The Entitlement of Self- Defense
Ciro Benites, Jake Brown, Ryan Haws, Emily McBride
Period 1
English 1010
The right to self-defense has always been something important to American
citizens. Due to recent events with the major shootings in Newtown, Connecticut and
Aurora, Colorado people are beginning to solidify their beliefs on guns, and fight for laws
on them. Whereas most people believe that government regulation on firearms protects
the people of the United States, it truly leaves them vulnerable and that is why there
should not be limits on firearms. The question is: does gun control protect the innocent,
or leave them vulnerable?
The liberal media seems to believe that regulation on firearms would lessen the
amounts of violent crime in the United States of America, but the cold hard reality is that
it will not. We will compare the United States to the United Kingdom to provide some
startling statistics. The United Kingdom has a complete ban on firearms, meaning that
nobody may own a gun in the UK. The United States is number one in the world for gun
ownership, 88 out of 100 people own guns. The United Kingdom places number one in
the world for violent crimes, (2,034 per 100 thousand people). The US doesn't even place
in the top ten for violent crimes in the world, (466 per 100 thousand people). The UK's
total crime rate is 10,872 per 100 thousand people, and the United States' total crime rate
is 3,959 per 100 thousand people. The United States ranks at 28 in the world for gun
murders. 2011 FBI Crime Statistics (http://fbi.gov).
The liberal media believes that banning firearms will prevent violent crimes and
mass shootings involving innocent men, women, and children? Based on the statistics
listed above, gun freedom is not the problem, firearm legislation and regulation is the
problem. By looking at the statistics, it seems as if we need more guns in the hands of
civilians.
Now we would like to discuss the issue of the mass shootings that have occurred
in the last year or so. If there had been an armed guard in Sandy Hook Elementary
School, Adam Lanza (the shooter), would have been dead long before he was able to kill
28 innocent children and adults. Had there been concealed weapon permit carriers in the
movie theater in Aurora Colorado, James Holmes' shooting spree would have been
brought to an abrupt halt before he had the chance to shoot 70 people, and kill 12 of
them. This is why we need less absurd legislation on firearms. Based on the shocking
statistics listed in previous paragraphs, guns are clearly not the issue, the issue is
government regulation on firearms.
The Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment that, “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.” Jeff Sourbeer (2013) stated, “When the Second
Amendment was written, ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well practiced’.” We believe in this
statement and that our rights should not be taken away. There should not be limitations
on the number of guns you can own, how many bullets are in a magazine, or stricter
background checks. These background checks would be pointless because in the major
shootings, nearly all of the perpetrators had no prior criminal record. Making guns
inaccessible to the law-abiding citizens would be irresponsible because it takes away the
means by which they would protect themselves. Now, let’s look at the issue of drugs.
Drugs are illegal, but how many people do we know who easily access drugs? The same
concept applies with guns—if criminals want them, then they will get them. Just because
there are laws in place doesn’t mean criminals are going to abide by them. When we
restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, we are not keeping them from the hands
of criminals, but we are leaving the innocent vulnerable. This is clearly represented in
this cartoon. Criminals will get
what they want, and the
innocent will further suffer
unless our Second Amendment
right is protected. Magazines
should not be limited because
the shooter is likely to have
multiple guns and wouldn’t
need to swap magazines (Gun Control and the Constitution). In an interview with Dave,
who works at Sportsman’s Warehouse, we asked him multiple questions on his opinions
on guns, and how their business is affected. Dave said that he was not allowed to share
his opinion, but that they were obviously firm supporters of the Second Amendment and
their guns are for hunting more than anything. The recent legislation proposals have
affected their sales by boosting the magazine and assault weapons sales. He also
informed us, that there are already restrictions on gun shows in Utah, so that legislation
does not affect Utah too much. Sourbeer said:
“Further, we should understand that the Second Amendment does not confer a
right to bear arms; that right is pre-existent. The Second Amendment forbids
government from abridging that right. This is a subtle but very important
difference.”
When a person is stabbed, people do not cry out that we need to ban knives. So
then, why should guns be outlawed? A gun does not just shoot someone because it wants
to, or at its own liberty. There has to be someone pulling the trigger. This diagram
addresses this plain fact quite
simply. When someone is
beat, strangles, or stabbed, it
is sad and wrong, but nothing
is made to rid the public of
the weapon. In those cases,
the perpetrator was acting on
his own, but in issues with
guns, the gun is the issue. If
there were citizens carrying guns of their own, for protection, there wouldn’t be mass
killings, there would be means to fight back.
