Gun Control

By   |  April 1, 2009

Do Americans have the right “to keep and bear arms?” Or was that right intended to be restricted to “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State?” The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says both. But what does it really mean? The Supreme Court recently decided that question in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, stating:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I suspect that most constitutional experts and even most literate citizens kind of knew that. What’s more important is that both law and judicial precedent establish that restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are constitutional. That means gun control is a matter of public policy and law. The Court affirmed this in Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Now that the old, often circuitous argument over the Second Amendment is over, we can address the most pressing issue of gun control–handguns.

Handguns are primarily used to kill people, and the most common justification for private handgun ownership is home and personal protection. However, privately-owned handguns are far more likely to cause deaths by accident or felonious intent. They’re used in legitimate home and personal defense infrequently and often ineffectively.

The biggest problem with private ownership of handguns is that our society is now awash in them. For every handgun owned by a trained, safety-conscious, responsible citizen, there are hundreds in the hands of people who don’t know much about gun safety and couldn’t hit the side of a barn at 10 paces. And there are even more handguns in the possession of bad guys who use them to threaten and intentionally kill people.

Long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, are different. They’re used for hunting, serious target shooting, and home protection. And, of course, they’re sometimes used to kill people.

Currently we have a hodge-podge of federal, state, and local laws regarding guns. While there may be very restrictive gun control laws in one state or city, all a person has to do is drive to a more permissive jurisdiction, buy his weapons of choice, and drive home. Clearly, federal law is the only effective means of gun control.

It’s troubling to think of Harvey the plumber walking around the supermarket with a Beretta strapped to his side, but that’s happening in some U.S. states these days. Soldiers and police officers who are well-trained sometimes have accidents with weapons; how can anyone think plumbers and account executives won’t have many more? And what if I accidentally drop a can of peas on Harvey’s foot and piss him off? With the Beretta, he could kill me in an instant of rage (assuming he can hit anything with it). Without the Beretta, he’d have to attack me with his hands or a stick or whatever, assuming he could catch me. After running about 15 yards, he would most likely be so exhausted he would have to stop, and that would at least give him a chance to think about what he was doing.

And the bad guy? Well, take away the handgun, and he’s not such a big man. (Come to think of it, maybe that applies to Harvey as well.) I guess he could try robbing a store or swaggering around the neighborhood with a shotgun or a baseball bat, but that would cramp his style and make him a lot more obvious.

I think all handguns should be outlawed, except for law enforcement officers and a very small number of trained, vetted, and licensed people who have a legitimate need. Anyone else caught possessing or illegally buying, selling, or distributing handguns would be guilty of a felony and subject to mandatory jail time. If this prevents some men from strapping their manhood on their belts or inconveniences a few legitimate target shooters, so be it.

Would outlawing handguns run afoul of the Court’s recent ruling on the Second Amendment? Perhaps, but it’s worth litigating again. If private possession of fully-automatic weapons, assault rifles, sawed-off shotguns, mortars, and howitzers can be outlawed, why not handguns? They would be just one more in a long list of especially dangerous weapons that have been prohibited.

I think reasonable long guns should be permitted for private citizens, with licensing and restrictions. “Reasonable” at the very least means no automatic weapons (more than one round per trigger pull), minimum barrel lengths, etc.

Maybe this would mean that for a while only the bad guys would have guns. That wouldn’t be much different from today, and with serious enforcement of the laws, bad guys could eventually be disarmed. Then maybe we could emerge from the wild west and join the rest of the world.

Note: For the record, I have nothing against guys named Harvey, plumbers, or account executives.

(This article was also posted at Opinion Forum.)

Comments? Leave your intelligent feedback down below or consider following CollegeTimes on Facebook or Twitter to stay updated or to get in touch!

Share This Story:

Page ID #1418  -  Last updated on
Tags:  

Please scroll down to leave a comment.

12 Comments on “Gun Control”  (RSS)

  1. Nice post about Gun Control – CollegeTimes™. I am very impressed with the time and effort you have put into writing this story. I will give you a link on my social media blog. All the best!

  2. Tom,
    Your argument is factually inaccurate. You state;
    “They’re used in legitimate home and personal defense infrequently and often ineffectively.”

    Did you research this point?

    In Washington DC, the handgun ban did NOT reduce gun crimes. The DC gun ban started in early 1977, but the DC murder rate rose relative to other cities. For the 29 years after the ban, D.C.’s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. For another four years, it ranked fourth. Can you explain why DC banned guns and then had the 1st or 2nd highest murder rate during the ban? Logically, we must conclude that a gun ban is ineffective in curbing gun crime. Probably because criminals ignore the gun ban and still get guns.

    John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, “Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. … While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that’s precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes.”
    Source: “More Guns, Less Violent Crime”, Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column)

  3. The problem is, you will never get guns out of the hands of criminals.

    Gun control is an emotional, not logical, response.

  4. Whoops, nutther = nutter, sorry. =)

  5. To cosmo RO OHIO, you are the reason why I wrote my original comment.
    By the way, I’m not armed, I live in England, whenever you decide to visit give us a shout, knock on my door and try to rob me one on one, unless you’re a chicken s**t and need to hide behind your gun.
    Anyone missing a caveman?
    P.S. cosmo, unless your a militia nutther, no the government is not out to get you. =)
    Tom Carter says: cosmo RO OHIO: You need to get back on your meds, buddy.
    LOL =)

  6. cosmo RO OHIO: You need to get back on your meds, buddy.

