Running Head: GUN CONTROL
The Entitlement of Self-Defense
Ciro Benites, Emily McBride, Jake Brown, Ryan Haws
Period 1
English 1010
GUN CONTROL
2
The Entitlement of Self-Defense
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."California Senator Dianne Feinstein. 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, eighty-eight 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 paragraph above, gun
freedom is not the problem, firearm legislation and regulation is the problem. By looking at the
GUN CONTROL
3
statistics, it seems as if we need more guns in the hands of civilians, as opposed to the
disarmament of the law-abiding-citizen.
The liberal media also professes that banning firearms will prevent violent crimes and
mass shootings involving innocent men, women, and children. This directly contrasts with the
statistics listed above which clearly illustrates the fact that gun freedom is not the issue, firearm
legislation is clearly the issue with society today. There is a gulf between those Americans who
view guns as invaluable tools for self-defense, both against private wrongdoers and a potentially
tyrannical government and those who regard that statement as hopelessly archaic and even
subversive. (Rivkin and Grossman, Gun control and the Constitution, 2013, pg. 1).
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 United States citizens 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
GUN CONTROL
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:
4
GUN CONTROL
5
“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 beaten,
strangled, 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. The Obama
administration 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
GUN CONTROL
6
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. (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 effect on firearm
homicides or suicide,” (Chapman) Which would suggest that the mass shooting had no effect on
the mortality rate. Although there have been no mass shootings 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
GUN CONTROL
7
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 as a society need to focus
on the people who hold the guns when these shootings occur. We as a group have 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
GUN CONTROL
8
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 psychology
associated with firearm abuse. We also need to help people feel comfortable about addressing
the issue and discussing it with somebody. They need to know that they're not the only ones
struggling with the illnesses that overwhelm their entire life. Addressing the psychology behind
taking a stand on a controversial subject could 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, as opposed to the
guns.
Firearm control is controversial, there is no denying. Both sides can offer strong
arguments in regard to their cases. Both sides have notable figures backing each side as well. It is
true that the recent happenings are sad and tragic. The Aurora shooting and the Newtown
shooting for a quick nod, are indeed tragic. Firearms may have been used in the crimes, but this
does not necessarily mean the gun was at fault, the individual in possession of the firearm was at
fault. 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,” (Cohen, CNN) was stated by Obama on his speech of what
happened in Newtown. "It is now time for Americans to pressure their elected leaders to pass a
package of laws proposed by Senate Democrats.” (Cohen, CNN) Obama announced his speech,
somber and angry. Family members of Newtown victims sat and listened, along with America.
He then goes on to say “Shame on us, if Newtown doesn’t bring new gun laws.”
GUN CONTROL
9
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. 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 (Skelton, 2013 p. 2).
In an article by George Skelton, he states that in California, gun rights advocates “talked past
each other” (Skelton, 2013, p.1) arguing about how they could make everybody safer from
firearms. As the committee hearing resumed, citizens lined up and voiced their opinions saying
that “Gun control laws are unconstitutional because of the Second Amendment. Also those laws
don’t stop gun violence; they only harass innocent law-abiding citizens,”(Skelton, 2013, p.1).
The committee ended up approving five bills that would tighten the already existing gun control
laws. One example included the ban of magazines holding more than ten rounds. Passing these
bills will anger the citizens even more causing an endless debate. To add on to that endless
debate, another article written by Ed O’Keefe and Tom Hamburger, 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. 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 (O'Keefe, Hamburger, 2013).
In summary, this whole legislation is an obscene havoc that would best be described as an
unresolved problem that will only persist unless somebody can come up with a solution that
favors both sides of the debate. A plausible solution to the gun control debate is to target mental
illness. It’s simple and most people don’t realize it but mental illness is what has caused all of the
GUN CONTROL
10
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. It’d only be logical to figure out what drives these people to have the desire to
pick up a gun and kill others. 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.
