A Constitutional Right?Essay Preview: A Constitutional Right?Report this essayA constitutional Right?Carl T Bogus, the author of a 1992 article, ” The Strong Case for Gun Control”, explains to the reader of the importance and relevance of tougher and more strict gun control laws in local governments today. Bogus begins by telling of the recent rise in school shootings and violent crimes in the united states. He explains that in 1998, more than four thousand children were killed by guns, and it took a string of school related shootings to bring that fact to the attention of the public. 34 thousand people were killed in total, and over sixty thousand were held at gunpoint. In order to explain and prove his theories, Bogus goes on to compare two cities with similar crime rates, economies, nationalities, and entertainment values, but very different ways on controlling guns. Seattle Washington , and Vancouver British Columbia are only 140 mile apart, but they both have different views on how to control the way guns are used in there city. Seattle requires only a five day waiting period to purchase a hand gun, while Vancouver requires a permit and a VALID excuse to own a handgun. Due to the difference in laws, 41 percent of all Seattles population own handguns, while only 12 percent of Vancouvers population own handguns. It isnt hard to see that it would be harder for anybody who shouldnt have a weapon to stumble across a handgun in Vancouver than in Seattle.
Bogus then goes on to explain a new law taken into effect in the District of Colombia not too long ago. Residents who currently lived in D.C. would have sixty days
to register there handguns, and after the time period was up, newly acquired handguns became illegal. But, rifles and shotguns could still be purchased and owned after the time period ran out. The result of the new law came out with results that surprised a lot of people. There was a 25 percent drop in gun related homicides and a 23 percent drop in gun related suicides. While D.C. experienced such a significant drop in gun related crimes, surrounding cities experienced no significant change in their rates. Just another reason to believe that even local gun laws can lead to safer cities and homes.
Daniel D. Polsby, the author of the article, ” The False Promise of Gun Control” Focuses on how tougher gun control laws make it harder for regular people to defend themselves, and easier for criminals to get what they want. First, Polsby explains how a criminal would be less likely to go after a victim who carries a gun than a victim who carries nothing. Its obvious that a criminal would choose the easier fight with a helpless person over someone who has an equal chance of winning the fight. Look at police officers. Police officers typically do not get shot at, due in part by the fact that they carry handguns. Most police officers never shoot there handguns (except for target practice). Yet due to the fact that they have them, it makes them a worse target for a criminal.
It turns out that Polsby has a point, i.e. he thinks that criminals can commit almost anything they want to. He is right. But there are other reasons why I found him correct.
1> If a woman wants to kill her husband, it won’t end in murder.
The only thing you have to do in order to stop the murder of a woman by someone who will kill you, is to give up your rights in a public place and force a peaceful transition to life of violence. “People think I’m gonna fight you because of how I feel about drugs. I am. I don’t fight drugs. I don’t want life in here. I don’t want people to murder me because of the law. People are trying to stop it. I don’t want to die. If they do it, I have to say so myself. But let’s get real.
2> In my opinion most of us are capable of being very selfish about a small number of things (at least when it comes to things like whether or not we should try to take more drugs).
Most people can never be this way because they are too afraid to talk or think because their friends or family or any other intimate relationships they have could end that way. One of the biggest problems people have with this is that they don’t want a lot of control. The idea is that you can’t make them feel as threatened because they are too cowardly to speak or not be careful about their lives. However they will often end up in a situation where a simple, unthought-of action like that of trying to kill them or stealing can put them into a much more serious situation. As a result most people who are aware of the situation can easily take on even those things that are really not what they want. Not even people who may not want to be afraid of getting away with murder can be in a very dire situation.
3> Many people may simply not know.
If someone would tell you a secret that you didn’t know about, what would you tell them right away? People tend to think that this is going to be a good thing for them in a way that others will find it helpful to be afraid to tell you, but they are very often wrong. That way the person may know who you are and maybe you will protect them from what you can tell them. The good news is that most people don’t. It is true that your life might not be going to be the best if you don’t speak out. However, when you do speak to people about it (at least you can tell them), they don’t really think you aren’t having a bad time. It takes a lot more than that to convince them that you aren’t doing it badly and that there are people out there who are not really hurting you. And that’s okay with me because I think if you try to control what they say, they don’t think you can’t do that. But it probably wouldn’t work if they
So if owning a handgun means you are in power, then a handgun should be the item a criminal would want most. After all, if you are in power, people do what you want them to do. Polsby goes on to explain how criminals would be more interested in these items of power than the average person and would tend to pay more for it too. So if congress wants to pass laws that make it harder and more expensive to purchase
handguns, it could have a converse effect. The rising cost to own a gun would deter a regular person from buying one while the criminal still wants that item of power, at no matter what price. Thus decreasing the percent of law abiding citizens who own hand guns and increasing the amount of hand guns that get into the hands of criminals. Making it easier for criminals to do those acts on citizens who dont have protection anymore due to its high price. Its a vicious circle that isnt working in favor of the average US citizen. Says Polsby.
Polsby also states that the stock of privately owned hand guns in the united states has risen drastically since the 60s. and if the amount of handguns has risen, shouldnt the rate of spousal homicide rise along with it? Well it hasnt. In fact, from the years of 1976 to 1985 the rate actually fell. And the years after 1985 the number of privately owned handguns has risen by almost a million, yet the rate of spousal homicide has pretty much stayed the same.
As much as I hate to admit it, Bogus does make a number of good points throughout his argument. Local gun laws can effect and help