Gun Control Reform
From the day the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, granting
U.S. citizens the right to carry firearms, the issue of gun control has been the subject of intense debate. The
Second Amendment 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 amendment was adopted for a number of
reasons, ranging from wanting to give U.S. residents the right to provide for their families by hunting with
firearms, to ensuring their right to defend their homes against invaders. [See Second Amendment]
The right to bear arms, however, has been fiercely debated over the course of U.S. history, as particularly
violent episodes have prompted calls by some segments of the population for stricter gun control. Those calls
grew louder in the days following January 8, 2011, when Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D, Arizona) and 19
other people were shot at a political gathering in Tucson, Arizona. Six people, including nine-year-old Christina
Taylor Green, were killed at the scene, while Giffords, who was shot in the head, was critically injured. The
alleged shooter, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, had apparently targeted Giffords, as evidenced by papers
seized at his home that referred to a plan to assassinate her.
Following the shooting in Tucson, there have been renewed calls for stricter regulation of gun ownership in the
U.S. and a revamping of existing gun laws. Indeed, a variety of legislation tightening restrictions on guns has
been introduced in the aftermath of the shooting. There have also been calls to reinstate a ban on assault
weapons, which had been in place from 1994 until its expiration in 2004.
Should gun control be regulated more strictly by the government? Are the relaxed gun policies of certain states
to blame for the ease with which troubled people can gain access to firearms? Could stricter gun laws really
prevent mass killings, or would those inclined to commit murder find a way to do so regardless?
Supporters of reforming gun control policies say that the current laws are too lax, allowing dangerous people to
acquire deadly weapons with little or no hindrance. Past gun control laws have been allowed to expire, they
note, thereby increasing the threat of gun violence. To those who suggest that allowing more people to carry
concealed weapons would make U.S. residents safer, gun control supporters point out that not even those who
were brought firearms to Giffords's appearance that January day were able to stop a determined gunman from
murdering and wounding so many people.
Critics of reforming gun control insist that the Second Amendment irrefutably protects their right to bear arms,
citing the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld that right, as a prime
example. In addition, critics note that reforming gun control laws would do nothing to stop mentally ill or
disturbed people from committing violent acts and, in fact, could hinder citizens' abilities to defend themselves
against such people. They point to lower crime rates in some states where residents are allowed to carry
concealed weapons as proof that gun violence is caused by more than just the possession of a firearm.
New Gun Control Steps Proposed in Wake of Tucson Shooting
The tragedy in Tucson has reignited the gun control debate. Observers say that, as a result of the expiration of
the Assault Weapons Ban, Jared Lee Loughner was legally able to carry a handgun capable of firing 33 rounds
without reloading during his shooting spree. Several pieces of legislation intended to address the ease of
obtaining firearms and ammunition have been proposed since the Tucson shooting.
On January 18, 2011, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D, New York) unveiled a bill that would outlaw highcapacity magazines (the cartridges in weapons that hold the ammunition). Her proposal would also forbid gun
owners from purchasing magazines made before the ban took effect, thus closing a loophole that existed in the
previous bill.
A week later, New Jersey Senators Frank Lautenberg (D) and Robert Menendez (D) introduced two pieces of
gun control legislation—one, called the Gun Show Background Check Act, that would require gun show
vendors to perform background checks on their customers, and another that would prevent individuals on
terrorist watch lists from buying guns or explosives. (From 2004 to 2010, according to the Government
Accountability Office, people on terrorist watch lists bought weapons or explosives 1,119 times.)
Representative Peter King (R, New York) has called for legislation that would outlaw carrying a firearm within
1,000 feet of a government official. That plan mirrors legislation that outlaws carrying a gun within 1,000 feet
of a school.
Conservative lawmakers, meanwhile, have argued in favor of legislation widening gun ownership. For example,
Representative Louis Gohmert (R, Texas) has stated that he is drafting a bill that will allow members of
Congress to carry weapons in Washington, D.C., which is currently illegal.
The Tucson shooting has also prompted scrutiny of Arizona's history of gun violence. An article published in
the Arizona Republic in late January 2011 reported that the state has the nation's seventh-highest rate of gun
deaths (including accidents and suicides) and the sixth-highest rate of gun-related murders. From 1999 to 2007,
Arizona reported more than 3,000 slayings involving guns, an average of six murders per 100,000 residents. In
total, including suicides, police shootings and accidental deaths, the number was closer to 16 per 100,000
residents, six more than the national average.
Arizona's gun laws are among the country's most lenient, allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons
almost anywhere in the state, including government buildings and inside the state capitol. "Essentially, there is
very little obstacle to purchasing a weapon in the state of Arizona," Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist James
Grimaldi told National Public Radio (NPR). "There are laws that require you, federally, to be at least 21 years
old to purchase a handgun. But basically state law permits anyone 21 and older to own a firearm and also, to
carry it concealed in the state. That's different than many other states, many of which have stricter gun laws."
As a result of its lenient gun regulation, Arizona has received the poorest rating from the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence. The group assigns points to states for every law or rule passed to regulate access to
firearms. In 2009, out of a possible 100 points, Arizona earned just two.