People for gun control 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 at an elementary school. He obviously moved on to the next weapon because he was
unable to obtain a gun (Skelton, 2013). Guns shouldn’t be the primary focus. Focus needs to be
put 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. As a nation it’s an uncomfortable subject to
address. Out of fear and embarrassment many people who struggle with mental illnesses refuse
to get help. The families of those with mental illnesses struggle to get help for those who need it
for those exact reasons. Isn’t it obvious? The subject needs to be addressed. Making these people
feel comfortable about addressing the issue and talking to somebody about it. They need to know
that they’re not the only ones struggling with these types of illnesses.
If the issue isn’t addressed there will be a guaranteed increase in mass shootings. Schools
programs, addressing the issue through the media, and simply recognizing the fault that you’re at
could all help ease the problem. Funding millions of dollars towards ad campaigns in all types of
media will help get the word out. Doing something similar to what Michelle Obama did in her
healthy eating campaign is what needs to be done. To emphasize on what’s required for an
effective solution, a spokesperson is needed, ads need to be funded, and schools need programs
implemented in order to help our society recognize the problem, the government needs to fund
GUN CONTROL
11
our money somewhere where it will count. 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. Addressing the issue as much as
possible, even if it’s going to cost us, is the only way to get the word out. The target the
American people need to focus on is mental illnesses. Not the guns, the people.
While President Obama may have a point, many points are missing. Taking away guns
from everyone for what a few have done is corporal punishment. The majority of people who
abide by the current gun laws outweigh the few. (Flock, US News 2013) What is widely ignored
is the fact that Adam Lanza was possibly mentally ill. He was described as nervous, fidgety and
was believed to have a personality disorder. (Flock, US News 2013) Those with a past of
suggestive actions that could spark a tragedy like the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, can be
prevented with proper preparations.
Some states have already taken action for mental illness eligibility regarding the
purchase of 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. (Flock,
US News 2013) 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. (Flock, US News 2013) These laws have been a positive for the most part, with
little complaint and good progress.
Background checks are another subject 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 do not
address the presence of semi-assault rifles and 30 round magazines. (Joe Klein, Time 2013) He
GUN CONTROL
12
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 2013) 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 subject, 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. We
need to teach children how to think, instead of what to think. The youth in schools can be taught
on gun safety, and on warning signs of mental illness. 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 permit, and encourage proper gun use.
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. Encouraging people to challenge rules, and think
for themselves would be the most beneficial thing for the citizens of this great nation.
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
GUN CONTROL
outcome.
13
GUN CONTROL
14
References
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 concealed-carry
permits kill the gun bill. Washington Post. Retrieved, from
http://www.washingpost.com/politics
FBI Crime Statistics http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-theu.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Bolton, J. & Yoo, J. (April 14, 2013). Obama’s united nations backdoor to gun control. The Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved, from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324504704578413110123095782.html
Cohen, T. (March 28, 2013). Obama: ‘Shame on us’ if Newton doesn’t bring new gun laws.
CNN. Retrieved, from http://cnn.com/2013/03/28/politics/obama-guns/
Chapman, S. (January 18, 2013). Australia’s gun control: Success or failure? Chicago Tribune.
Retrieved, from http://www.articles.chiacagotribune.com/2013-01-18/news/chi-the-faaustralia-20130118_1_
Flock, E. (April 04, 2013). Gun control debate clouds definition of mentally ill. US News.
Retrieved, from http://usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/03/-gun-control-debate-cloudsdefintion-of-mentally-ill?page=3
Klein, J. (April 15, 2013). Gun control: What really matters. Time Magazine. Retrieved, from
http://www.swampland.time.com/2013/04/15/gun-control-what-really-matters/
GUN CONTROL
Zakaria, F. (December 19, 2012). The solution to gun control is clear. The Washington Post.
Retrieved, from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-1219/opinions/35929057_1_gun-violence-gun-ownership-tough-gun-laws
Rivkin, D, and Grossman, A, (February 11, 2013). Gun control and the Constitution.
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://pioneer.uen.org/SIRS-issue-researcher
15