Nina Linton

Mrs. Rookey

AP English III

4 November 2006

The People's Weapon

What is a gun? What is it about this weapon that has people so divided? Many believe gun control is the only way society can put a check on the violence that stems from it. Gun control, however, doesn't prohibit criminal activity at all but limits the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens who are protected under the Constitution. As Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, authors of the critically-acclaimed book Freakonomics note, the gun, like any other weapon, has the potential to cause more violence, but it also has the ability to cause less (131).

An important point to notice is that the gun does not cause crime, but the individual and his motives do. Professor Don B. Kates, criminologist and lawyer, writes, “…the amount of violence in any particular society is determined not by the mere availability of any particular form of weapon, but by cultural, socioeconomic and institutional factors that produce people willing to engage in extreme violence.” The focus should really be turned to the people who cause violence, not the implements they use.

Gun control measures such as the Brady Act do not make much sense anyway. “Why? Because the regulation of a legal market is bound to fail when a healthy black market exists for the same product” (Levitt 132). A background check and mandatory three day waiting period will not deter those who are willing to engage in violent acts such as rape, robbery, and murder. The problem is that criminals who are willing to use guns to commit crimes are not afraid to break further laws to achieve their ends. For example; Washington D.C. is understood to be a handgun-free city; however, the crime rates suggest otherwise. In Switzerland, on the other hand, an assault rifle is issued to every adult male, and this country happens to be one of the safest in the world (Levitt 131).

Other nations around the world have tried their hand at implementing gun control laws; however, the results are not promising. Linda Gorman, a senior fellow, and David B. Kopel, the research director at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, found that two philosophies administrate the personal ownership of firearms:

In nations where government has historically derived its powers from the consent of the governed, as in the United States and Switzerland, guns have been relatively lightly regulated and are owned by sizeable segments of the population. In nations where a central authority grants privileges to people, by history or custom, private firearms are subject to strict control or banned entirely.

Japan is an example of the latter of these two philosophies, the Japanese tradition of being obedient to the government has meant that gun control laws have been a success for that nation. However, when gun control is applied to other parts of the world, the results are not as promising. Demographically and culturally, Great Britain and the United States are very similar; however, “British rates of assault and robbery are twice those of the United States, and since 1995 British homicide rates have risen while those in the United States have declined” (Gorman). Why is this phenomenon happening? Does Britain just have more criminals than the United States? No:

In short gun control has corrupted the modern governments that have tried to institute it. Because gun control applies only to the law-abiding, governments who institute it, deprive their productive citizens of the means to defend themselves effectively. Governments indirectly become the accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs. (Gorman)

One unhappy example of this governmental corruption occurred in Great Britain. “An elderly lady tried to frighten off a gang of thugs by firing a blank from her imitation firearm. She was arrested and charged with ‘putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm.' Her attackers went free” (Gorman). Another example of these over-the-top measures include the arrest and jailing of Dean Payne, “who worked at a newspaper distribution plant and carried a knife (illegal at the time) to cut the straps used to hold newspaper bundles;” he was charged with carrying an ‘offensive weapon' (Gorman).

The media decides another aspect of the gun control issue as well, determining what is brought to the public's attention and what is not, reveling in the shockingly violent and ignoring stories in which it is prevented. The public hears of the school shootings in Columbine and the Amish town, but do communities hear about the times when shootings have been prevented by means of private legal weapons? Sheldon Richman, editor of Freeman magazine reminds those of “the shooting spree at Pearl, Mississippi, in 1998 that might have taken more victims had not an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and held the student until the police arrived.”

In a far more violent world away, private citizens have yet again demonstrated the importance of guns in the hands of private citizens to prevent crime.

Israel's ‘guns everywhere' policy accounts for incidents such as the one in which three terrorists opened up with AK-47s on a Jerusalem crowd. The terrorists were able to kill only one victim before they were themselves shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. The surviving terrorist was bitter when he spoke to the press the next day. Their plan had been to quickly kill 20 or 30 people at a series of public places, always escaping before military or police could arrive. They hadn't known Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorist felt that it just wasn't ‘fair'. (Kates)

This is an important point to make: criminals are looking for victims that do not fight back, shoot back, or otherwise make the criminal's ‘job' difficult. A robber is far more likely to attack a 120-pound woman than a 220-pound man, and if the 120-pound woman has a gun and knows how to use it, her situation improved significantly. These are the incidents that go unreported, the events in which the potential target defends herself against an unknowing attacker, the times when there is no blood, no rape, and no death; and the victim lives to tell the tale, a thoroughly boring and uneventful news story.