The issue of weapon sales at gun shows has also regained prominence recently. In January 2011, New York
City Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent a team of undercover agents to a gun show in Phoenix, Arizona. The
investigators, wielding hidden cameras, were able to purchase several high-capacity handguns from private
vendors just by presenting identification. In one instance, an investigator told the seller that he probably could
not pass a background check, a revelation that did not stop the sale from taking place. According to the
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, gun show sales such as that one account for 40% of the firearm purchases in
the U.S.
Gun Control Supporters Say Current Gun Laws Are Too Lax
Advocates of tighter gun control laws argue that Arizona's lax regulation played a major role in the Tucson
shooting. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who is currently in charge of that investigation, has said of the
current state of gun laws in Arizona, "I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state carry
weapons under any circumstances that they want, and that's almost where we are."
Many supporters of toughening gun control laws point to the excessive firepower of some weapons bought by
U.S. civilians, such as Loughner. If such weapons, with their high-capacity magazines, had been banned, gun
control supporters contend, the Tucson massacre would not have taken place. McCarthy, whose recently
proposed bill would reinstate the ban on the sale of magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition,
wrote in the letter accompanying the bill, "The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to
shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no reason that these devices should be
available to the general public."
Supporters of stricter gun legislation argue that gun advocates have become increasingly violent and dangerous.
They point out that, at a pro-gun rally held in Washington, D.C., on April 19, 2010, many of the speakers in
attendance made antigovernment remarks, calling for revolution and an uprising of the people in the name of
their constitutional rights. "There is now a segment within the gun rights community that is hostile to all
progressive interests and believes it has a right to use firearms to counter the results of our democratic process,"
Josh Horowitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, writes for the Huffington Post. "We
are likely to see more threats and violence if Conservative leaders do not stand up and state unequivocally that
such conduct draws its inspiration from Timothy McVeigh, not Thomas Jefferson."
In addition, gun control reform advocates dismiss the notion of an armed populace being able to defend
themselves or others. Timothy Egan, writing in the New York Times, points out that, during the shooting in
Tucson, some of those present were, indeed, carrying weapons, and yet no one was able to prevent the massacre
that ensued. In fact, Egan remarks, one of the men involved almost shot a bystander trying to disarm Loughner.
"It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed
killer," Egan wrote. "For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest
marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent
scrum."
Reform supporters also lament the extreme latitude in U.S. gun laws, pointing to the strict regulations in other
countries as examples the U.S. could follow. For example, in Great Britain, people convicted of a criminal
offense cannot own a gun, and the laws do not consider self-defense a valid reason for ownership. "The killings
in Tucson," writes Michael Kryzanek in the Patriot Ledger of Quincy, Massachusetts, "should spark a greater
commitment on the part of public officials to examine how other countries, other civilized countries, around the
world pass sane and reasonable gun laws."
Other gun control advocates note that new legislation should be required to regulate the sale of weapons at gun
shows. Bloomberg has said, "Congress should act now, but gun show operators shouldn't wait. They can do the
right thing today by making sure that every gun sale at their shows is subject to a background check."
Guns Not Responsible for Violence, Critics Say
Critics of reforming gun control argue that gun owners have a constitutional right to bear arms, as outlined by
the Second Amendment. They point out that in 2008, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme
Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms and to use a firearm for
lawful purposes, such as self-defense. The Court's ruling led to the lifting of a ban on handguns in Washington,
D.C., that had existed for 32 years. In an interview with the Washington Post, lawyer Alan Gura noted that there
had been "all sorts of predictions that there would be blood on the streets and carnage and all kinds of Wild
West stuff if people in the District of Columbia were allowed to legally own guns. Obviously, that has not come
to pass."
Critics argue that the government should not rush to implement more restrictive gun control measures in the
wake of the Tucson shooting. Indeed, they say, many legislators are playing on people's anxieties about the
seemingly irrational act of gun violence committed by one disturbed person to push through new regulations.
Representative Reid Ribble (R, Wisconsin) argues, "[T]here are those who, for political purposes, want to use
fear…to restrict what we do…if they can cause us to do that, then in fact they've been successful."
The shooting in Tucson, gun control opponents say, is the fault of the shooter, not the laws that allowed him to
arm himself. "What happened in Tucson was not a failure of gun-control laws," observed Lawrence Keane,
general counsel to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "This was a failure of the mental-health system."
Gun control critics insist that broadening gun ownership in the U.S. has actually decreased violent crime. A
2010 article published by the NRA and the ILA notes, "Forty states have Right-to-Carry, and 48 states prohibit
cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law. And, since 1991, the total violent crime rate has
declined over 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate has declined by half to a 45-year low."
Opponents of gun control also note that it is not realistic for the public to rely on law enforcement for its
protection. Representative Ron Paul (R, Texas) has remarked about the shooting in Tucson, "Eyewitness reports
indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere
all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves."
Opponents of gun control reform also protest the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, arguing that many
semiautomatic weapons, such as the M1 Garand, once popular with the U.S. Army and Marines, are used
recreationally. "These types of firearms, which are erroneously called assault weapons, are used by millions of
Americans for hunting, sporting and personal defense purposes," Steve Sanetti of the National Shooting Sports
Foundation told the Los Angeles Times.