Abstract
The issue of gun control has been a very controversial and sensitive subject in the United States for a very long time. A large number of citizens are very passionate about their right to own firearms, and at the same time, others are also very passionate about wanting to control firearms. This literature review provides information regarding the issue of gun control, including its history, a close view at the Second Amendment, and explores possibilities of what may, or may not, reduce violent crime. This literature review explores a variety of different sources, including an interview with a U.S. Marine, conducted by the author, and also provides differing views on various subjects on the issue of gun control.
Gun Control: A Review of the Literature
Guns have always been an important part of American culture. People have owned firearms since before the birth of the United States of America. However, times were different back then, and some people are now wondering whether it is a good idea for regular citizens to be able to own firearms. Currently, firearms are allowed in most American states, since many believe the right is protected by the U.S. Constitution, but some argue that the second amendment has been misinterpreted. Recent shootings in the United States have some people asking for more gun control, while others believe that the United States needs less gun control. In order to fully understand whether we need more or less gun control, three questions need to be considered:
current issues involving gun control and gun violence.
What is the history behind current gun control legislation in the United States?
Gun control is the regulation of sales and ownership of firearms. Currently, gun control legislation is mostly governed by state law. Throughout the nation, there are several supporters of gun control fighting to create more gun-restricting laws in an effort to decrease gun violence. At the same time, there are also many people opposed to more gun-restricting laws, believing that by applying more laws, it only makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms, leaving them defenseless against criminals.
Some may wonder why the United States just does not adopt the gun control policies that have worked in European countries (Jacobs, 2002). The answer is simple: “none of those countries has had to implement a strict regulatory or prohibitory regime at a time when almost half of its households own guns in a society with a powerful tradition of private firearms ownership and a thriving contemporary gun culture” (Jacobs, pg. viii, 2002). What Jacobs is trying to say, is that since the birth of the United States, a large number of American citizens have owned guns, as opposed to many countries in other parts of the world.
In the early years of the United States, it was a common and accepted practice to carry firearms in public (Edel, 1995). Colonial America, unlike the country that controlled her, was not burdened by laws restricting private ownership of weapons (Edel, 1995). Each colony was responsible for its protection and, under local laws, required every capable male to arm himself and be ready to help defend his colony when needed (Edel, 1995). In fact, a 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia (Winkler, 2011). In other words, every white man, who had sworn loyalty to the Revolution, was required to own a firearm and know how to use it. Restrictions on gun ownership were slow to develop all through this period (Edel, 1995).
Through much of American history, gun control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans (Winkler, 2011). After the American civil war, the North allowed soldiers of any color to take their rifles home. Even African Americans, who had not served in the war, were allowed to purchase firearms in the North (Winkler, 2011). After losing the war, the South quickly adopted the Black Codes, which were laws that dictated what freedmen could and could not do (Winkler, 2011). One of the things they could not do was possess firearms. African Americans wanted to have the same gun-owning rights as white people, and violent groups, such as the Black Panthers, began to emerge. Several riots, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, pressured congress to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968 which greatly expanded the federal licensing system for gun dealers and clarified which people, including anyone previously convicted of a felony, the mentally ill, illegal-drug users, and minors, were not allowed to own firearms (Winkler, 2011). Currently, federal gun control laws still prohibit certain individuals, such as convicted felons, to purchase or posses any firearms or ammunition. The Firearm Owners Protection Act revised many statutes of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and was more focused on protecting the rights of gun owners.
In 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed, prohibiting the importation, manufacture, sale, and possession of “assault weapons” in the United States (Jacobs, 2002). Even to this day, not everyone agrees with what classifies a firearm as an assault weapon. The 1994 federal law named 19 weapons as prohibited assault weapons and named several hundred firearms that were not considered assault weapons (Jacobs, 2002). The Assault Weapons Ban only prohibited post-1994 assault weapons, which caused a huge increase in sales the year before the ban became effective (Jacobs, 2002). The same law also banned large capacity ammunition feeders, also known as magazines or clips (Jacobs, 2002). The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and several gun control advocates have worked toward the ban’s renewal, especially since the recent shootings that have occurred in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
In addition to the federal gun laws, each state also has their own laws which citizens must follow. To this day, there is still conflict between some of these laws, and the individual rights of citizens. A lot of this conflict comes from the way the United States Constitution is interpreted.
How does gun control affect citizen’s Second Amendment rights?
