Second Amendment Versus Gun Control In The USA
The shots rang out waking up 56 year old Stephen Willeford. His daughter burst into his room, asking if he heard the shots as well. He originally thought it was someone tapping on his window, because in his small town crime was nearly unheard of. His daughter jumped in the car to find out what the noise was, and found a man in a black tactical vest entering the Baptist Church. Willeford opened his gun safe and grabbed his AR-15 and a box of ammo, running out of his house and towards the church. He was in such a rush that he didn't put shoes on. He yelled “hey” at the shooter, only to see him come out of the church in full body armor and a black helmet. He hid behind a car and the shooter began firing at him. He began to fire back, but the body armor protected the shooter.
The shooter rushed to his car, and Willeford shot him where the body armor was not able to protect him, the side of his chest and his thigh. The shooter got into his car and sped away. Willeford jumped into a nearby pickup truck and continued to chase the shooter, with the help of 27 year old Johnnie Langendorff. They chased the shooter down, where his car spun out into a ditch. Willeford and Langendorff waited until police arrived. The Sutherland Shooting killed 26 and injured 20 others. Willeford became the ultimate good guy with a gun. The Bill of Rights guarantees rights to every American citizen that are to be protected. The Second Amendment 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”.
The inclusion of this in the Bill of Rights stems from the tyrannical control of England when the United States was a group of English colonies. This is due to the prevalence of the idea of natural rights set forth by John Locke, in which if the rights to life, liberty, and property are not protected the citizens have the right to overthrow that government. This amendment has been challenged many times, and time and time again laws have been struck down. The landmark Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago determined that this amendment applies to the states through the Incorporation Doctrine. This decision was upheld when a Washington D.C. handgun ban was declared unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller. This issue is one that polarizes many, as a balance between the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment and the safety of the citizens needs to be reached. Stricter gun control will have little to no effect on lessening the amount of violent crime in America.
Many people are killed by guns each year, and they are far too easy to purchase. In 2017, firearms caused the death of 39,773 individuals, while only 38,659 were killed in car accidents. Why is the amount of people killed by guns far more than the amount killed in car accidents? If laws were more strict it is possible that those nearly 40,000 individuals could have been saved. Many also believe it is too easy to buy a firearm in the United States, around 67.75% of those surveyed thought buying a gun was too easy of a process. If the majority of Americans feel that it is so easy to buy a gun, the laws should be changed.
Guns save more lives than are killed by them each year, and they are essential for the protection of one’s self and one’s family. In a 1995 survey conducted by the National Crime Victimization Survey, up to 1% of households experience a defensive gun use each year. 11 surveys also concluded that there are over 700,000 defensive gun uses each year. Even the most conservative estimates place that number at a minimum of 65,000 according to the 1995 National Crime Victimization Survey. According to these estimates, at least 65,000 people were saved from death or a serious crime each year, 15,000 more than the number killed by those same firearms. If stricter gun control were to be put into place, it’s possible that the number of defensive gun uses could lessen, putting more into danger.
Attempts to solve this issue through the legislative branch have been unsuccessful. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban was passed during the Clinton Administration. This law had a 10 year sunset period, and made it illegal to manufacture and sell so-called assault rifles, as well as manufacturing guns with high capacity magazines. 18 types of firearms were outright banned, so manufacturers slightly adjusted the model so their sales did not fall. A study done by UPenn on the ban concluded “there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence”. The assault weapons are only used in “2 to 8 percent of gun crimes”. During the time this was a law, 101 people were killed in mass shootings, and 124 were injured. The most well known shootings occurring during this time would be the Columbine shooting, the Air Force Base Shooting, and the Wedgwood Baptist Church Shootings. This is the most sweeping firearms restriction in United States history, yet the impact on mass shootings was insignificant, if that.
Strengthening background checks for those who wish to purchase a firearm is a solution which would appease both sides, as well as protecting the Second Amendment rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. 93 percent of Americans believe in background checks before a firearm is purchased. Increasing the severity and scope of background checks would also protect the rights of gun owners, and their nearly 270,000,000 guns. This would prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, such as those with serious criminal records, assuming these people attempt to purchase firearms legally.
Stricter gun control will have little to no effect on the rate of violent crime or mass shootings. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to all American Citizens. It’s dangerous to start legislating to take away this right, especially since the strongest firearm restriction failed to do what it was meant to do, control violent crime. A new bill similar to the Assault Weapons ban is sitting in the house, which would ban importing, manufacturing, possessing or transferring a semiautomatic assault weapon. It seems that this would have little effect on the number of mass shootings in America, judging based on the previous ban. In order to reach a compromise on this polarizing issue, strengthening the background check system is the best way to protect guns from getting into the wrong hands.
