I thought all you happy people would SO love to see my recent issue paper on Gun Control...well, here it is.
Gun Control
Proposition
America's Founding Fathers understood the critcal importance of the right to keep and bear arms. Today, however, varying forces are attempting to eliminate this constitutional right. As a matter of constitutionalism and common sense, average law abiding citizens should be guaranteed their right to own firearms, but the government should have the right to require that they pass safety training.
There are mountains of evidence and reasons to oppose gun control--for starters, our founding fathers thought it right. Because the law is a means by which government discourages and punishes law breakers and, since human nature hasn't changed for the more than two-hundred years since our country was founded, we can reasonably conclude that the second amendment applies no more firmly and truly now than it did then.
On the other hand, there have been studies that prove that guns in any hands when a crime is committed increase the chance of injury from a gun. While these studies can hardly be refuted, one can argue that it makes total sense and, in the end, is one of the worse reasons to advocate gun control. Quite simply, guns are dangerous. Wherever they are, greater danger is.
However, it has been proven in studies that not only do citizens with guns use them more frequently, but they use them more effectively and safely--than police! While about eleven percent of police shootings kill an innocent person, about two percent of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. (1) By this reasoning, one would have a good reason not to increase the police force, but to allow greater freedom with guns, while still ensuring that guns bought legally don't get into the wrong hands.
Another common statement is that guns simply cause violence. However, according to FBI Uniform Crime Reports from 1991, states with loose gun control laws, such as Maine, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Montana, the homicide rates are below three, compared to Washington DC, which has the strictest gun control laws of almost anywhere, where the rate was over 80, a rate of more than five times any other area in the entire country. (2)
Furthermore, proponents of gun control would have us believe that a homeowner is more likely--by a huge margin, 43 times--to kill a family member or be killed by a family member than they are to kill an intruder. (3) First, only one in a thousand defensive gun usages result in the intruder's death. Second, the originator of this fallacy, Dr. Kellerman himself, downgraded the rate to a tiny 2.7 times. (4) Third, Dr. Kellerman uses science in a way that could easily affirm that diet coke is the sole cause of obesity, merely because diet coke is consumed, more than frequently, by people who are obese. The connection between cause and effect has been broken, to say the least.
Dr. Kellerman's research and reputation would be further diminished, I think, if one were to hear this; that, when interviewed, Kellerman affirmed that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a handgun for protection. While this could be seen as common sense, to anyone, Dr. Kellerman has distorted his research to such a degree that one would think he believed what he said. (5)
Some even propose that second amendment rights should be absolute, allowing, therefore, citizen ownership of anything from a hand pistol to a fully capable and loaded tank, to nuclear weapons. We can safely assume, I think, that the founders would have at least put heavier restrictions on weapons of such great size or power, a cannon being a reasonable example.
While the second amendment isn't absolute, it is no less applicable today than it was in 1776. We have numerous examples of people being gunned down by people who should never have had guns--Columbine, Virginia Tech--these are merely the most memorable examples of the effects of strict gun control. Without these laws, teachers, perhaps even college students would have guns, and could have ended these massacres before they began. The way it is now, one might be fined or incarcerated merely for doing so, depending on the state.
Currently, Minnesota allows possession of handguns, shotguns, and rifles. In the case of regular handguns, one must have a permit to purchase it, as well as a permit to carry it, concealed only, in public. Shotguns and rifles, on the other hand, do not require a permit to purchase, nor a permit to carry in public. To carry a concealed handgun, one must be 21, and have obtained a permit from a sheriff.
[ 1 ] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. ||| Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall Issue¾: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994.
[ 3 ] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home.¾ N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.
[ 4 ] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.¾ N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91..
[ 5 ] Japenga A. "Gun Crazy.¾ San Francisco Examiner. This World supplement. April 3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11.
[ 6 ] NRA/ILA Firearm Laws for Minnesota (as of July 2005) A synopsis of State Laws on Purchase, Possession, and Carrying of Firearms.
YES, I know there's an extra footnote. I was tired, ok?
!Noah!
1 comment:
Augh! -than police *do*! **die** :D
Post a Comment