Defending our right to self defense.

As cliche as this is, I truly believe in the following statement, "Guns do not kill people, people kill people." As I'm typing this, I already feel huge assumptions being made as a result of my stance on this topic. Something along the lines of labeling me a red neck or gun fanatic. But I am neither of these. I'm just a typical college student who happens to actually be Hispanic. I don't have a general interests in firearms really, but I feel that it is important to have a say in regards to gun control. So all assumptions about me aside, I hope after reading this you see a different perspective whether you are for or against this topic. 

On April of 2013 the senate decided to reject the Toomey-Machin gun control proposal. This proposal  stated that background checks would be mandatory for gun show and internet sales but, would allow transfers between families and friends to go unaffected. Although this may sound like a good compromise, we have to look at the bigger picture. According to David T. Hardy, from reason.com, "The anti-gun crowd doesn't want compromise, they want confiscation." What Hardy means by this is that the ultimate goal isn't a compromise between gun owners and gun control advocates but, a total seizure of firearms. Compromises are only stepping stones that eventually lead to the hidden agenda of gun control advocates. Hardy further explains this idea by providing the example of the 1972 Brady Campaign. Pete Shields, a member of this group, laid out a step by step plan to gain total control over handguns in America. He stated," We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily- given the political realities- going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal- total control of handguns in the United States- is going to take some time. My estimate is from 7 to 10 years." This did not sound like a compromise. It sounded more like trying to take away our right to bear arms.

Why take away our right to protect ourselves?

It is our constitutional right to bear arms and protect ourselves. This right has been challenged over and over again in many court cases. And it was not until the case of  District of Columbia vs. Heller, that this right was fully protected from state law. In the District of Columbia, handguns can not be registered and it is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Also any legally owned fire arms must be disassembled and must be put under trigger lock. At the time Dick Heller filed an application to register a handgun he wanted to keep at home. His application was rejected so he went on to file a law suit. In his law suit Heller "sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home." It is surprising that of all people, his application would be rejected. He is a trained police officer that has experience in handling weapons. If his application was rejected what hope was there for non-police officers. However, Heller did go on to win the case as it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Heller was entitled to have an operating handgun under the second amendment. This was very important because it marked the first time that the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protects an individuals rights to bear arms for self-defense.  

The following is a portion of the official ruling made by the Supreme Court, according to Wikipedia:

"(1) 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... Pp. 2–53."

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose... Pp. 54–56."

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense... Pp. 56–64." 

 Our right "shall not be infringed".

 

 Many events in U.S. history have fueled the argument towards gun control. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has been the most influential this past year. It was a terrible tragedy where over 20 children and 7 adults (one adult being the shooters own mother) were shot dead. This ignited a media bomb that targeted current gun laws, with hopes to make improve them or set new ones that further regulated the purchase and ownership of guns. There was no doubt that emotions were running high during this period. However if we look at this through an objective perspective, can we really say that faulty gun laws were to blame? Dana Scherne from policymic.com brings up some interesting points on this. According to Dana it was already illegal for Adam to own any type of firearm. She writes, "Connecticut law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from owning a gun; Lanza was 20 years old. Connecticut also has a "safe storage" provision that makes it a crime if a gun is accessible to a minor; Lanza was not a minor." So regardless of the laws in place, Lanza was still able to get a hold of these weapons. This proves that even with stricter laws and limited gun sales, there will always be a way for people to get a hold of weapons.  As prominent as gun laws can be there are also illegal ways of attaining guns. That's what makes it this a tough decision. You take away the right to bear arms, then people may not be able to defend themselves as best they could against those that illegally acquire firearms. 

As I stated in the beginning ,"Gun's do not kill people, people kill people." A gun is an instrument of death not death itself. It's actions are determined by those that pull the trigger. Without a person in the equation a gun is harmless. We change the purpose an item has in this world. We can changed a knife, a rock, or baseball bat into a deadly weapon. So maybe it's not guns we should look out for, but people we should pay closer attention to.

The following video adds some interesting points and includes 5 main arguments against gun control:

-Ozzy

Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting sparks Gun Control debate

**Possible trigger effect**

BANG! Everyone starts to panic. “GET ON THE FLOOR!” People screaming, running, hiding, as the man dressed in all black with a mask walks down the hall. With a gun in each hand, he shoots at anyone still standing or running. With each fallen victim, his maniac laughter grows louder and louder, resonating with the echoes of the gunshots and shells hitting the floor. As the sirens of the police grew closer, he makes his final round of shots, and all is silent just before the police reach the scene of chaos. The shooter has ended his rampage with himself, as the last victim.