  7. so many retards living in this world. how can you not see that every government tries to fence you up and take ur freedom, how can you say that second amendment was meant for old time. if anyone knows you have no protection they might as well rob you. if they dont i will. so you better have that damn shot gun. Someone who wants to kill you wont go to get a legal gun for that matter, anyone can get a gun of the street, black market. we need to be ready for everything. the police will never be there to guard you. dont you see how limited everyone is. no more intellectuals around like it used to be. Too many people think they know a lot but they forget to even get informed and they just talk without making sure they say the right thing. WEAPONS FOR ALL

  8. the problem is now that to many people have handguns. what we need is stiffer penalties for the people who buy handguns and don’t handle them responsibly. if harvey the plumber thought he might spend the rest of his life in prison for using that weapon he might think twice. or if mr. wall street knew he would get the same if his four year old daughter accidentally blew her head off he might make sure it stays out of her reach. but thats all after the fact, lets think about before any of that happens. why nor require people to under go training before they are allowed to buy the gun in the first place. it’s the same thing with drunk drivers. you get behind the wheel drunk and kill someone then you get charged with premeditated murder instead of involuntary man slaughter. that would hopefully give an incentive not to drive drunk.

  9. That’s weird, I only posted once and yet somehow it’s showing as posting the same thing twice 18 hours apart?
    To Tom, thanks for the thanks

  10. Thanks, SD. Opinion Forum is fairly new, and the other authors and I are trying hard to make it different and interesting. I’m glad you like it!

  11. I live in england so I can only see things from without, I know and understand that the right to bear arms is integral to the constitution, however this was written at a time when lawlessness and dealing with bandits, etc was a way of life in many areas, now though you have law enforcement who are trained to deal with the modern day variant. If you take a look at gun crimes, etc, a majority is caused by homeowners (domestics, alcohol, etc), I understand the view of those who say “but if I get rid of mine, the bad guys will still have theirs”, this is true, but if private weapons were removed from society, then the only ones who have them outside of law enforcement are by definition criminals, the criminal then can be prosecuted and any and all illegal guns found can be destroyed. Your problem is the fear of the average citizen who believes that he can only be safe, protect family, be a man, with a gun in his hand(and lets face it a lot of the guns bought for “home protection” are ridiculous). A way to look at overcoming this is to educate the public with the facts, guns in untrained hands and often within the reach of children are dangerous, learning defensive techniques(pehaps free or cheap defence centres) will help confidence, proper home, car, etc security systems, procedures will also be of use. I myself have come face to face with armed thugs and yes I was frightened but I still managed to come out intact and amazingly with all my valuables, I was fortunate I admit, but I would rather have handed over my cash than get involved in a gun battle where either I or the thug could have ended up killing an innocent person(many innocent children, etc have been killed in similar circumstances). I have been trained in the use of firearms, but I weould never have one where the untrained, the foolish and children can get them, and any intelligent person who has been trained properly thinks the same. Unfortunately the mythical glamour of the wild west, etc, has in a sense indoctrinated many to the concept that firearms are good, so I highly doubt that the american public will part with their weapons anytime soon.
    BTW I love your blog!

  12. I live in england so I can only see things from without, I know and understand that the right to bear arms is integral to the constitution, however this was written at a time when lawlessness and dealing with bandits, etc was a way of life in many areas, now though you have law enforcement who are trained to deal with the modern day variant. If you take a look at gun crimes, etc, a majority is caused by homeowners (domestics, alcohol, etc), I understand the view of those who say “but if I get rid of mine, the bad guys will still have theirs”, this is true, but if private weapons were removed from society, then the only ones who have them outside of law enforcement are by definition criminals, the criminal then can be prosecuted and any and all illegal guns found can be destroyed. Your problem is the fear of the average citizen who believes that he can only be safe, protect family, be a man, with a gun in his hand(and lets face it a lot of the guns bought for “home protection” are ridiculous). A way to look at overcoming this is to educate the public with the facts, guns in untrained hands and often within the reach of children are dangerous, learning defensive techniques(pehaps free or cheap defence centres) will help confidence, proper home, car, etc security systems, procedures will also be of use. I myself have come face to face with armed thugs and yes I was frightened but I still managed to come out intact and amazingly with all my valuables, I was fortunate I admit, but I would rather have handed over my cash than get involved in a gun battle where either I or the thug could have ended up killing an innocent person(many innocent children, etc have been killed in similar circumstances). I have been trained in the use of firearms, but I weould never have one where the untrained, the foolish and children can get them, and any intelligent person who has been trained properly thinks the same. Unfortunately the mythical glamour of the wild west, etc, has in a sense indoctrinated many to the concept that firearms are good, so I highly doubt that the american public will part with their weapons anytime soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.*



You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*

2019 MBA Admissions Consulting

These days, college is expensive and not the best choice for everyone. But do you know which degree is still highly valuable? That's right, an MBA degree. If you study at a high quality MBA program in the United States, you can use that degree to improve your reputation and career ANYWHERE in the world, unlike law or medical degrees (or worthless degrees from diploma mills). Contact our experts to see if you're a good candidate for our top MBA programs... all our programs are accredited by AACSB! Official MBA partner of The Economist.

[contact-form-7 id='66877' title='Aringo Form']