

B. Self-defense

V. Conclusion

A. Negatives

B. Positives

C. Personal Opinion

Gun control is not one issue, but many. To some people gun control is a crime issue, to
others it is a rights issue. Gun control is a safety issue, an education issue, a racial issue,
and a political issue, among others. Within each of these issues there are those who want
more gun control legislation and those who want less. On both sides of this issue opinions
range from moderate to extreme.

Guns are not for everyone. Certain individuals cannot handle a firearm safely, and some
individuals choose to use firearms inappropriately. Our society has passed laws regulating
the ownership and use of firearms, and more legislation is being considered. Most of this
legislation restricts, to some degree, the rights of individuals to possess or use firearms.
Some restrictions may be necessary, but some recent legislation has gone too far. Society
benefits from firearms in the hands of responsible citizens. Attempts to keep firearms
away from these citizens do more harm than good.

To begin with, a definition of a “responsible citizen” is in order. The definition used in this
paper was provided by Steve Rusiecki, a local police officer. When asked what makes
someone a responsible citizen in regard to firearms ownership, Mr. Rusiecki replied, “The
citizen must be law-abiding, with no felony record, must not abuse alcohol or drugs, must
not be mentally ill, must not have renounced U.S. citizenship, must not have been
dishonorably discharged from the military, and must be in the U.S. legally” (10). This
definition combines elements from the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and Arizona’s
concealed carry law.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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.” The Founding Fathers included this in our Bill of Rights
because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people
did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation and as individuals (Halbrook
65-84). This idea was not new. The Founding Fathers’ thoughts on the right to keep and
bear arms were influenced by Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney (7).

The militia referred to cannot be construed as meaning the Army or National Guard, in the
words of Samuel Adams: “The Militia is composed of free citizens” (qtd. in Halbrook 62).
Additionally, George Mason considered a “well regulated Militia” to be one “composed of
. . . Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen” (qtd. in Halbrook 61). The Revolutionary
War was won with the help of “An armed populace composed of partisans, militias,
independent companies, and the continental army . . .” (63). It is obvious from this that the
Founding Fathers thought that society benefited from firearms in the hands of the people.

Many years later we began placing restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The
first restrictions concerned the manner in which citizens could carry arms. In 1850 the
Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the constitution did not grant the right to carry a
concealed weapon; although earlier court cases had ruled that the constitution did protect
the right to carry concealed weapons (93-96). Shortly before the Civil War, some southern
States passed legislation denying slaves and freed blacks the right to possess firearms. The
basis of this legislation was the Dred Scott Decision. They reasoned that since blacks were
not considered citizens they did not have the rights of citizens, including the right to keep
and bear arms (96-98). The gun control legislation of this era resulted from prejudice
against an entire race of people. These laws were in effect until after the Civil War when
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution were ratified. The
legislation referred to here must be considered harmful to society.

The rational given for most modern gun control legislation is “Crime Control.” The Brady
Bill is one example. The Brady Bill is named after James Brady, who was shot by John
Hinckley during an assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981. Supporters of the
Brady Bill used that incident to gain support for their gun control legislation, claiming it
would reduce crime and save lives. The fact is that the background check and waiting
period included in the Brady Bill would not have prevented John Hinckley from legally
purchasing the handgun used in that incident. Records show that “a police background was
run on Hinckley four days before he purchased the revolver he used to shoot President
Reagan and Jim Brady. The check showed he had no felony convictions in any jurisdiction.
Neither had Hinckley any public record of mental illness” (“Guns” 51).

An even greater shortcoming of the Brady Bill is that it only affects legal transactions. By
definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law. Criminals have many ways to obtain
weapons without going through the process mandated by the Brady Bill. Two obvious
examples are theft and black market purchases. According to studies “only one firearm of
every six used in a crime is obtained legally” (Thomas 277). Since the passage of the Brady
Bill, only four felons have been apprehended trying to purchase a firearm (NRA,
“Grassfire”). When I asked Steve Rusiecki for a policeman’s opinion of the Brady Bill, he
replied: “I think it is an emotional attempt at crime reduction rather than one based on
legitimate facts” (6). In view of the facts presented, it is obvious that the Brady Bill is not
an effective crime prevention tool.

The Brady Bill is not effective in fighting crime, but it does affect crime victims. The
five-day waiting period during which the police conduct the background check is also
supposed to serve as a “cooling off” period to prevent crimes of passion. Fortunately, this
five-day wait is waived in states like Virginia which have an instant background check
system in place. The following article is an example of how waiting periods affect crime
victims:

Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross of Woodbridge, Virginia, might be dead if a waiting period had
been in effect. Instead, the instant check system in place in that state allowed her to
defend her life against a former boyfriend three days after she purchased a pistol. The
man, a Marine under orders to stay away from Ross because of previous assaults and
threats, broke through a door and rushed into her bedroom with a bayonet. Ross fired
twice, mortally wounding him. The shooting was ruled to be a case of self-defense (“Armed
Citizen”).