The second amendment to the United States constitution reads: “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. Constitution). Since then, people have come up with different interpretations of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. For the most part, people who support gun control believe that the Second Amendment does not refer to each individual citizen, but to members of law enforcement, military, or a trained militia. On the other hand, people against gun control believe that the Second Amendment clearly means that each individual citizen of the U.S. has the right to own a firearm.
According to Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the words of the Second Amendment are not particularly clear to modern readers (Reynolds, 1994). Reynolds (pg. 464, 1994) says that readers may ask, “What is a “militia”? What is a “right of the people”? What does it mean to “keep and bear arms”? What sort of infringements on that right are prohibited?” In other words, the meaning of words, at that time, might have had a different meaning than todays. Several gun control supporters believe that the authors of the Second Amendment intended only to grant states the right to maintain militias and to allow citizens to own guns for use in those militias (Bender, 1997). In other words, if a citizen is not part of a militia, then the constitution does not guarantee the right to own a firearm. Many gun control advocates argue that when the second amendment was written, the United States did not have an organized, national military system to defend the country, but now that we do, there is no need for individual citizens to possess firearms.
However, according to Wilbur Edel (pg. 25, 1995), “The importance of the militia as an alternative to a standing army cannot be overemphasized. The long-standing suspicion regarding a standing army as a potential threat to individual liberty did not change with the conclusion of the Revolution.” What Edel is trying to say is that just because one revolution is over, that does not mean that there will not be another threat. People who oppose gun control state that their right to purchase and own firearms is clearly protected by the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution. The “right of the people” is to “keep and bear arms,” not to belong to a militia (Reynolds, 1994). As Reynolds states (pg. 473, 1994), “The right to keep and bear arms is not subordinate to the purpose of having a militia- the notion of a “well regulated militia” is subordinate to the purpose of having an armed citizenry.” In other words, the Second Amendment requires citizens to be armed in order to be able to participate in a militia, if a militia is needed, but it does not require them to actually be in a militia.
In an interview with a U.S. Marine in the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines Regiment, conducted by the author, the marine mentioned how gun control advocates are trying to take away the Second Amendment rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. He says this would be impossible due to the fact that there are far too many firearms owned by civilians in the United States. According to him, gun control would never work.
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008). The District of Columbia has been known for having some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Before the case, it was illegal for most people to own a firearm without a special registration certificate. When Dick Heller, a DC police officer, was refused a certificate to keep a handgun he wished to keep at home, he filed the lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008).
What measures would reduce gun violence?
For the most part, gun control advocates believe that more gun laws will reduce violent crime. On the other hand, people who oppose gun control believe that violent crime will increase with more laws restricting the ownership and possession of firearms. What makes gun control such a controversial issue is whether which measure would reduce gun violence.
Raymond W. Kelly, the undersecretary for enforcement at the U.S. Treasury Department and former police commissioner of New York City, believes that Americans have become too tolerant of lenient gun laws and violent crime (Bender, 1997). According to him, gun control measures like waiting periods, bans on assault rifles, limits on gun and ammunition purchases, and registration of all handguns slow the flow of guns into criminal hands and reduce violence (Bender, 1997). Many gun control supporters would agree with Kelly. According to Kelly, firearms should be registered the same way a car is registered in each state (Bender, 1997).
Many gun control advocates will also argue that in most homicides, especially multiple homicides, guns are the weapon of choice. Figure 1 shows a chart displaying the number of homicides by weapon type from 1976-2004 (Bureau of Justice Statistics):
Figure 1:
The issue of gun control has been a very controversial and sensitive subject in the United States for a very long time. A large number of citizens are very passionate about their right to own firearms, and at the same time, others are also very passionate about wanting to control firearms. This literature review provides information regarding the issue of gun control, including its history, a close view at the Second Amendment, and explores possibilities of what may, or may not, reduce violent crime. This literature review explores a variety of different sources, including an interview with a U.S. Marine, conducted by the author, and also provides differing views on various subjects on the issue of gun control.
Gun Control: A Review of the Literature
Guns have always been an important part of American culture. People have owned firearms since before the birth of the United States of America. However, times were different back then, and some people are now wondering whether it is a good idea for regular citizens to be able to own firearms. Currently, firearms are allowed in most American states, since many believe the right is protected by the U.S. Constitution, but some argue that the second amendment has been misinterpreted. Recent shootings in the United States have some people asking for more gun control, while others believe that the United States needs less gun control. In order to fully understand whether we need more or less gun control, three questions need to be considered:
- What is the history behind current gun control legislation in the United States?
- How does gun control affect citizen’s second amendment rights?
- What measures would reduce gun violence?
current issues involving gun control and gun violence.
