Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Mace & Crown | July 26, 2017

Scroll to top

Top

31 Comments

Why the United States Should Enforce Gun Control

Why the United States Should Enforce Gun Control
Ziad Haboush
Contributing Writer

Just like many other countries, the United States should enforce gun control to save lives and reduce crime rates. Accidents and deaths could be avoided by enforcing gun control, which is why it is an important matter in our society today.

Many of the people against gun control, such as members of the NRA, point to the Second Amendment to defend their rights to keep and bear arms, which may seem valid. The Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution was signed in 1789 and 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.” (Constitution Center).
In no way does this quote support individuals keeping and bearing arms for self protection, however, it does give this right to a well-regulated militia. This is why the Second Amendment fails as an argument against enforcing gun control.

Gun Control

The table shown above uses data on all gun-related deaths—homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. The three lower charts show homicide numbers only. Source: The Atlantic

Dec. 30, 2014, seemed like any other day to 29-year old Veronica J. Rutledge as she headed to Walmart to shop with her 2-year-old son. Rutledge was carrying a concealed weapon, which she had the right to do with her concealed weapons permit. The day would be her last. While in the store, she left her son in the cart for a brief moment. He reached for her purse, found the gun, and accidentally shot his own mother (StarTribune, 2014). Several incidents such as this one have been reported throughout the years. Children find their parents’ guns and accidentally shoot themselves, friends or family. It is quite obvious that these kind of accidents could be avoided by not allowing people to keep and bear arms.

Another important point is the number of suicides, which could be decreased. In 2013, around 41,000 Americans committed suicide. Out of all of these people, around 21,000 used firearms (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). If it would have been harder for the suicide victims to get hold of a gun, they might still be alive. There is, of course, the possibility that they would have found another way to end their lives, but shooting themselves might have seemed a quick, painless escape compared to other options.

There will be problems even with gun control being enforced. “Bad guys” will always find a way to get guns, but by limiting their access, crime rates may decrease. It is true without guns, they would most likely find other ways to hurt or kill people, but it would not be as easy. With a gun, someone can be shot from a distance without any way to protect themselves. In December 2015, a 7-year-old boy was killed in a drive-by-shooting (Miami Herald, 2015). If these criminals had not had access to guns, this boy could still be alive.

To sum this up, the United States should enforce gun control as it could save lives and decrease crime rates. The Second Amendment does not give individuals the right to keep and bear arms, and is therefore an invalid argument for people against gun control.

  • Lets start with this….

    Pass mandatory gun control!

    Step one.

    If charged with having/using a firearm unlawfully….

    No reduced bail, Subject to an automatic dangerousness hearing, No plea bargains, No reduced sentences, No early release from prison, and minimum state sentencing laws for assaults and/or robberies committed with a firearm.

    No need for step two.

    If you believe jails are over crowded and think most criminals should receive community service, go for it. But, when a criminal gets to the point of carrying a gun, a different and more serious ball game and mandated rules need to be in place.

    • Troy Scott

      You must be careful talking like that. I once posted 50 years min and they jumped all over me. Said long prison sentences did not reform people. I wasn’t talking about reform. I wanted to make sure they did not shoot anyone for 50 years. The man that shot Will Smith a few days ago had multiple felony drug charges starting in 2010 and in 2014 he had a felony drug and felony possession of a firearm. Why was this guy still out on the street?

      • cargosquid

        EXACTLY.

        • Joe Potosky

          The end game is to ban all guns.

  • gosmobaleet

    “It’s harder to get the laws you really want if the ones you have appear to be working.

  • Troy Scott

    First of all Google “lying with statistics” and read up on the subject. Pay particular attention to “sample size” and how it affects outcome. Now look at the states they use for statistics. The states they make out to be unsafe have one thing in common. They all have vast areas that are sparsely populated. Therefor the gang and drug ridden cities have a far greater effect on per 100k stats. Google “FBI Table 20 2014” and download it to excel. Now you can arrange and study the data for yourself. You will find that their graphics/stats don’t even match the FBI’s. Who is lying? How convenient that they leave out Washington DC in charts and graphs but are more that glad to include it in their totals. Do a little research!

  • cargosquid

    “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.” (Constitution Center).
    “In no way does this quote support individuals keeping and bearing arms for self protection, however, it does give this right to a well-regulated militia.”

    Well, here is the first problem. He has no idea what he’s talking about.

    “The Second Amendment does not give individuals the right to keep and bear arms”
    Here the he is actually right but doesn’t realize it. The 2nd nor the Constitution grant the right to arms. NONE of the articles in the Bill of Rights grants rights. ALL of them PROTECT existing, inalienable rights. He thinks that the Constitution grants rights. And that the 2nd does not.

    Thus…his premise is wrong.

    He should enroll in a 7th grade civics class.

  • doninla

    83% of all gun related deaths are gang and drug related. 53% are committed by black men under 30. That’s 3% of the population doing more than half of the population. We have a drug and gang problem in this country, the short sightedness of blaming guns just allows that problem to fester. The Author need to look at the CAUSE of the problem not the symptom.

  • Chip Welte

    I think what we just read here is a seventh grade class assignment. When this person grows up, learns how to do research, and has some knowledge of history and real life experiences, he will hopefully realize what freedom really means..

