Why Legislation Won't Solve the Problem?

Katherine Phelan
Firearms in the United States: Why Legislation Won't Solve the Problem
The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1791 and is the oldest written charter of government in the World. As stated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, "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." There has long been a debate on how those words should be interpreted and as more tragic shootings occur, this problem is becoming more and more prevalent. Proponents of the right to bear arms believe the amendment gives citizens an individual right to own a gun. Opponents on the other hand claim the word militia in the amendment implies that the right to own a gun is given only to provide national defense and is not for the common citizen. While the exact meaning of the amendment remains to be seen, what is clear is that this issue is not going anywhere. As more shooting tragedies occur around the country, the campaign to pass more firearm legislation grows louder. People affected personally by these tragedies believe that legislation is the solution. They believe that if there had been more gun control legislation preventing killers from obtaining firearms that their loved one would still be alive. Though there is no way to find out if that is true or not, I believe the solution to gun control involves a multidimensional approach, which may or may not include additional legislation, but will ultimately help people see that ownership of firearms and violence are two very distinct things.
Colorado, New York, and now Connecticut are among the states that have called for tighter gun control laws in response to recent tragedies. Newton, Connecticut, which is where the most recent mass shooting occurred and left 20 first graders and six adults dead. Immediately following the tragedy there was an outcry to lawmakers. On Thursday, April 4, 2013, new gun legislation was passed. Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy signed a new package of gun laws into effect, thereby making Connecticut have "the most unconstitutional gun laws in the entire country" according to The Connecticut Citizens Defense League. "The final package limited the size of gun magazines to 10 rounds, expanded the state's existing assault weapons ban, and required universal background checks on all gun sales in the state" (DeLuca). According to Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, "it takes bold, courageous action like this to help prevent the next tragic aushooting" (DeLuca). If this "courageous action" is supposed to prevent the next tragic shooting, why hasn't all of the past gun control legislation stop these recent tragedies?
Evidence shows that mass shootings actually hurt the case for gun control. Many of the laws that politician's want passed to help prevent more massacres in the future would not affect the attributes that are associated with typical mass shootings. For example, a law such as the one recently passed in Connecticut limiting the size of gun magazines wouldn't make a difference because shooters typically use multiple guns and carry extra magazines with plenty of ammunition. Even if there were a law against having larger capacity magazines, it would not prevent any more casualties. Othersare in favor of putting restrictions on gun shows thereby making it harder for someone to buy a firearm. Someone that is planning a killing spree could easily have already bought a firearm long before they started planning their shooting massacre. Implementing waiting periods or dragging out the process of purchasing a gun would not be effective in deterring a killer because if they are motivated in their cause, nothing would be able to stop them.
In order to commit a violent act of crime using a gun, a person must first be able to successfully obtain one. Statistics compiled by the National Research Council showed that only one out of every six firearms used to commit a crime was legally obtained (Braga et al. 1). Legislation would therefore not affect a criminal from getting a gun if they are obtaining it illegally. In a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, almost 27% of state prisoners said that they had acquired their most recent gun from a retail outlet (Beck et al. 19). Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, from the Social Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, reported that another 21% of inmates had acquired their most recent handgun from a licensed dealer (Braga et al.).
There are also other ways for criminals to acquire firearms. Authors of Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy say, "Studies also find that "street" and "black market" sources are important sources that may well include traffickers who are buying from retail outlets and selling on the street.Regrettably, since surveys of criminals only ask about proximate sources of illegal firearms, these research studies are limited in establishing the role of gun trafficking in criminal acquisition of firearms, as they do not ascertain how guns are diverted into these "street" and "black market" sources" (Braga et al.). There are many different shapes and sizes of organized gun traffickers. The loopholes that exist in current legislation lessen private sellers and licensed gun dealer's accountability, which leads to an unregulated, illegal secondary market.
Straw purchasing, which is when a person legally buys a gun but then gives it to someone who can't legally buy one themself is another factor that contributes to the illegal gun problem (Brandl, Stroshine 297). In an investigation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 571 purchases out of a total of 648 were found to be straw purchases (Braga, Kennedy 384). According to the ATF straw purchasers "represent a significant overall crime and public safety problem" (Straw Purchases Policy Summary).
In order to prevent the illegal selling of firearms there are many different approaches that can be used. The supply side approach, which seeks to see if interventions of illegal transfers of guns will help reduce violent crime associated with guns (Braga et al.). The loopholes that exist in current legislation could be tightened so that licensed gun dealers and private sellers are held more accountable for who they sell to. Since we know that gun violence is committed by a small number of criminals, and that certain licensed retailers are more frequently sources of crime guns than other retailers, it is possible to use the serial numbers from the guns to trace them back to the original retailer.
In his book Mass Murder in the United States: A History, criminologist Grant Duwe points out that "all of the worst mass murders in U.S. history- not just the murder of more than 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, but all mass murders with death tolls greater than 32- have been committed with explosives or fire, not guns" (Kleck 1448). Criminologists Kates and Mauser believe this is an important statistic to see, because it shows that decreasing the number of guns available will likely lead to an increase in the use of other things to commit murder or suicide, which will result in the same amount of deaths (663). The focus of gun control should not be about making it harder for citizen's to own guns. The focus should be about what can be done to decrease violent crimes and stop criminals from having access to guns.