What is the history behind current gun control legislation in the United States?
Gun control is the regulation of sales and ownership of firearms. Currently, gun control legislation is mostly governed by state law. Throughout the nation, there are several supporters of gun control fighting to create more gun-restricting laws in an effort to decrease gun violence. At the same time, there are also many people opposed to more gun-restricting laws, believing that by applying more laws, it only makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms, leaving them defenseless against criminals.
Some may wonder why the United States just does not adopt the gun control policies that have worked in European countries (Jacobs, 2002). The answer is simple: “none of those countries has had to implement a strict regulatory or prohibitory regime at a time when almost half of its households own guns in a society with a powerful tradition of private firearms ownership and a thriving contemporary gun culture” (Jacobs, pg. viii, 2002). What Jacobs is trying to say, is that since the birth of the United States, a large number of American citizens have owned guns, as opposed to many countries in other parts of the world.
In the early years of the United States, it was a common and accepted practice to carry firearms in public (Edel, 1995). Colonial America, unlike the country that controlled her, was not burdened by laws restricting private ownership of weapons (Edel, 1995). Each colony was responsible for its protection and, under local laws, required every capable male to arm himself and be ready to help defend his colony when needed (Edel, 1995). In fact, a 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia (Winkler, 2011). In other words, every white man, who had sworn loyalty to the Revolution, was required to own a firearm and know how to use it. Restrictions on gun ownership were slow to develop all through this period (Edel, 1995).
Through much of American history, gun control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans (Winkler, 2011). After the American civil war, the North allowed soldiers of any color to take their rifles home. Even African Americans, who had not served in the war, were allowed to purchase firearms in the North (Winkler, 2011). After losing the war, the South quickly adopted the Black Codes, which were laws that dictated what freedmen could and could not do (Winkler, 2011). One of the things they could not do was possess firearms. African Americans wanted to have the same gun-owning rights as white people, and violent groups, such as the Black Panthers, began to emerge. Several riots, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, pressured congress to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968 which greatly expanded the federal licensing system for gun dealers and clarified which people, including anyone previously convicted of a felony, the mentally ill, illegal-drug users, and minors, were not allowed to own firearms (Winkler, 2011). Currently, federal gun control laws still prohibit certain individuals, such as convicted felons, to purchase or posses any firearms or ammunition. The Firearm Owners Protection Act revised many statutes of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and was more focused on protecting the rights of gun owners.
In 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed, prohibiting the importation, manufacture, sale, and possession of “assault weapons” in the United States (Jacobs, 2002). Even to this day, not everyone agrees with what classifies a firearm as an assault weapon. The 1994 federal law named 19 weapons as prohibited assault weapons and named several hundred firearms that were not considered assault weapons (Jacobs, 2002). The Assault Weapons Ban only prohibited post-1994 assault weapons, which caused a huge increase in sales the year before the ban became effective (Jacobs, 2002). The same law also banned large capacity ammunition feeders, also known as magazines or clips (Jacobs, 2002). The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and several gun control advocates have worked toward the ban’s renewal, especially since the recent shootings that have occurred in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
In addition to the federal gun laws, each state also has their own laws which citizens must follow. To this day, there is still conflict between some of these laws, and the individual rights of citizens. A lot of this conflict comes from the way the United States Constitution is interpreted.
How does gun control affect citizen’s Second Amendment rights?
The second amendment to the United States constitution reads: “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. Constitution). Since then, people have come up with different interpretations of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. For the most part, people who support gun control believe that the Second Amendment does not refer to each individual citizen, but to members of law enforcement, military, or a trained militia. On the other hand, people against gun control believe that the Second Amendment clearly means that each individual citizen of the U.S. has the right to own a firearm.
According to Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the words of the Second Amendment are not particularly clear to modern readers (Reynolds, 1994). Reynolds (pg. 464, 1994) says that readers may ask, “What is a “militia”? What is a “right of the people”? What does it mean to “keep and bear arms”? What sort of infringements on that right are prohibited?” In other words, the meaning of words, at that time, might have had a different meaning than todays. Several gun control supporters believe that the authors of the Second Amendment intended only to grant states the right to maintain militias and to allow citizens to own guns for use in those militias (Bender, 1997). In other words, if a citizen is not part of a militia, then the constitution does not guarantee the right to own a firearm. Many gun control advocates argue that when the second amendment was written, the United States did not have an organized, national military system to defend the country, but now that we do, there is no need for individual citizens to possess firearms.