That was just a fictional scenario of a mass shooting. Many other crimes involving gun violence happen everyday and everywhere. Many gun laws about the obtaining of and owning a gun or any firearms have been implemented, but have the people’s ability in owning a gun do any good in preventing deaths? In fact, I think guns in general usually lead to increased violence and death. That is why gun control laws should be applied to limit the number of guns allowed or even ban the owning of firearms. Yes, many do believe that having a gun is self-defense and is a must in human rights, but think about it: the reason why people own guns is to protect themselves from those with guns, so if the threat has no gun to start with, you wouldn’t feel the need to own a gun to protect yourself with.

However, because guns have not been banned and not much control is put on them, criminals continue to easily obtain guns and commit crimes with them. A recent event involving the death and severe injuries of more than 20 people occurred on December 14, 2012 when a man by the name of Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 students and 6 staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. (Wikipedia.com) Lanza was a 20-year old man who had access to his mother’s guns and rifles who was described as a “gun enthusiast who owned at least a dozen firearms”. Before his shooting at the school, authorities have claimed that Lanza had shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza. Now if gun control laws were enforced, Lanza’s mother may not have had possession to so many deadly guns and thus would have prevented her son from killing her and prevented the mass murder.

Examples of the kinds of firearms Lanza used in the shooting. (See a timeline of events by CNN)

Strict gun control laws were not in place at the time of the shooting, however some form of law was implemented that may have helped delay the onset of Lanza’s violent actions. During that time under Connecticut gun laws, Lanza was of age to carry a long gun such as a shotgun or rifle, but he was still underage for owning or carrying handguns. Perhaps due to the law preventing him from carrying a long gun until he was of age, his actions were delayed till then, but because his mother had the full right to own such large quantities of firearms, of age or not, he could have taken the guns and shot anyone up at anytime.

In reaction to the tragic event, President Obama announced a plan for better control of firearms in the United States on January 16, 2013. With the announcement of his plan, the debate on gun control reignited. The President’s plan for improving gun control included proposals for new laws that Congress should pass, along with some that does not need approval from Congress.

Some congressional actions that were proposed included:

• Requiring background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that are currently exempt.
• Passing a new and stronger ban on assault weapons.
• Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
• Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone except for members of the military and law enforcement.
• A $4 billion administration proposal to help maintain 15,000 police officers on duty.

Some executive actions included:

• Requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
• Addressing legal barriers such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from giving out information to the background check system.
• A rule allowing law enforcement authorities the ability to perform a full background check on an individual prior to returning a seized gun.
• Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

(List provided by The New York Times)

A video of President Obama’s announcement of his plan posted by Whitehouse.gov includes the major points in reducing gun violence and protecting our children and communities is shown below.

See video on YouTube: Now Is The Time to Take Action Against Gun Violence

On April 17, 2013, the Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Bill, a bill that exercised some of the restrictions of gun control, failed to pass the U.S. Senate. In response to the failing of the bill, President Obama expressed angrily in a speech that it was a shameful day for Washington (NYDailyNews.com).

A transcription of Obama’s speech can be found on Salon.com.

The call for action on this issue with gun violence and control has been long overdue. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting was another tragedy that could have been avoided. The event was also what opened the eyes of the President to announce a plan for better gun control. That is what restarted the national debate on gun control and possibly a safer future for everyone. Though from the failing of the Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Bill, it is clear that America is far from seeing the requirements it needs to protect its citizens. Gun control laws should be enforced because it will help prevent criminals from gaining access or buying guns, limit the amount of deaths, increase police protection, and decrease gun violence in general. Michael McLaughlin of HuffingtonPost.com, provides a side story of the gun violence in the United States on a given year. He wrote that

“If Americans misbehaved on Jan. 15, 2013, as they typically do, then there were 30 gun-related murders and 162 people wounded by firearms in the country, based on the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On top of that, another 53 people kill themselves with a firearm each day, according to the CDC.
Breaking it down further, three people are killed by a gun per hour and almost seven people are shot every 60 minutes.“ (McLaughlin, HuffingtonPost.com)

McLaughlin’s point provide us with some statistics on the number of deaths resulting from gun violence. Perhaps these numbers will be enough to influence those against gun control laws to change their minds. Not everyone may agree with what I have presented, but take the issue to heart, sleep on it. What would you do to protect those around you? To end the horror that runs wild on the streets; that one day, that horror may end up killing your loved ones, or worse, you. Just think about it.