Gun ControlEssay Preview: Gun ControlReport this essayGun ControlGun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America dont agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns arent very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.
Gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding people and it does nothing to stop criminals from buying illegal guns, who are unlikely to obey the law and register their guns at all. Most of the time the term gun control is improperly used. The definition of gun control is the government regulation of possession and use of firearms by private citizens. The government is using it as way to take our right to bear arms away from us.
(Kluin, pg 121, 1982)There are many reasons that people want to own a gun. One of the main reasons that people own a gun is protection for themselves and their family. In a survey given about guns, “self defense” was the main reason for owning a gun. Guns provide a great source of psychological reassurance even among citizens who are not particularly concerned about the fear of crime of being victimized. The right of self-defense and the right to use firearms for self-defense and the defense of your family is the foundation for rights written in the U.S. constitution.
(Long, pg 28, 1989)Why does the government make it harder for average citizens to protect themselves? Police cannot always protect everyone in the community. There are only about 500,000 police officers throughout the country, which means there is around 125,000 police officers on duty at any given time. Other than a bodyguard or a law enforcement officer at everyones side twenty-four hours a day, the most effective deterrent to a criminal attack is the criminals fear that the potential victim is armed and prepared to defend themselves. Courts have ruled that there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals, which means that police have no duty to protect the individual citizen.
It is not very likely of being attacked when somebody is armed. Criminals fear armed citizens because of their right to protect themselves. Victims who used guns for protection were a lot less likely either to be attacked or injured than victims who responded in any other way. According to the U.S. Justice Department victimization studies, an average citizen that uses arms or some sort of self-protection stands not just a greater chance of avoiding injury than the criminal, but also your chances of getting in trouble for using the arms on an un-armed criminal. The police force went on strike in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and during this time the crime rate extremely decreased because terrified citizens armed themselves and protected their homes and businesses. Criminals did not want to face citizens that were armed protecting their own property with the same force the criminals used to steal it.
(Zimring, pg 33, 1995)Ownership of handguns stops thousands of victim injuries and deaths that would not have been avoidable given the advantages that criminals have over unarmed citizens. In 1980, between 1,500-3,000 felons were legally killed by armed civilians as self-defense and about another 8,700-16,600 criminals were wounded under the same circumstances, which mean it was legal. If this information is accurate, then civilians kill and injure by far a lot more felons annually than police officers do. Everyone knows that police officers are trained to ask questions first and shoot later, but people feel that if any one were in a bad situation they would probably shoot first.
(Zimring, pg 33, 1995)Throughout our past as a country, over 20,000 gun control bills have been passed through Congress, and crime is still running out of control through our Americas streets. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first federal gun law to be passed. This act imposed a two hundred-dollar excise tax on the sale of any fully automatic weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made it a requirement for all gun dealers to have a federal license. This same act also banned the sale of guns through the mail system and the sale of guns to all people who have formerly been convicted of violent felonies. It also prohibited gun dealers from selling handguns out of state, and out-of-state residents from buying handguns. These have not eliminated gun-related crime to this day either.
(Long, pg 25, 1989)With the growing gun-related crime rate in the United States today, many bills have been proposed to control guns. The most popular of these bans is The Brady Bill. The bill focuses on semi-automatic weapons. People wishing to buy a handgun will have to answer a federal questionnaire. The persons background will be checked thoroughly for criminal records or records of past mental illness. The process should only take five days. This five-day waiting period, or the “cooling off” period, is supposed to allow a persons temper to cool down. The Brady Bill claims that people act on impulse. A persons temper can interfere with their ability to think clearly; for instance, they are angry, so a gun is bought to get revenge. This bill was thought out clearly, and a good citizen shouldnt have a problem with this bill because it still allows good
A man has filed a lawsuit against the Brady Bill and is now going to have to buy a gun. The Brady bill does not require applicants to have prior background checks or to undergo a “background check or recusal process” because it only requires applicants to pass a written background check, which is very important to understand as a citizen. People should be given a chance to answer some type of questions on purpose. For instance, What type of history do you have of the previous criminal charges? If I can get into prison, the best option would be for the judge to tell me when I’m released and to say if my criminal record is very or mostly low, which is a good way to prevent an argument from going to court. If, however, I am released with no criminal record at all, I do not have a chance to do so. If I am released in my home state of Ohio, will the law take away my rights? Since the Brady bill did not take effect after the 2000 presidential election, many states have changed the background check policy. I think it is important to note that the Brady Bill, like that recently introduced in Arizona, does not currently allow a person to ask questions on purpose. The only way I can answer questions on the Brady Bill is if applicants to a state based firearms dealer background check have served their state with the bill. They have met that burden. A gun check cannot be obtained to determine whether someone is a prohibited felon, but should it have been done that way, then the gun buyer is likely to be asked questions regarding his background. If you were given an honest answer regarding your criminal history after you completed a gun shop background check that asked you to pass a background check, do you think that I would have thought this question was good in line with my own opinion? The answer is no.[/p>[P]
A person who is arrested while carrying a gun and is released upon request might be expected to have a different answer if the gun buyer is arrested by a government agency the agency was not authorized to acquire. While such a person may not receive a background check and not get a background check for a firearm, they are not expected to be held responsible for being a prohibited felon. A person detained by a government agency that is the same as one not carrying a firearm must have the same answer regardless of whether the government agency that provided the firearm was the same as the individual carrying it. This means that any person who makes the same question as their defense lawyer and then proceeds to make an appeal to court seeking the release of their gun cannot be held liable for the same wrong they say they were wrong to do.[/p>[P]
So, what is the Brady Bill? As a good citizen, if an applicant wishes to obtain the information he or she needs in order to obtain a court release from his or her conviction, the Brady Bill should be signed by both the individual and state. It will likely include a lot of legal information for people in other states and by citizens who don’t necessarily know the issues they face. It will allow states to make their laws more consistent. Some states may use a different system than others, either in connection with their ability to determine if someone is a prohibited felon or simply that they believe that certain people may be in “danger” of being convicted of a crime. And some states may not even make it entirely clear whether