However, according to Wilbur Edel (pg. 25, 1995), “The importance of the militia as an alternative to a standing army cannot be overemphasized. The long-standing suspicion regarding a standing army as a potential threat to individual liberty did not change with the conclusion of the Revolution.” What Edel is trying to say is that just because one revolution is over, that does not mean that there will not be another threat. People who oppose gun control state that their right to purchase and own firearms is clearly protected by the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution. The “right of the people” is to “keep and bear arms,” not to belong to a militia (Reynolds, 1994). As Reynolds states (pg. 473, 1994), “The right to keep and bear arms is not subordinate to the purpose of having a militia- the notion of a “well regulated militia” is subordinate to the purpose of having an armed citizenry.” In other words, the Second Amendment requires citizens to be armed in order to be able to participate in a militia, if a militia is needed, but it does not require them to actually be in a militia.
In an interview with a U.S. Marine in the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines Regiment, conducted by the author, the marine mentioned how gun control advocates are trying to take away the Second Amendment rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. He says this would be impossible due to the fact that there are far too many firearms owned by civilians in the United States. According to him, gun control would never work.
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008). The District of Columbia has been known for having some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Before the case, it was illegal for most people to own a firearm without a special registration certificate. When Dick Heller, a DC police officer, was refused a certificate to keep a handgun he wished to keep at home, he filed the lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008).
What measures would reduce gun violence?
For the most part, gun control advocates believe that more gun laws will reduce violent crime. On the other hand, people who oppose gun control believe that violent crime will increase with more laws restricting the ownership and possession of firearms. What makes gun control such a controversial issue is whether which measure would reduce gun violence.
Raymond W. Kelly, the undersecretary for enforcement at the U.S. Treasury Department and former police commissioner of New York City, believes that Americans have become too tolerant of lenient gun laws and violent crime (Bender, 1997). According to him, gun control measures like waiting periods, bans on assault rifles, limits on gun and ammunition purchases, and registration of all handguns slow the flow of guns into criminal hands and reduce violence (Bender, 1997). Many gun control supporters would agree with Kelly. According to Kelly, firearms should be registered the same way a car is registered in each state (Bender, 1997).
Many gun control advocates will also argue that in most homicides, especially multiple homicides, guns are the weapon of choice. Figure 1 shows a chart displaying the number of homicides by weapon type from 1976-2004 (Bureau of Justice Statistics):
Figure 1:
According to the graph, handguns were most likely to be used to commit a homicide between 1976 and 2004. However, people against more gun rights advocates will argue that gun restricting laws prevent law-abiding citizens from arming themselves but do not prevent criminals from acquiring guns illegally (Bender, 1997), due to the fact that the majority of criminals do not purchase their guns legally, as shown by the graph on Figure 2 (Bureau of Justice Statistics):
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
The graph shows that only a very small percentage of federal inmates actually purchased their firearms through the proper methods.
According to John C. Moorhouse, there is a very close relationship between gun control and crime rate. Moorhouse states (pg. 103, 2006) that “because high crime rates are often cited as justifying more stringent gun control laws, high rates may generate political support for gun regulation.” What Moorhouse is implying is that gun control does not necessarily reduce crime, but instead, crime increases gun control. Either way, it is very unclear whether more gun control would actually reduce crime or not.
Conclusion
Gun control is a very controversial and difficult issue to handle. With so many firearms in the hands of civilians, it might be quite difficult to regulate them all. It is important to consider the facts that have been presented, to fully understand why the issue of gun control is so controversial. Unfortunately, it is mass shootings, like the recent movie theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado, that reminds people that gun control is an ongoing issue. Until a majority of American citizens can agree on what the best legislation for firearms is, gun control will continue to be a controversial debate for a very long time.
According to John C. Moorhouse, there is a very close relationship between gun control and crime rate. Moorhouse states (pg. 103, 2006) that “because high crime rates are often cited as justifying more stringent gun control laws, high rates may generate political support for gun regulation.” What Moorhouse is implying is that gun control does not necessarily reduce crime, but instead, crime increases gun control. Either way, it is very unclear whether more gun control would actually reduce crime or not.
Conclusion
Gun control is a very controversial and difficult issue to handle. With so many firearms in the hands of civilians, it might be quite difficult to regulate them all. It is important to consider the facts that have been presented, to fully understand why the issue of gun control is so controversial. Unfortunately, it is mass shootings, like the recent movie theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado, that reminds people that gun control is an ongoing issue. Until a majority of American citizens can agree on what the best legislation for firearms is, gun control will continue to be a controversial debate for a very long time.