There are several ways to look at a situation in which the victim is carrying a concealed weapon:

Where concealed carry is allowed, it is the criminals who are plagued by the unseen. They can't know who has a gun and who doesn't. This creates a free-rider problem-- for thugs. People who choose not to carry firearms nevertheless benefit from the fact that others may and do carry them. Criminals don't typically like to attack dangerous targets. Since criminals can't know in advance who's carrying and who isn't carrying a gun, they have to assume anyone might be – if not the potential victim, then someone nearby. That's how to create safety on the streets. (Richman)

Take away the ability to carry a concealed weapon and citizens lose the potential of the target or a bystander ending the situation before it becomes deadly. Unfortunately, due to gun control, law-abiding citizens normally prepared to deal with such situations, are forced, to “choose between protecting themselves and their loved ones or obeying the law.” (Gorman) These critical choices have far more reaching results then most realize, for instance:

Some years ago, George Hennard Jr. walked into Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and opened fire, killing 23 patrons and wounding 28 others. Suzanne Gratia Hupp was having lunch there with her parents and saw them murdered. It so happens that this woman usually carried a handgun in her purse (which at the time was illegal to do.) But on this day, fearing revocation of a recently received occupational license, she left the gun in her car when she and her parents went into the cafeteria. She is convinced that if she had taken the gun with her, she would have stopped the shooter. Her parents, and others, might have been spared. They can be counted among the victims of gun control (Richman).

So what happens to those unlawfully caught with an illegal weapon? Remember poor Mr. Payne, the knife carrying man? “In the words of the magistrate, ‘I have to view your conduct in light of the great public fear of people going around with knives… I consider the only proper punishment is one depriving you of your liberty' ” (Gorman). Those final five words are what gun activists are most afraid of. They realize that if those words become acceptable in light of Mr. Payne's ‘crime' and if old ladies are charged simply for trying to defend themselves, then the rights of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Declaration of Independence) are no longer protected by the government.

What rights do individuals have concerning gun ownership anyway? The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declares that “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.” So what does this mean, are only those in state militias allowed to “keep and bear arms” (Second Amendment) or are all permitted to? To answer this question we must look at the context of this Amendment, those who wrote it, and the time period in which it was written. The second Amendment is located within the legendary Bill of Rights drafted by James Madison. During the ratification process of the newly created Constitution, many people became worried that the federal government would not protect the basic freedoms of the people. These antifederalists, as they were called, demanded that something be added to protect the rights of individuals, and thus the Bill of Rights was born. James Madison, the author of these Amendments believed, “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” He also warned future generations to, “… not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” (Madison) Even during the dawn of the American form of democracy, the framers realized over time the Constitution would be abused by those in government, and they safeguarded the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” (Second Amendment), so in those times of misuse, the people, from which the government obtained its power, would be strong enough to handle whatever was thrown at them.

In closing, one recognizes that gun control does nothing to prevent criminal activity, and simply limits the liberties and rights of those law-abiding citizens who choose to follow unconstitutional regulations. The United States was founded for the people and by the people. Defending our nation countless times were those who were willing to pick up a gun and die for their country. If United States citizens are willing to give their lives to preserving freedom, surely their right “to keep and bear arms” (Bill of Rights) must also be preserved.

Work Cited

Gorman, Linda, David B. Kopel. “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Not Reduce Crime.”

Guns and Crime . Ed. James D. Torr. (2004): Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center . Thomson Gale. Owen High School Lib., Black Mountain NC. 23 Oct 2006 <http://find.galegroup.com/

Kates, Don B. “Banning Handguns Does Not Reduce Crime.” Guns and Crime . Ed.

Tamara L. Roleff. (2000): Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center . Thomson Gale. Owen High School Lib., Black Mountain NC. 23 Oct 2006 <http://find.galegroup.com/

Levitt, Steven. D., Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics A Rogue Economist Explores the

Hidden Side of Everything . London: Penguin Group, 2005. 130-134

Madison, James. The James Madison Center .2006 29 Oct 2006

<http://www.jamu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/quotes/

Richman, Sheldon. “Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Crime.” Crime and Criminals .