This writing is the yearly research paper project with the topic Should stricter gun control laws

be enforced?.

Jacob C.
Language Arts Teacher
Language Arts
8 January 2016
Gun Control: Are Stricter Laws Necessary?
Since the brutal murders at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the extensive debate
over gun control has become a way for the president and congressional allies to demonstrate
"leadership." A plethora of new proposals regularly originated everywhere from the White House
to reflexive outbursts of disapproval from gun owners and manufacturers and their allied
organization. Essentially, however, the debate boils down to a choice between new regulations
over sale, purchase, and possession of firearms or increased enforcement of criminal laws against
those who use firearms illegally. Should these laws be implemented, more over-watching of the
American people by the government will have to be necessary because of the enforcement of
these laws needed. So, implementing restrictions on firearms presents a few problems: impeding
the Second Amendment in nearly every way and that the gun laws are not very likely to reduce
gun violence in the first place.
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 Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
The founding fathers of The United States sought for the people, not just the military and

its branches to keep and bear firearms to protect lives and liberty. This is proven in many
different ways. First, the Bill of Rights does not in any way grant the federal government powers
to do such-and-such. It once was understood that the Congressional power could only be
increased by further amending the Constitution, and such amendment has never been made to
enable the federal government to limit the right to keep and bear arms. According to Joseph
Sobran, this is explicitly called a "right," with no implication that the people may keep and bear
arms only by government permission. Second, the amendment clearly forbids the Governments
rights to infringe that right. Such a positive prohibition against such a power is much stronger
than a presumption made against it. Finally, the Ninth Amendment says that the people have
"retained" other rights besides those listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What were
these unlisted rights? That "original right of self-defense, as Alexander Hamilton called it in The
Federalist Papers, No. 28, would surely be among them. If one has a right to life, liberty and
property, then he surely has a right to defend them against violence.
Some claim that gun control laws would have zero effective power on the people
whatsoever. If these laws are to be implemented, there will be loopholes to avoid them. Some
exist today one example is known as the Gun Show Loophole. Gun control advocates claim
that a loophole in federal regulations allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows without
requiring the purchaser to undergo a background check. The Americans for Gun Safety (AGS)
contends that this loophole can be closed without putting gun shows out of business and without
requiring lengthy waits for background checks. Best of all, AGS asserts that closing the loophole
would make it more difficult for criminals to purchase guns, thus keeping Americans safer.
Americans for Gun Safety is an advocate for responsible gun ownership in order to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals.

The U.S. Government cannot treat each gun crime as equal. Two different types of
firearm offenders exist: career offenders and disorganized crime members. Professional bank
robbers, drug cartels, drug distribution networks, street gangs, etc. usually make up most of the
career offenders. These people have vast knowledge of the law, and how to circumvent it from
being a detriment to their businesses. Members of the disorganized crime group commit crimes
such as carjacking and armed robbery of stores, gas stations, and pedestrians, carried out by
individuals or in twos or threes. This is the kind of street crime that terrifies the public. The
people who commit such crimes are often young, poor, and heavily involved with drugs. They
may kill people in failed robberies or for no apparent reason. They often kill one another for no
apparent reason. Their stray bullets may kill or injure bystanders just because of their
inexperience with firearms. From their own experiences in juvenile detention centers,
reformatories, adult jails and prisons, and in the criminal subculture altogether, individuals in this
category have many sourcesfamily members, friends, gang associates, drug dealers from
whom they can purchase or borrow handguns. It seems highly unlikely that any gun control
regime could prevent such individuals from obtaining firearms. They rarely purchase guns from
FFLs (Federal Firearm License Holders), so stricter regulation of licensed retail sellers would
have little, if any, impact.
While all of this may be true, some say we are not interpreting the Second Amendment
correctly. In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, the Supreme Court discusses the purpose and
the limit of the Second Amendment and tells us that the "obvious purpose of the Amendment
was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of our state militia forces.
The right to bear arms was not granted to each and every individual, but rather was limited to
maintaining effective military forces.

In conclusion, all this might leave some with a feeling of despair. But there is more
reason for optimism now then there was ever before. Violence has decreased dramatically in the
last decade in the United States, despite the continued increase in the supply of publiclyavailable guns. This means that firearms accessibility is not the only thing, and not the most
important thing, driving gun crime. Criminologists and policy makers should not be obstructed
by unrealistic proposals and slogans for gun control. Rather, they should look to building on
other anti-crime strategies and constructive social welfare policies that might be contributing to
this unprecedented decrease of violent crime and gun crime.