We believe that guns are an American privilege that was placed upon on us
hundreds of years ago. Current bills that are trying to be passed would take that away
from us. Obama is currently pushing for gun control. With the past tragedies happening,
he has put up a case on why guns should be controlled. The change should occur with no
bills going against our Second Amendment. Although it is sad that he past things have
been happening, it is not because of the guns. It is the people who use the guns that are
behind the crime. Guns should not be regulated or outlawed. The Second Amendment is
our given right from the people, and we need to protect it.
In 1996, there was a mass shooting in Australia. After the tragic event, Australia
enacted a law that restricted firearms. The restriction included a ban on semi-automatic
weapons, a mandatory gun buyback, and strict limits on who could own a firearm. (Steve
Chapman) The law being put into place did bring the homicide rate down, but research
suggests that it was already down before 1996. “There is little evidence to suggest that it
had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicide,” (Steve Chapman) Which
would suggest that the mass shooting had no effect on the mortality rate. And although
there have been no mass shooting since then, there has still been homicides.
Carolyn McCarthy, a representative in New York’s fourth congressional district,
put her foot down after the Arizona shooting in 2011. She made it clear that legislation on
stricter gun control had to be made. Being the fiercest gun control advocate in congress,
she released a bill to outlaw higher gun magazines. I can’t but help notice that she’s
adding another bill that may or may not get passed to become another gun control law
among the 20,000 others that already exist. In an article by George Skelton, he states that
in California, gun rights advocates “talked past each other” (Skelton, 2013) arguing on
how they could make everybody safer from firearms. As the committee hearing
presumed, citizens lined up and voiced their opinions saying that “Gun control laws are
unconstitutional because of the second amendment. And those laws don’t stop gun
violence; they only harass innocent law-abiding citizens.”(Skelton, 2013). The committee
ended up approving five bills that would tighten the already existent gun control laws.
One example included the ban of magazines holding more than ten rounds. Passing these
bills are going to anger the citizens even more causing what I call a never ending debate.
To add on to that never ending debate I read another article written by Ed O’Keefe and
Tom Hamburger which discussed concealed-carry permits ending the gun bill. They
mentioned that gun lobbyists and legislators have made talk about adding a poison pill,
which would put state permit holders going to other states in a national database by law
enforcement. Gun rights activists strongly oppose this. Subsequently that wouldn’t be the
case if back in 2009 when the NRA preferred a proposal to grant individuals who have a
permit the right to transfer their rights to another state (Keefe, Hamburger, 2013). In
summary this whole legislation is an obscene havoc that I would have to describe as an
unresolved problem that will only persist unless we can come up with a solution that
favors both sides of the debate. Something that I have come across as a solution to the
gun control debate is to treat and don’t give guns to people with mental illnesses. It’s
simple and most people don’t realize it but mental illness is what has caused all of the
major shootings throughout the year. The saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill
people” is as realistic as it gets. A gun is a mere tool that when picked up by a person can
be used in any way the person desires. We need to focus on what drives these people to
have that desire to pick up a gun and kill people. If somebody wants to go on a mass
killing and they notice that they can’t obtain a gun illegally, which is very possible, they
will simply move on to the next weapon. You might say,” but that’s very unlikely for
somebody to go on a killing spree with a mere knife”. But the evidence is there; in china
a man did just that and went on a killing spree in an elementary school. He obviously
moved on to the next weapon because he was unable to obtain a gun. Now as you can see
that’s why we should stop focusing solely on guns. We need to focus on the people who
hold the guns when these shootings occur. I’ve noticed that mental illness is a subject
that receives little public attention. We see it as an uncomfortable subject to address. Out
of fear and embarrassment many people who struggle with mental illnesses refuse to get
help. Families of those with mental illnesses struggle to get help for those who need it for
those exact reasons. Isn’t it obvious? We need to address the subject more. Make these
people feel comfortable about addressing the issue and talking to somebody about it.
They need to know that there not the only ones struggling with the illnesses that
overwhelms their entire life. Schools programs, addressing the issue through the media,
and simply recognizing the fault that you’re at could all help ease the problem. In short
we have come to a conclusion through evidence that both the Sandy Hook and the Aurora
Colorado incidents involved a shooter with a mental illness. It’s easy to notice that this is
becoming a trend. We need to target mental illnesses as the source to counter these mass
shootings, not the guns, the people.
