In the wake of the horrifying movie theater shooting in Aurora, CO, public discourse on the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) has flared up once again. Many people think that the incident is more proof that this country needs stricter gun control laws. Others argue that if gun laws were looser, someone in the theater might have had one and could have stopped the shooter. Many people are in the middle, respecting the spirit of the Second Amendment, but pointing out that assault rifles have no real use other than killing and should be banned once again.
So what was the original reasoning behind the Second Amendment, and how does it play out with gun rights today? Here’s a look at both sides of the issue.
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment was enacted by Congress in December of 1791. The origin of the right to bear arms is thought to be a carryover from English law. For early Americans, this right was primarily for the purposes of militia, law enforcement, self-defense, suppressing insurrection, and defending against invasion. There is controversy, however, as to the intention of James Madison when he drafted the Second Amendment. Some scholars claim that the right to bear arms was “pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions,” whereas opposing historians argue that Madison used the Second Amendment to assure moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed. To this day, it is up for debate whether the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that citizens would be able to immediately respond to outside threat, or for the purposes of overcoming a tyrannical federal government.
Where You Can and Can’t Buy a Gun
In the U.S., there are certain federal laws that regulate firearms, but state laws are independent of those and are often less restrictive. Though some reciprocity exists between states in terms of gun laws, in most states, you are subject to the gun laws of the state you are in over your home state.
The states that do not have a state constitutional version of the Second Amendment include California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. These states also have strict laws in place that make it difficult to buy guns online between private parties—a work-around that, in most states, allows nearly anyone to buy guns and ammo. In the above-named states, laws include one or more of the following with regards to private gun sales: bans on private sales, paperwork requirements, a waiting period between purchase and receipt, and outlawing fully automatic assault weapons.
Elsewhere in the U.S., private gun sales through classifieds, in-person, or online have few regulations. Even Craigslist, which officially bans gun sales, is an alarmingly easy source for guns online.
Current Pros and Cons
Though gun control advocates are calling for stricter laws after the Aurora shooting, President Obama has said he is not going to use the event as an excuse to push stricter gun laws. Since the shooting, gun proponents have bought more weapons and hit shooting ranges in greater numbers, arguing that, if an audience member had been carrying a gun in the theater, they could have stopped James Holmes before he was able to kill and injure so many. They also point out that a psychopathic killer without a gun will simply find another way, so gun control wouldn’t have necessarily kept him from killing.
Those in favor of stricter gun control laws, on the other hand, say that Holmes bought all the ammo and guns he used, one of which shot 50 rounds per minute, legally. They also point out that there is no guarantee that someone in the theater with a concealed weapon would have been able to stop the shooter and, in fact, may have caused more injury or death in that dark and enclosed space. Given the many mass-shooting tragedies in the past 15 years, one could argue that easy access to automatic weapons and unlimited ammo puts everyday Americans in unnecessary danger.
Crime and Guns
One of the major arguments of gun rights proponents is that, when ordinary citizens are allowed to own and carry guns, crime will go down because they will have a weapon with which to fight back. And it’s a reasonable argument in many ways—the fact is, horrible crimes have been stopped by citizens with guns. A report just released by the FBI shows that violent crime was down 4 percent in 2011 from the previous year, and was down in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, even though gun ownership increased during that period.
On the other hand, gun-related deaths are still far too high—taking over 30,000 lives annually—and are the number one cause of death among African-Americans between the ages of 1 and 44. Guns increase the chances of death in domestic violence—women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a gun—and are involved in more than half of all suicides. Gun-related deaths and injuries cost $100 billion per year when both direct and indirect costs are factored in. Finally, statistics show that states with higher rates of gun ownership also have significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides, than other states.
Image courtesy of Joshuashearn.
12 comments
Reb
There are two glaring errors, or misstatements in this article. 1) 30.000 deaths per year includes all Justifiable Homicides, not just criminal acts. There are far more deaths and crippling injuries by drunk drivers than by firearms. 2) The statement, "...statistics show that states with higher rates of gun ownership also have significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides, than other states." Is completely false. Statistics show that in 47 states where Shall Issue laws are in effect, Violent Crime, not just Gun related crime, but all Violent Crime has been drastically reduced, in some cases as much as 80% to 90%. In the three states where if is legal to carry concealed without a concealed license, all Violent Crime, especially with firearms is lower, much lower than in most other states. In Illinois, New York and California, where it is very difficult to acquire a concealed License, Violent Crime, especially with firearms and other weapons is much greater. In fact, Washington DC and Chicago have the highest murder rates in the United states, followed closely by New York City and State.
