Collin Black

Instructor: Malcolm Campbell

English 1104

April 2nd, 2012

Yes Guns, Time To Pick A Side No

Although gun control may seem of concern to only a small group of people, it should in

fact concern anyone who cares about the increase of violence and unsafe conditions. One side of

the debate is stricter laws against ownership of firearms while the other is fewer laws regarding

the ownership of firearms? Which side will you choose to be a part of, stricter laws against

ownership of firearms or will you choose to support the ownership of firearms? It is up to the

individual person to make the choice between the two approaches to own a gun and learn to use

it properly or not own a gun at all. There are many differenttwo perspectives to this yes of no to

gun control. There are many questions that the debate offers. Some People will ask does gun

control really help. While others will ask if guns are keeping people more or less safe. There is

no definitive right or wrong side to this argument. While there is no definitive right and wrong

side to this argument here are some of the various viewpoints of different people and groups.

Does Gun Control Really Help or Does It Leave the General Populous Defenseless?

Before we can decide our position on gun control we need to have some base knowledge about

gun control. Gun control is a broad term covering any sort of restriction including the kinds of

firearms bought and sold, who can possess and or sell them, where and how they will be stored

or carried, duties a seller has to vet a buyer, and also the duty of the buyer and the seller to report

it to the government. This term is also used to cover related matters such as the type of
ammunition, magazine (the part of the firearm that will hold a specific amount of ammunition),

technology (how the firearm functions).

Federal law prohibits those with criminal records, mental illness, drug addicts, veterans

who left the military with a dishonorable discharge, immigrants without legal status, and anyone

with a permanent restraining order as well as others from owning firearms. (Prez) The law

requires licensed gun dealers to run a background check before selling a firearm to a customer.

There are however major holes in the system, among these being incomplete listings of criminal

cases as well as small scale sellers. Gun sellers that do business at gun shows are not required to

do background checks on customers. Laws pertaining to the mentally ill are extremely porous as

well only prohibiting the possession of a gun by a person who is adjudicated as a mental

defective by a court or other authority. Many of these people are able to petition the courts and

get the restraints reversed.

Between the years 1994 and 2004, the law also banned the sale of many types of assault

rifles as well as large capacity magazines, however this law has since expired. Gun control laws

do exist at the federal and at the state level. Some states actually have more stringent

background check systems than the federal one and require a license or permit to own a

gungovernment.

Laws regarding carrying weapons differ greatly. Many states allow anyone legally

possessing a firearm to carry it openly in public without permit or license. A few states have no

permit requirement to carry a concealed gun but most states require that you do. States rules also

vary regarding gun possession in different settings like campuses and houses of worship. Even

among law enforcement officials they are divided,. Iin big cities police chiefs are more likely to
support gun control,. In comparison, where small town chiefs and sheriffs might be more

inclined to oppose it.

Over the past 25 years, Americans support for more gun control legislation is declining

even while the number of mass shooting rise. A public opinion done by the Roper Center on gun

control has Many polls on gun control have found that the country is fairly evenly divided when

asked broadly about gun control but when asked about specific restrictions placed on guns there

tends to be more who are pro control. (Prez) The majority of people seem to support universal

background checks and steps to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

The arguments against more gun control come down to the principle, law and

practicality. Gun rights supporters view possession of firearms as a matter of individuals rights.

Legally the debates come down to the second amendment and how it was written in the 18th

century questioning whether it means individual rights or a collective right as a militia. In 2008,

the supreme court ruled that the sSecond aAmendment protects the individual right to possess a

firearm in a 5 - to - 4 decision for the first time. On a more practical note gun owners say that

firearms make society safer providing the ability for self-defense and dissuading criminals from

victimizing those who might be armed.

Gun control was presented to the democratic party by law professor John R. Lotts., hHis

opinion was formed around how guns were used. More guns equal less violent crime was

Lottss opinion. The democratic party solution to violent crime is clear - more regulation of

guns. Crucial questions underlying all gun-control laws include what is their net effect, are more

lives lost or saved, do they deter crime or encourage it?.

Shall- issue laws - type of gun control law on concealed weapons - gives people right

to carry concealed handgun if they have no criminal record / history of mental illness. These
laws have reduced crime. Criminals respond rationally to deterrence threats. (Lotts) The

possibility that anyone might be carrying a gun makes attacking everyone less attractive;

unarmed citizens in effect "free-ride" on their pistol packing fellows. (Lotts) There are some

benefits of concealed handguns. People can use them for self-defense. Weapons that are

concealed keep criminals uncertain whether a potential victim can defend himself. It makes

attacking everyone less attractive. Confronting an armed person is much lower. Some criminals

avoid violent crimes but do not always give up their criminal life altogether.