  • Montana_Libertarian

    What cargosquid said. . .

    • cargosquid

      Thanks.

  • Christopher Armour

    Why do people like the author have jobs writing about stuff they refuse to research, and have ZERO clue about?

    • Paladin

      ..and he cites The Atlantic. Doh!!!!!!

  • Stephen Weir

    Ziad has absolutely NO CLUE what he’s talking about, and this article is pure garbage. Ziad, buddy, got some news here for ya…in the lexicon of late 18th century America, “well regulated” was understood to mean”well trained”. And the”militia” was understood to mean EVERY able bodied citizen!!! The men that WROTE the 2nd Amendment clearly defined what they meant by these terms, and their writings on this subject are available for reading to this day. Do yourself a favor and do some REAL research. Until then, let me share some of my Grandmother’s wisdom wit’cha…”better to remain silent and be thought a fool…than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”!!!

    • FrancisKing

      ” “well regulated” was understood to mean”well trained”.”

      The language of the 2nd Amendment is the one I, a British citizen, learnt on my mother’s knee. Well-regulated means subject to military discipline.You will not be surprised to learnt that the militia members had all quit by the 1830s.

      • Paladin

        Alterntively – “to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.”
        Which in this case meant to be proficient with your (fire)arms. It was understood that every able-bodied male was a member of the ad-hoc militia, whether they had formal militia training or not.

        • FrancisKing

          No. ‘Well-regulated’ still means ‘disciplined’. Not that they know how to shoot straight, or well-trained, or they pay their income tax on time, or some other random interpretation. By the 1830s, with British intervention in American affairs now only a bad memory, people voted with their feet and abandoned the militias. Hence the need that some people had to Heller vs Columbia (2008).

          • Paladin

            Sorry many constitutional scholars and teachers of colloquial english disagree with you.
            And whether people “abandoned” formal militias or not has no bearing on the framers original meaning and intent.

      • Stephen Weir

        AGAIN…read the further writings of the framers of the 2nd Amendment…such as “The Federalist”. IN THEIR OWN WORDS, the men that wrote the 2nd Amendment explain EXACTLY what they meant. And it becomes CLEAR that they fully intended the American citizenry to be an armed citizenry!! And may I remind you, sir, that if you are indeed a British citizen, then you should butt out of the conversation…this article was about AMERICAN values and rights. And may I ALSO add that the American culture has a LONG history of participation in militias. And we put them to DAMN GOOD USE ridding ourselves of British rule in our Revolutionary War, and AGAIN in the War of 1812. So you keep your British rules and customs, and leave Americans to theirs…PLEASE!!

  • Chris Todd

    People like this author are why we have the 2nd Amendment…

  • Paladin
  • Chipsterr

    “…In no way does this quote support individuals keeping and bearing arms for self protection, ”

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

    So does my middle-school english teacher.

    Put another way, why would we put together a Constitution, then add a Bill of Rights, all of which set boundaries upon what the Government is allowed to do EXCEPT this one item here where it places limits on We the People and gives the Government authority to disarm its people?

    Like the kids these day say… English, do you even?

  • Paladin
  • Clifford Ishii

    Carry a Jo staff for self defense if you can’t carry a gun.

    • Paladin

      Careful son, you’ll poke your eye out with that.

  • Ed

    I skimmed this and really have nothing to add to what the other commenters said.

    I will say…if this was written b a college student…all my fears about “higher education” have been affirmed.
    If this is college-level writing, I am concerned for the future of my country.

    • Stephen Weir

      AMEN, Ed!! Sad, but it’s impossible NOT to agree with you!

  • nodixe

    That is not the correct reading of the 2A but is easily mistaken. “Intelligent And Well Educated Citizens Being Necessary To A Free State, The Right To Keep And Read Books Shall Not Be Infringed”- does anybody think that says that ONLY intelligent or well educated people can have books? No. Also the 2A/Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights to anything or anybody, it prevents the govt from infringing or prohibiting individual rights that already exist so it does not make sense to say it grants anything to any particular group. Besides, even if it did read like you say every adult citizen who is willing and able is already a member of the militia so again……the govt has absolutely no power to regulate or restrict anything except for what we tolerate. And yes, it would absolutely help if we/the US enforced the laws already on the books…..

  • Navy Nuke

    NH, Maine and Vermont. Limited gun control laws. Very low gun violence. Coincidence? Nope. It’s hilarious that the writer thinks that people only commit violent acts with guns. There’s no stabbings ever…? That is the same argument that the UK used. They still have murder. They still have a greater crime rate than the US tool.

  • nwgunslinger

    First, the second amendment protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. It is, as they say, settled law. The supreme court ruled that it is an individual right. In District of Columbie v Heller the court ruled “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” That is a direct quote from the decision.

    Suicides rates are much higher in places like Japan and Korea where private ownership of guns is virtually banned.

    As for overall violence just look to the UK. Their violent crime rate is nearly five times that of the US. While their murder rate may appear much lower you must keep in mind that in the UK if there is no conviction then there is no murder so unsolved murders are not counted as a murder.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

    Guns are not the problem. Our problem is people. There is a class of people who have no respect for human life. Remove black on black crime committed in the inner city ghettos from the statistics and America is one of the safest countries in the world.