Reb
Reb
There are two glaring errors, or misstatements in this article. 1) 30.000 deaths per year includes all Justifiable Homicides, not just criminal acts. There are far more deaths and crippling injuries by drunk drivers than by firearms. 2) The statement, "...statistics show
that states with higher rates of gun ownership also have significantly
more homicides, particularly gun homicides, than other states." Is completely false. Statistics show that in 47 states where Shall Issue laws are in effect, Violent Crime, not just Gun relate crime, but all Violent Crime has been drastically reduced, in some cases as much as 80% to 90%. In the three states where if is legal to carry concealed without a concealed license, all Violent Crime, especially with firearms is lower, much lower than in most other states. In Illinois, New York and California, where it is very difficult to acquire a concealed License, Violent Crime, especially with firearms and other weapons is much greater. In fact, Washington DC and Chicago have the highest murder rates in the United states, followed closely by New York City and State.
Reb
Ursus_Indomitus
Gun laws don't work. Anyone who does not know this is insane or a totaliatrian statist hack.
Ballzout
"Many people are in the middle, respecting the spirit of the Second
Amendment, but pointing out that assault rifles have no real use other
than killing and should be banned once again."
Got proof? Or does "in the middle" mean "those who reflect the author's personal opinion?" Nobody I've met "in the middle" says what you claim they do, Laurie. They've pretty much all said that it's a person's own business to possess what they want so long as they don't harm anyone else and obey the laws. Try again.
"These states also have strict laws in place that make it difficult to
buy guns online between private parties—a work-around that, in most
states, allows nearly anyone to buy guns and ammo."
It took me a second to decipher the sloppy writing here. At first read, it looks like she says strict laws are a work-around that allow nearly anyone to buy guns. After figuring out that she's referring to online sales of guns and ammo, I realized that the main problem is that she has no idea that engaging in such transactions online in those states is just as illegal as face-to-face sales. She should have realized that this is proof positive that gun control laws don't work, but hey, look who we're dealing with, here.
"They also point out that a psychopathic killer without a gun will simply
find another way, so gun control wouldn’t have necessarily kept him
from killing."
Duh. Don't criminals, by definition, disregard the laws anyway? Or is that too lofty a concept to grasp.
"...one could argue that easy access to automatic weapons and unlimited ammo puts everyday Americans in unnecessary danger."
One would be wrong. Try driving, swimming, playing sports, or just engaging in life in general. I have access to all the guns and ammunition I want. Care to guess how many people I've hurt or killed? And while we're at it, define "easy access to automatic weapons," but take into account the federal regulations, BATFE paperwork, fees and taxes, and background checks you have to undergo to buy automatic weapons. Well, let's also direct you to the definitions of automatic and semiautomatic in the meantime.
"On the other hand, gun-related deaths are still far too high—taking over 30,000 lives annually—and are the number one cause of death among African-Americans between the ages of 1 and 44."
Murderers are the number one cause of death among African-Americans between the ages of 1 and 44. The tools they use are irrelevant and you, like the rest of the hoplophobes, are misdirecting either your or others' anger toward the wrong thing in an attempt to push your own selfish agenda. As an example, you cite as a source the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. They support gun control, sweetie. Their stats are highly biased.
Go take a journalism course and try again. This article was a poorly assembled hack job of an opinion piece that you tried to pass off as an impartial look at an important topic.
Anthony Santman
Seems an appropriate last name.Too bad journalists can't be relied on for OBJECTIVE points of view.Didn't mention that about 2.2Million events occur in this country,involving guns every year without a weapon being fired.Have Miss Junkins interview the thousands of women who have defended themselves from rape or murder with a gun, and tell them they should have waited for the police.
DefendOurRights
Laurie, Laurie, Laurie...you need to do a much better job of researching your articles before you write them! I do not recall ever seeing an article about guns and gun control written by a journalist properly researched. They all have an anti-gun bias (as this one does) and place more emphasis on they feel that society would be better off without guns.
The classic mistake that ALL journalists seem to make (this article included) is interchanging the words automatic and semi-automatic when referring to semi-automatic firearms. For the record, Laurie, the definition of semi-automatic is that the gun will fire one round for each one pull of the trigger. An automatic (or fully automatic) gun will fire continuously as long as the trigger is depressed. For the record, there has only ever been one crime committed with a LEGALLY owned fully automatic rifle, and that was committed by an ex-police officer that purchased the rifle through his department while he was an officer. As another poster mentioned, fully automatic rifles are extremely expensive to buy (like $10-$20K), regulated byt the BATF, have a special tax stamp that has to be purchased for each one and takes almost a year to get approval to purchase.
The rifle that was used (and jammed) in the shooting in Aurora, CO was an AR-15, whi is the civilian SEMI-automatic version of the M-16 rilfe that is used by our military. I have one of these rifles (AR-15) and use it for two purposes; sporting events and home defense. Our more liberal friends like to lie to the public and announce to the world that so-called 'assault' rifles have only one purpose, and that purpose is to kill people. This is simply not true; there are different sporting events where rifles like the AR-15 are used to encourage the shooting sports and improve marksmanship skills (like those used by our olympic athletes).
