Introduction/Main Brief:
Current news coverage of violent acts, like the Virginia Tech shooting and the Washington, D.C. sniper shootings is raising questions surrounding the debate of gun control versus gun rights. There is no question that firearms can cause great harm to innocent people, but most forget the large number of United States citizens who feel the need to protect themselves or use firearms for leisure. Furthermore, the majority of people who use firearms often are not the same people involved in violent crimes with their firearms. The positive aspects of gun rights are too often overlooked; some think the only way to ensure safety and diminish the number of crimes is for the government to strictly control gun usage. However, research on the opinions of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Supreme Court, and Congress regarding gun control shows that the question at hand is how to go about regulating firearm use and which types of regulation should be utilized. They all agree that firearms can be dangerous and support the regulation of firearms, but they do not accordingly advocate a plan for regulating firearms. The National Rifle Association, Supreme Court, and each state’s Congressmen need to come together to eliminate illegal firearm markets, have more detailed background checks, implement a waiting period before receiving a firearm, and advocate gun education classes.
Background Info Paragraph:
- The Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms recently concluded that elimination of illegal firearms markets would be most effective in decreasing the number of homicides.
- In 1968 Congress prohibited:
posession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon
gun posession in a gun-free school zone
gun use in the course of a predicate federal felony
- Brady Act (issued in February 1994) required background checks and a five-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a gun, but it was later revoked by Congress
- Formed in 1871, the NRA has always promoted shooting proficiency and gun safety
- NRA promotes mandatory licensing for carrying a "concealed weapon as well as mandatory sentencing and additional penalties for criminal misuse of firearms"
- Address that the Second Amendment is irrelevant
o Over the years, the Supreme Court has been unclear about how the second amendment should be interpreted; they have supported the ban of the selling "of sawed-off shotguns, but inly on the narrow grounds that no one had shown that having a weapon . . . would contribute to the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." they have also supported the restriction of selling firearms to felons. they have also allowed states to act as they wish, holding that, "the Second Amendment affects only federal action"
o Each state can decide individually how to regulate firearm trading and use
REASONS:
1.) Guns are the main weapon of choice for crimes, allowing violence to increase
· Evidence: In 2005, 71% of all homicides, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)
· Evidence: In 2004, 29,569 people in America died from firearm-related deaths. 11,624
· Evidence: Everyday in the United States, nearly 30 people are murdered (Bloomberg, Michael)
· Evidence: In 2005, guns were responsible for 11,346 homicides, as opposed to more than half as many homicides, 5,346, with knives, blunt objects, and other weapons. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)
· Evidence: “most crimes are committed with illegal weapons”
· Evidence: In 2005, it was estimated that for one firearm related mortality in America, there were more than two non-fatal firearm injuries. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)
· Main Resource = Death by Gun Statistics: www.cdc.gov/ncip/wisqars
2.) Guns are too easy to obtain
a. Advocate for a waiting period before guns are obtained and more detailed background checks
· Evidence: There are currently no required background checks for the sale of guns between family, friends, or other private sales.
· Evidence: A survey of State Prison Inmates in 1997 showed that, of those who owned a gun, the gun was from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)
· Evidence: “How insane is today’s situation where no civilian under any circumstance can own military vehicles or communications equipment, but where young men barely past puberty can buy the deadliest of all firearms through the simple act of going to any gun shop, filing an application, then waiting a few days as his papers are processed?” (“Gun Control Now” article in The Philippine News)
· Evidence: A bill that prohibited the sale and ownership of assault weapons expired in 2004 and was not renewed. People can now legally obtain and sell assault weapons as long as they meet the qualifications to own a gun in the specific state (Brady Campaign). Assault weapons serve no practical purpose in today’s society: hunters don’t kill deer with uzis; a machine gun would not protect citizens any better than a handgun; assault weapons fire at a rate too high to ensure the safety of any bystanders.
b. Advocate the elimination of illegal firearms markets
3.) Guns are needed for protection and hunting – if people want to protect themselves they should be able to. Guns do not need to be banned in order to have fewer murders
· Evidence = personal account of Alan Contreras, a gun owner
i. His reasons for owning a gun: self-defense from criminals and dangerous animals
ii. “Surely each person has the right to decide whether to kill or die” (In Defense of Self-Defense)
iii. “Some people would not shoot another person in self-defense. I would.”
iv. “the police can't be everywhere,” and “there are few police officers in rural America”
· Evidence: New York v. Washington, D.C.
i. In Washington, D.C. when guns were banned, “D.C.'s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban” and “in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35.” (John R. Lott)
ii. Over the course of six years, murders in New York have been cut by forty percent and they did not ban guns. Instead the city made eliminating illegal firearms the priority (“The Changing Gun Debate”).
4.) Address what we are advocating and the advantages to the following: Our government should ensure that those who have gun rights are responsible citizens, knowledgeable of the dangers of guns and gun safety. Guns can cause harm and death to innocent people. However, it is imperative that gun owners are given detailed background checks, are required to attend gun control classes, and are required to wait uphold a waiting period before they can obtain a gun. These modifications to gun rights will allow citizens to continue to use guns however they choose, for protection or recreation, while also keeping the firearm accidents and casualties at a low rate throughout the United States.
i. Elimination of illegal firearms markets
ii. More detailed background checks
iii. Waiting period before one can obtain a gun
iv. Gun education classes
CONCLUSION = Guns do not need to be controlled, but because they are involved with so much crime, it should be required for owners to keep their guns safe. Furthermore, the United States government needs to vigorously work to eliminate illegal firearms markets, implement detailed background checks on gun owners, implement a waiting period between purchase and receival of a firearm, and advocate gun education classes. Regarding gun violence and illegal firearms New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg states, “These are national problems that require national leadership” (“The Changing Gun Debate”)
No comments:
Post a Comment