Do citizens have a right to bear
arms?
The short answer to this question is
that I do believe citizens have a right to bear arms. However, we may think we are entitled to have
basic human rights for numerous reasons, but who actually determines the rights
we have? Whether we think we deserve
such fundamental or derivative rights is irrelevant because governments
ultimately have the final say. Luckily,
for those of us in the United States, it has already been determined we have
the right to bear arms as stated by the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights. It states “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” (U.S. Const. amend. II.). Rarely
do we hear someone use the Second Amendment in its entirety when trying to
defend our right to bear arms. It does
seem to bring a slightly different meaning when the full amendment is applied
to whether we actually have the right to bear arms in our nation under all
circumstances. If the amendment simply
stated we have the right to bear arms, it would be a clear blanket statement. Going back to the era when it was written and
then considering the context for why it was written, one would probably think
it would not hold the same weight today.
There are no militias currently being formed to protect freedoms of
their State from the government or any other threat, nor has there been such in
many decades.
A lot of things have changed since
the Second Amendment was written 1789. Just
to name a few: the world, our nation, people, technology, and guns are
incredibly different now. Our right to
bear arms has come under intense scrutiny because of so many gun related crimes
and the increase of mass shootings. We
are no longer living in the days of muskets.
We now have to be concerned about handguns, semiautomatic weapons,
automatic weapons, and even explosives.
The problem with so many different types of guns being available to the
public is that there are cases these guns are used irresponsibly. Our right to bear arms would be a nonissue if
we did not have to worry about people committing murders and mass shootings. LaFollette (2007) states “each of us has a
fundamental right of non-interference: we should be allowed to live our lives
as we wish, so long as we do not thereby harm others” (p. 182). The reality is people discredit this right
and the right to bear arms when others are harmed using guns. Therefore, there is a belief that if guns are
removed from the equation or extremely limited for use, then people will not be
harmed by guns and crime will decrease. This
way of thinking creates some problems.
For instance, gun advocates believe taking guns from law abiding
citizens makes them defenseless to criminals.
In contrast, gun control supporters suggest only a small percentage of
violent crime victims use a gun in their defense. According to the U.S. Department of Justice
(2013) from 2007 to 2001, “less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent
crimes reported using firearms to defend themselves during the incident” (p.
1).
I own guns and keep all of them secured in a locked safe. I use them strictly for hunting and target purposes only. I am not opposed to banning some weapons such as assault rifles or any weapon that should be confined to a military environment. Many recreation target shooters and gun enthusiasts may disagree because they believe it is their right to bear arms, regardless of the firearm’s capability. But where do we draw the line? I may enjoy going out to the country and shooting a grenade launcher or any other weapon that can result in mass casualties. However, just because I enjoy it does not mean I have a right to possess such weapons. Does my enjoyment using a single shot rifle for hunting or shooting targets take precedence over someone who enjoys using an assault rifle legally and responsibly for targets? In this case, I do not believe it is a matter of fairness; it is more a matter of removing the capability to easily inflict harm on many people. I believe the law abiding citizens should not be punished for the acts of irresponsible criminals. Some believe a total ban on guns is the answer. But the issue I have with that blanket approach to solving a problem is it is comparing apples to oranges. A farmer in rural Iowa who legally possesses a gun is not using it in the same manner a gang member is using it on the streets of Los Angeles. Taking the farmers gun accomplishes nothing.
Some people may argue removing guns or stricter gun control laws will combat mass killings. A mass killing is when four or more individuals, not including the shooter, are killed according to the FBI’s original definition. Of the gun related mass killings, Meghan Hoyer (2015) states most are committed with handguns and “they are not these high-capacity assault rifles or high-capacity assault weapons that we hear so much about. We looked a little bit at legal vs. non-legal acquisition. In a majority of cases, they’re acquired legally. And even in cases where they’re not, what experts say is that these are people who tend to be very determined. And where there’s a will, there’s a way. Even if they have been banned from getting guns, if they have a prior record, generally, they find a way to find a weapon”. There is no easy way to finding a balance of maintaining our right to bear arms and senseless gun related murders and crimes. For every study or article I read that says gun control is statistically proven to decrease crime, another one states the complete opposite. For instance, a study on the effect of instituting strict gun laws in Australia claims “no evidence was found to suggest that increasing numbers of legally owned firearms are associated with increasing levels of crime; rather, modest negative associations were found between levels of legal gun ownership and violent firearm crime. The results suggest that reducing levels of legal gun ownership is not necessarily a prerequisite for reducing levels of violent crime, and that reductions in firearm crime can occur in the context of increasing levels of legal ownership” (Mcphedran, 2013, p. 127). This inconsistency makes it difficult to conclude on what is the best approach in finding a balance of owning guns and fighting gun related crimes. Our nation may never come to an effective way to minimize gun crimes while simultaneously keeping the public happy with gun possession.
References:
LaFollette, H.
(2007). The practice of ethics.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mcphedran, S. (2013). More guns ... more or less
crime? an australian perspective on an international question. Crime
Prevention and Community Safety, 15(2), 127-133.
U.S. Const. amend. II.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2013). Firearm violence, 1993-2011. (NCJ 241730). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
PBS NewsHour.
(2015, July 24). Why is it so difficult to stop mass
shootings in the U.S.? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/egs0NiC9HJE
No comments:
Post a Comment