If the five-day waiting period had been in effect, it is likely that an innocent woman would
have been killed. During the debate in Congress over the passage of the Brady Bill,
supporters claimed passing the bill would be worth it “if it saved just one life.” Surely the
bill is not worth it if it costs just one innocent life.

Another example of gun control legislation that affects the wrong people is the “Assault
Weapon” ban included in the Crime Bill of 1994. While supporters of the ban claim the
firearms banned by this bill are the “weapons of choice” of gangs and drug dealers, the
FBI Uniform Crime Reports show this contention is unfounded (Rusiecki 7). However, at
Congressional hearings held on March 31of this year, several people testified that they had
used guns which are now banned to defend their lives and to prevent crimes (“Survival”).
It is fortunate that these citizens had firearms to defend themselves. Society does not
benefit from the death or serious injury of innocent citizens.

As mentioned earlier, crime is not the only issue related to firearms ownership. Hunting is
a popular sport and, in some parts of the country, an important source of food. On the
surface, it might appear that hunting is harmful to wildlife and the environment. The fact is
that the opposite is true. Wildlife biologists have found that well managed and regulated
hunting programs are beneficial to wildlife. If the wildlife population becomes too large,
food becomes scarce and the population starves to death. Wildlife biologists take counts of
game animals in a given area and study the habitat to determine the population level it can
support. Then they make recommendations to State Game and Fish officials who set
hunting seasons and bag limits. Hunting is a tool used by these officials to manage the
wildlife under their care (“Arizona” 18).

Non-game wildlife is also protected by hunters, and even by firearms owners who do not
hunt. Approximately 77% of the funds used to operate state Fish and Game and other
wildlife agencies are derived from the sales of hunting licenses, excise taxes levied on sales
of firearms and ammunition, and the sale of federal duck stamps. More than three billion
dollars have been raised from these sources and used to protect both game and non-game
animals (22). Firearms ownership is clearly beneficial to the environment and a good
environment is beneficial to everyone.

Firearms are also used in competitive sports. The Olympic Games include competitions
with pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Shooting is also part of the biathlon and has been part of
the Olympic pentathlon since 1912 (“Pentathlon”). There are also many competitions
throughout the country in bull’s eye, bench rest, silhouette, practical pistol, trap and skeet,
and other shooting sports. Men, women, older children, and even individuals with certain
disabilities can enjoy these sports since shooting does not require much agility or physical
strength.

Even without formal competition, shooting can be enjoyed as a hobby. Recreational
shooting may involve paper targets, tin cans, or other suitable targets. This hobby can be
enjoyed at indoor target ranges, but is usually practiced outdoors. In fact, shooting can
often be combined with other enjoyable outdoor activities, such as hiking, camping, and
sight seeing.

Shooting is a relatively inexpensive activity which the entire family can enjoy. With close
supervision, children can be taught to shoot. Learning how to shoot safely means learning
about responsibility, and the time spent teaching a child to shoot is quality time. When a
child is ready, they may be allowed to shoot with less supervision. When this time comes,
the child knows they have earned their parent’s trust and they gain a sense of
self-confidence. Sharing a hobby like shooting can bring a family closer together, teach
children responsibility, and promote trust between parents and children. This is definitely
good for society.

Throughout history violence has plagued the human race. Since ancient times the strong
have preyed on the weak and the meek. We have passed laws to protect society, but the
violence continues. Laws attempt to change human behavior, but laws are not able to
change human nature. Laws are not enough to protect people from aggression. We must
allow people the means to protect themselves. Protection is a major reason that about half
of all Americans own a firearm (Lester 30).

It is a fact that not all people are the same size or possess the same amount of strength.
Sometimes people must defend themselves from stronger aggressors, or sometimes from
multiple aggressors. This is especially true for women since they are, on average, smaller
than men. Also, older people are generally less able physically to defend themselves than
young adults are. Everyone deserves to be safe, but not everyone has the physical ability
to defend themselves. Firearms are the most effective tools used today for self-defense,
but they are only useful if they are available.

Statistics show that people who are attacked by a criminal are safer if they use a weapon
to resist their attacker than if they do not resist. In addition, those who resist with a gun
are less likely to be injured than those who use a less effective weapon, such as a knife
(Quigley 14). Resisting crime with a gun does not always mean shooting the criminal.
Statistics show that in true life instances of self-defense with firearms, firing the gun was
necessary only one third to one half of the time (13), the rest of the time the mere
presence of a gun was enough to scare away the attacker.

Guns are an effective deterrent to crime. A study involving convicted felons showed that
nearly 40 percent of them had decided against committing a specific crime because they
suspected their intended victim might be armed (14). In 1966 the Police Department in
Orlando, Florida, offered a well-publicized self-defense shooting program to women. As a
result, the rate of rape in that city decreased from thirty-six per year to only four. This
was accomplished without any of the women shooting anyone or even pulling a gun on
anyone. The publicity alone was enough to discourage potential rapists (15-17). Rape and
other violent crimes should not be tolerated in any society. It has been shown that firearms
are a deterrent to these crimes; therefore, firearms are beneficial to society.