Proponents of passing more gun laws believe it will make the community safer. Criminals, who are committing these awful acts, don't typically legally buy their firearms, so passing more laws that criminals will not follow seems counter productive. However, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, conducted by Professors Kates and Mauser found that nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not (665-666). "Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent" (663). People believe there is a gun problem because these are the stories they see when they turn on the television, or open their newspaper. Mass shootings are given attention and smaller crimes or murders committed by means other than a gun are not as known to people, making it seem that guns are the only problem. If illegal guns were taken off the street, people with the intent to do harm would find another weapon to use.
"Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada's more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition: If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it isa€”a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources" (Kates, Mauser 694). There is no single cause of gun violence. "Gun violence arises from sociocultural, educational, behavioral, and product safety issues that transcend gun ownership alone" (Mozaffarian et al.).In order to effectively eradicate illegal guns, a multi dimensional approach must be taken.
Public health initiatives have been used in the past to educate the public about important health risks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently launched a new campaign of anti-smoking ads at a hefty cost of $54 million (Bryan). The ads feature actual tobacco users and illustrate the painful truth of what their smoking has done to their body and their life. Initiatives like this could also be used for guns. "Much can be learned from prior public health successes in changing the prevalence, social norms, and cultures of harmful behaviors" (Hemenway).Unlike tobacco and other substances, firearms can be used safely. The goal is to reduce gun violence. The, "distinction between ownership and violence is important for the design, focus, and implementation of these strategies" (Mozaffarian et al.). Firearms have received a bad connotation because the only time you hear about them is when they are used to do harm.
Just as with many other things, if used incorrectly a firearm can be extremely dangerous. To give a comparison, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2010 there were 31,672 deaths in the United States caused by a firearm. In the same year there were 33,687 motor vehicle traffic deaths. You are more likely to die while driving your car than you are to get shot, yet there is no one campaigning for more motor vehicle legislation.
In 2010 there were approximately 270 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States and each year 4.5 of the 8 million new guns that are manufactured are purchased in the United States (Brandl, Stroshine 286). As reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, the resident population of this country was 308,745,538. So in 2010 there was less than a 1% chance, 0.01025% to be exact, that you would die from a firearm. Educating people about firearms and showing them that they can be used for other purposes when used responsibly is important. The misconception that people have about firearms leads to their opinions about gun control.
Gun legislation can interfere with citizen's right to protect themselves. Currently there are 26 states that do not allow student's to carry concealed guns while on college property (239). In Virginia, each college or university is given the decision whether to allow students to carry concealed guns on campus or not. Proponents of allowing students to carry their concealed guns on campus argue that mass shooting tragedies, like the one that occurred at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 2007, would not have been so deadly if students were allowed to carry concealed guns (Smith 240). Opponents argue that having even more guns on campus during a shooting would cause an even more unstable situation (Smith 240). Although it could indeed make the death toll rise, it could also help prevent unnecessary deaths. If the shooter is armed, allowing students to be armed if they choose would level the playing field.
Legislation such as the Castle doctrine, are supposed to serve to promote the use of firearms by citizens for defensive use. (Boots et al. 3). "It is the obligation of a person to retreat if an intruder enters their abode, and that use of lethal force for self-defense, without any attempt to "retreat to the wall or other impediment before dealing a deadly blow" (Casenote, 1904, p. 399) can be grounds for criminal charges being brought against the slayer (e.g., manslaughter or second degree murder charges)" (Boots et al. 4). The laws have been expanded now to allow a person to defend themselves without having to first try to retreat if they are in a place that they are lawfully entitled to be (Boots et a. 7). The fact that a person must try to run away before they are lawfully allowed to defend themselves takes things too far. If there is an attacker aggressively trying to cause you or a loved one bodily harm that person is blatantly breaking a law, yet in trying to defend yourself you would be too.
Statistics show that there is a clear problem with guns in the United States. According to "Curbing Gun Violence: Lessons From Public Health Successes" "Gun homicide alone causes 11,000 deaths each year, 1 more than all US troops killed throughout the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan" (Mozaffarian et al.)
Brief response
The introduction presents a good problem statement. It indicates that there is a problem with gun ownership and use. However, it is not very precise and the problem does not come out clearly.
The main claim is that there exist a problem with gun use and accessibility. It is suitable as the problem has caused a lot of violence.
The paper is well organized. There is flow of points according to the arguments of the author.
Evidence used seems very general. There is need to point out specific evidence.
The argument is successful in that it presents a real problem that is currently affecting many states. However, it fails to present proper solutions to this.