Now...on to gun control. I think every gun owner in the country agrees that guns need to be kept out of the hands of convicted criminals as well as those with mental problems. However, every law-abiding citizen should have the right to own the firearm of their choice. When you look at the more recent gun-control laws (in the last 20-30 years) and their impact on crime, the results speak for themselves; increased gun control has done nothing to reduce crime. In fact, the locales with the strictest gun control laws have the worst gun crime rates (and violent crime rates). How about another example? Several years ago, a deranged individual took an AK-47 to a school in Australia and killed a bunch of children. It was a very, very tragic event, but the reaction by the government was to severly restrict gun ownership and the types of guns that people could own. WHat was the result? An astronomical increase in the crime rate. Why was this? Because the criminals knew that no one would shoot them!
In states where they passed 'shall-issue' laws for citizens to be able to carry concealed weapons, they saw drops in their respective crime rates. Why was this? THe criminals knew that there was an increased chance that they could get shot if they tried to rob or assault someone. Let's look at London, England. Their crime rates are higher than Washington, DC; they do not allow their citizens to have guns at all (except at guns clubs and even that is severely restricted). Every law-abiding citizen is a sitting duck for any criminal that wishes to rob or cause them harm.
The left had a fit when many states passed concealed-carry laws: they said that there would be gunfights in the streets. Guess what? Never happened. However, the mainstream media almost never publishes stories of citizens using firearms to defend themselves. In the Aurora, CO situation, the anti-gun nuts keep saying that someone who was carrying a gun could have caused more carnage and made things worse; there is no logic in this statment. The guy was shooting anyone that moved...how would someone shooting back made it any worse? I would much rather have someone there at least trying to stop the guy than none at all.
One of the things you will almost always see is that the criminals that use guns to commit crimes have lengthy criminal records. WHy are they still on the streets? If they were locked up, they would not be committing crimes at all.
What we really need is criminal control, not gun control. My vote is for a two strikes law. You screw-up once, you do your time and get back out. You screw-up a second time you get life in prison.
Illinois Conservative
The very first thing that I noticed is that the author fails to mention Illinois... A state that has a "right to keep and bear arms" in its Constitution and is one of the single most restrictive states in the US. Chicago, with even MORE restrictions, some restrictions completely banned all firearms and were recently struck down by the SCOTUS. Chicago's answer? Pass mor laws that it hopes will pass SCOTUS. I might point out that Chicago also is the current record holder for murder rate capital.
J.B.
Actually, a huge percent of the gun deaths number represent suicides. I did not see that specified in the article. Or the fact that even President Clinton's GAO report on the '94 Assault Weapons Ban stated that it had no positive effect on reducing gun crimes whatsoever--and that was from the same administration that passed the ban! (This fact was also a big part of why politicians let the ban expire when it sunsetted in '04.) It is also a fact that most crimes occur in cities and states with strict gun control, like Chicago, New York and Oakland, which is also contrary to what is stated in the article. If you want real facts, you need to read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, Jr..
gguldens56
Perhaps I am commenting out of turn here, but from all the reports I have read, ALL the weapons he had were classified as semi-automatic and NONE were classified as automatic. Given that a report of 50 rounds per minute is less of a measure of the speed of the gun and more a measure of the limits of the shooter's trigger finger. The only weapon that I understand that Holmes had which was capable of 50 rounds is an AR-15 with that 100 round beta mag. Between the weight of the beta mag and the weight of the 100 rounds it can carry, he effectively doubled the weight of his rifle. Still, an AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon and will only fire one round when the trigger is pulled. The military version, the M-16, in full auto can do 600 rounds a minute. This weapon is substantially less lethal in the semi version vs. the full auto version.
If you WANT to acquire an automatic weapon in the USA and you can pass the required federal and local background checks, you have to shell out large amounts of money for the weapon itself, and there are large taxes to pay, and there is a long waiting period to get clearance for it. I do not consider access to automatic weapons something that can reasonably be called an "easy" task. James Holmes DID NOT have any automatic weapons in Aurora, CO. He used semi-automatic weapons that anybody with a clean background can legally acquire.
Finally, as more and more investigation into this tragedy brings new data to light, the real cause seems to be "human error" in dealing with this guy when he sought and was given psychiatric treatment and it seems that multiple red flags were raised by appropriate people and then were summarily ignored. We SHOULD be having a debate about how to insure that the people who are charged with identifying and intervening in cases where someone declares violent intentions, as seems to be the case here, actually take positive action to stop the contemplated action from occurring! Had THAT happened, James Holmes would NEVER have made it to the theater that night to carry out his plan!
mack
We do not need more gun control...we need to control "liberal" ignorance.
rt moore
this article leaves out some facts. All ammo sales from retail sales have to be done from an FFL holder. the internet thing is so much smoke. You can not ship ammo from anywhere but a licenced ammo sales person. plus all gun sales have to be done from an FFL holder. Frankly anytime i see an article that proclaims that the "middle ground" is more gun control i just laugh and call them liars as that is what they are.
Joseph Mabe
what the author fails to mention is that probably 20,000 of those gun deaths last year were police shootings. 9,000 were murders, and 1000 were defence/protection killings. Who is kidding who? Responsible citizens should buy a gun, get training, and legally carry. There would be a lot less crime, less police and fewer trials.