Firearm control is controversial, there is no denying. Both sides can offer strong
reasons to their cases. Both sides have notable figures backing each side as well. It is true
that the recent happenings are sad and unfair. The Aurora shooting and the Newtown
shooting for a quick nod, are indeed tragic. And yes, firearms were used in the crimes.
But this does not necessarily qualify for abandoning guns for the American people.
Again, gun control is controversial, so obviously there will be two sides for that
statement.
President Barack Obama has been pushing for a law that would control the
American guns. “We’ve cried enough,” (Tom Cohen, CNN) was stated by Obama on his
speech of what happened in Newton. “and it is now time for Americans to pressure their
elected leaders to pass a package of laws proposed by Senate Democrats.” (Tom Cohen,
CNN) Obama announced his speech, somber and angry. Family members of Newton
victims sat and listened, along with America. He then goes on to say “Shame on us, if
Newton doesn’t bring new gun laws.”
While President Obama may have a point, many points are missing. Taking away
guns from everyone for what a few have done is mass punishment. The majority of
people who abide by the current gun laws outweigh the few. (Elizabeth Flock, US News)
What is widely ignored a lot of the time is the fact that Adam Lanza was possibly
mentally ill. He was described and nervous, fidgety and was believed to have a
personality disorder. (Elizabeth Flock, US News) So perhaps those mentally ill should be
put on regulations on whether to own a firearm or not. Those with a past of suggestive
actions that could maybe spark a tragedy like Sandy Hook Elementary, can be prevented
with proper preparations.
Some states have already taken action for mental illness eligibility on purchasing
weapons. In California, if a person is placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold in a facility,
then that person cannot purchase firearms for five years after they were admitted.
(Elizabeth Flock, US News) In Georgia and Mississippi, guns rights are restricted not
only for those involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, but also for people who
brought themselves to the hospital. (Elizabeth Flock, US News) These laws have been a
positive for the most part, with little complaint and good progress.
Background checks are another being argued for change. Some may argue that
background checks will nullify certain aspects of control, while others say it will only do
good for Americans. According to Joe Klein, a celebrated Time journalist, background
checks does not address the presence of semi-assault rifles and 30-bullet magazines. (Joe
Klein, Time) He says that if background checks were passed, it would not be a major
victory, but a significant defeat, because it does not address the earlier stated problem.
Joe Klein also suggests that maybe the tragedies start at a much earlier stage than
the time of the massacre or shooting. He says that parents need to do a better job in
teaching their children on weapons, and see the early signs for a potentially violent child.
“...Where the testimony of parents, teachers and doctors has a greater impact on the
control of these extremely dangerous people than it now does.” (Joe Klein, Time)
Perhaps parents and early role models can provide a more stable foundation for children,
and maybe preventing the horrors of what we have experienced.
Now, for the next thing, implementing change to the public. Parents do not have
to be the only ones educating their children with gun safety tips, but educational institutes
as well. The youth in schools can be taught on gun safety, signs of mental illness, and on
warning signs. Courses can be put on subject for people who want to learn more, mainly
adults. High schools can place new courses for the teenagers who attend. Some courses
may even allow some gun use, and the proper way of using one.
Educating the public would be no easy feat. People are sided with one side,
talking about other things, and vying for change in other areas. Bringing everyone under
one cloud, and educating on things that are needed is difficult. Universities can be a huge
help in this, sponsoring certain clubs and awareness committees along the way.
Advertisements can even be used, sponsors for big names can even be brought into the
mixture. But off course, seeking a deal with a big name when it comes to politics isn’t
always the easiest thing. Change will come, either way, responding to the change will be
key for the outcome.
References:
http://netrightdaily.com/2013/01/gun-control-for-dummies/
www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324581504587231851175409218.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578290460073953432.html
http://www.texasconservativenews.com/category/political-cartoons
Skelton, G. (April 21, 3013). Chasm divides gun control and gun rights advocates.
Capitol Journal. Retrieved, from http://www.latimes.com/news
O’Keefe, E., Hamburger, T. (April 12, 2013). Could national reciprocity of concealedcarry permits kill the gun bill. Washington Post. Retrieved, from
http://www.washingpost.com/politics
http://fbi.gov
http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/15/gun-control-what-really-matters/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/03/-gun-control-debate-clouds-defintionof-mentally-ill?page=3
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/politics/obama-guns