Understanding Ourselves
As I listen to music, which is quite often, most songs are based on some sort or relationship, whether it is romantic, friendship, family, or sexual. These songs put different moods into my mind and body which makes me try to relate these lyrics to my life. I can never relate 100% to a song which makes sense because no person experiences things as everyone else does; it would be a scary thought if we did. My thoughts go to what makes me different from the song, and it is all based on the relationships I have had with the people close to me and the acquaintances I have made over my lifetime. The other aspects that make me different are the external factors that have developed my mind the way it is today. All generations have been effected differently due to the cultural norms of the time they existed. My childhood, growing up as a part of generation Y, varied drastically compared to my parents and continuing down chain.
Generation Y is just like all other generations prior to it and the preceding ones. Great things happen with the progression of generations, increases in technology and medicine such as computers and proper surgeries. With the good, bad is accompanied as well, Nazi Germany and Slavery. Every action and decision a person makes not only affects that individual, but the whole world; we as humans are all interconnected. What connect everyone are the relationships we maintain with each other domestically and abroad. These relationships are not simple. Each relationship made is based inside and outside influences. To better understand myself and the other people living on the planet, I am looking at how external factors affect Generation Y's relationships.
Drugs and other substances were around long before Woodstock took place in 1969, but that event was the momentous drug event in my parents' generation, Baby Boomers, to the hype of the drug period in the United States. The mind altering changes brought on by these drugs changed how the United States family relationships. Alcohol had always been a part of America, but until that point drugs had not been a common occurrence. The parents of the Baby Boomers, called the Greatest Generation, had not experienced these drugs and the Baby Boomers were the first to grasp onto it in a high number. The relationship effect of this starts with the Greatest Generation not being able to relate with their children, the Baby Boomers, and the lasting affect it has had all the way to Generation Y and continuing on in this country with drugs. The Baby Boomers experience drugs in mass which has allowed future generations to follow suit and continuing drug use and abuse.
Alcohol is a huge factor in today's society, although illegal for anyone under twenty one, alcohol is easily accessible, but could be considered the most dangerous aspect in affect in relationships. On average in the United States nearly 12,000 people die every year in DUI (driving under the influence) related accidents and over 900,000 people are arrested (/). How that statistic can be interpreted is every year 12,000 people lose all of their relationships and the people affected lose a family member, friend, or loved one. Generation Y is affected the same as all other generations because a relationship can be maintained with anyone affected by a DUI arrest.
The use of tobacco has been in American since the settlement of the Jamestown colony, and until it came out in the 20th century that cigarettes caused lung cancer millions of people were unaware they were killing themselves and ending relationships before they were going to naturally take its course and in 2000, about 443,000 people died from attributing cigarettessmoking (/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm). If it is known that cigarettes cause cancer, why do young and old people continue smoking them? The buzz accompanied by it would be the first thought, but is a feeling worth dying for? Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion of why they smoke cigarettes, butan experiment done by David P. Kennedy, a Social Scientist researcher, concluded that a one month relationship that involved a pack per week smoker increases the odds of initiation of a relationship by 4% (Adolescent romantic relationships and change in smoking status. David P. Kennedy). Kennedy shows with his research that a major factor is the appeal towards others that it brings, and although 4% isn't a large percentage, 4% of the American population is roughly 12,625,045 people (/population/www/popclockus.html). Over 12 million people being affected is a strong concern for Generation Y and the future generations because of the appeal that it could potentially bring towards individuals.
Media has grown dramatically in the past one hundred and thirteen years. The world has read newspapers, heard a radio, saw a television, and is now surfing on any number of devices. With each increase in technology, it has allowed more words (profanity), skin to be shown, and sexual content to appear. Romantic relationships have been affected the most of all relationships due to children exposed to adult content at an earlier age than previous generations. Premarital sex was not as common 70 years ago as it is today, but "the birth control pill and the sexual revolution eliminated most practical reasons for young people not to engage in premarital sex. A May 1970 Gallup poll indicated that three quarters of all college students no longer believed it was important to marry a virgin ("That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be": Baby Boomers, 1970s Singer-Songwriters, and Romantic Relationships)."The media's portrayal of occasional sexual encounters has changed how romantic relationships are viewed. Most people choose to have random sexual encounters with no goal of creating a lasting relationship; it has turned lasting romantic relationships from meaningful to just an individual short term gain. Generation Y has continued this trend with the increase sexual content in the media and will continue into future generations.
As the media continues to hype up the sexual content, the link between teen pregnancies should be positive, but in reality the trend is actually declining. "The U.S. teen birth rate declined 9 percent from 2009 to 2010, reaching a historic low at 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15a€“19; the rate dropped 44 percent from 1991 through 2010 (/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.htm)." Although Teen childbearing has been for the most part on a long-term decline in America since the late 1950s, the U.S. teen birth rate remains one of the highest among other industrialized countries (/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.htm). In 2009, 87% of teenagers that gave birth were unmarried (/nchs/births.htm). These statistics are surprising and make sense at the same time. Although teen birth rates are low, they are still very high compared to other industrialized countries. Americans have the knowledge and technology to reduce teen pregnancy, but it still happens. The cause and effect of these teen births directly correspond to romantic relationships because of the 87% of teenagers that give birth to a child without being married. When a child is brought up without a father figure, he misses out on a huge relationship ...