The Brady Bill and the “Assault Weapon” ban in last year’s Crime Bill are examples of
bad legislation, but some good firearms-related legislation was also passed last year. The
Arizona Legislature recognized the benefits of firearms to our society and passed a law
which enables many Arizona residents to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
There are restrictions in place to ensure that only responsible citizens are issued a permit.
These restrictions cover age, criminal record, and mental competency. Applicants for this
permit must pass a sixteen-hour training course. In addition, the applicant must send a copy
of their fingerprints to the Department of Public Safety to be used to help them conduct a
background check (Korwin 150-151).

It is too early to determine the effectiveness of Arizona’s Concealed Carry Law, but
statistics show that a similar law passed in Florida in 1987 has been effective in reducing
crime. Between 1987 and 1992 murders involving handguns decreased 29 percent
(Francis). According to the National Rifle Association, the homicide rate is 31% lower, and
robbery rate is 36% lower in states with “favorable carry laws” compared to states with
“restrictive concealed carry laws” (NRA, “Fact Card”). Some people may fear that
citizens with concealed weapons are more likely to commit crimes, but statistics show that
only .007% of the concealed weapon permits issued in the state of Florida have had to be
revoked because of a crime committed by the permit holder (NRA, “Fact Card”). Laws
that reduce violent crime are good for society, and concealed carry laws have been shown
to reduce violent crime.

The Founding Fathers of our country won our freedom with firearms. After we won our
independence the Founding Fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in the
Constitution to ensure that the freedom they fought for would last. Throughout the history
of this country firearms have been used to defend that freedom from both foreign
aggressors and from violent criminal aggressors. Americans own and use firearms for
many reasons, such as; hunting, organized sports competitions, informal recreational uses,
and for protection. Some legislation has been passed recently which restricts our firearms
rights, and the shortcomings of these laws have been exposed. Fortunately, there has also
been good legislation passed, like Arizona’s Concealed Carry Law, which give residents of
this state a better chance to defend themselves against violent crime.

I recognize that criminals have misused firearms, often with tragic results, but I must point
out that a few individuals committed those crimes. We should punish the individuals who
commit these crimes, and we should imprison those who pose a threat to society so that
they do not have the opportunity to cause harm. Punishing law-abiding citizens by passing
restrictive gun laws is wrong. Guns are not the cause of this country’s crime problem.
Criminals are. Effective crime control legislation must control criminals, not guns.
Effective crime control legislation should provide more prisons to lock up these criminals,
and more police officers to deter crime and capture criminals. Effective crime control
legislation should give the law-abiding citizens of our country the means to defend
themselves. It should not restrict the rights of responsible citizens to own or carry
firearms. The best way to ensure good legislation is to elect good legislators, I believe this
is what happened last November 8.

Firearms can be dangerous in the wrong hands, that is why I believe firearms training is
important. The best training consists of parents passing on our firearms heritage, respect
for people and property, and some common sense safety rules to their children. For many
people this training will be enough. Formal firearms training courses, like Hunter Safety
Courses and the course required to obtain a concealed carry permit, are also very useful.
These courses reinforce the basic safety rules that everyone who handles firearms should
know. They also teach the legal requirements specific to hunting or self-defense,
depending on the course.

Society does benefit from firearms in the hands of responsible citizens. It is our
responsibility to use them properly and safely.

Works Cited

Arizona Hunter Education Manual. Seattle: Outdoor Empire Publishing, Inc., 1993.

“Armed Citizen.” American Rifleman October 1993: 8.

Francis, Samuel. “The Truth and Tripe About Concealed Weapon Carry Laws.” The
Mohave Valley Daily News. 16 March 1995: A4.

“Guns, Bias and the Evening News.” American Rifleman January/February 1995: 50-51.

Halbrook, Stephen. That Every Man be Armed. Albuquerque: University Of New Mexico
Press, 1984.

Korwin, Alan. The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide. Phoenix: Bloomfield Press, 1994.

Lester, David. Gun Control Issues and Answers. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas,
1984.

NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “NRA Firearms Fact Card – 1995.” Computer file
downloaded from GUN-TALK BBS.

—. “NRA Grassfire!.” Vol. 1, No. 4. April 1995: Computer file downloaded from
GUN-TALK BBS .

“Pentathlon.” Microsoft Bookshelf ’94. Computer Software. CD-ROM. Microsoft
Corporation, 1994. IBM PC.

Quigley, Paxton. Armed & Female. New York: St. Martins, 1989.

Rusiecki, Steve. Personal interview conducted 4 March 1995. 26 questions.

“Survival of the Armed: Hearing Reviews Gun Laws.” The Arizona Republic April 1,
1995: A4.

Thomas, Andrew Peyton. Crime and the Sacking of America: The Roots of Chaos.
Washington: Brassey’s, 1994.