Violent crime rates may fall however larceny, auto thefts may rise., much better to live

with them than the violent crimes. Support for strict gun control laws has been strongest in big

cities and where crime rates are highest - the right to carry laws have produced largest drops in

violent crimes. Women are helped more by concealed handguns because victims are usually

weaker than the criminal who attacks. Women with a concealed handgun makes a big difference

in her ability to defend herself. Guns are a great equality between the weak and the vicious.

It is rare that owners of concealed handguns use them to commit violent crimes or in

minor disputes such as traffic accidents. Accidental deaths are fewer than 200 per a year in the

United States. Preventing, law - abiding citizens from carrying handguns does not end violence,

but merely makes people more vulnerable to attack. The opportunity to reduce the murder rate

by simply relaying a regulation ought to be difficult to ignore.

Medical personnel have reviewed gun violence from the medical perspective. This

perspective has the potential to provide valuable insight to gun violence as it is the medical

profession who does their best to save people after acts of violence.Gun violence includes four

complicated problems that include mass shootings, suicides, homicides and gun related injuries,

accidental shootings. These four problems all have varied causes and solutions. Among these is
easy access to guns being a unifying thread. Universal background checks should be instituted

for every gun sale in every setting in the country - should be uncontroversial. Implementation of

such a process is not simple. The complexity however should not be an excuse for inaction.

First step would be to a renewed ban on assault weapons designed with the capability to fire

45-60 rounds per a min. Certain types of weapons do not have any practical application for

untrained civilians.

The medical community has a particular voice in this issue. Emergency physicians find

themselves on the front lines of response to gun violence. Physicians would prefer to prevent

gun violence. They want to improve their own education and familiarity with gun safety.

Physicians in their unique position could possibly identify patients at risk for violence and

impulsiveness and also at risk for partner violence. Physicians need better assessment tools and

pathways to provide education and resources to patients. Physicians believe in the need to join

with the millions of people who will push forward to find common ground and sensible

solutions.

Gun violence includes four complicated problems that include mass shootings, suicides,

homicides and gun related injuries, accidental shootings. These four problems all have varied

causes and solutions. Among these is easy access to guns being a unifying thread. Universal

background checks should be instituted for every gun sale in every setting in the country.

Implementation of such a process is not simple. The complexity however should not be an

excuse for inaction. First step would be to a renewed ban on assault weapons designed with

the capability to fire 45-60 rounds per a min. Certain types of weapons do not have any practical

application for untrained civilians.

 It was very interesting to learn how other nations police forces and laws affect the use of

guns. Police dont need guns to be effective. Police brutality is becoming a normality and is

horrific. Black man being shot could be called the modern-day lynching. In six months,

approximately 570 have been killed by US police. (Goldhill) It doesnt have to be that way; -

police officers dont have to shoot to kill.

In several countries police do not even have to carry a gun. Countries - Norway, Iceland,

New Zealand, Britain, and Ireland police do not carry firearms. In Iceland, it is legal for citizens

to carry guns - only about 30% of people actually do. (Goldhill) In 1886 New Zealand police

were disarmed. Their principle is constables are placed in authority to protect, not to oppress,

the public. Citizens in the other countries dont have access to guns, generally. Police are not

taken by surprise by a firearm. Officers are trained how to handle firearms. Armed officers can

be called to respond to a situation where a person is armed.

Key differences between US and elsewhere is training. US train their police force for an

average of 19 weeks. In Norway police officers receive three years training. The 19 weeks of

training time is spent on essential things like defending yourself and keeping yourself safe.

United States Three years means you also learn to protect others, how to avoid situations from

arising. This leads itself to a whole different outlook and culture in enforcement of the laws.

Other countries train to de-escalate hostile situations and to use minimal violence. In Finland,

you must obtain permission from a superior officer before shooting. In Spain, a warning shot is

fired. In the US officers shoot to kill, or deadly force is used. US law gives a fairly wide scope

for police violence and they can shoot if there is reasonable perception of a grave, imminent

threat. Officers can determine what is reasonable. Officers can determine what is reasonable.

Being a police officer comes with great risks but better training can reduce this risk. European
Convention of Human Rights policies state officers can only shoot when it is absolutely

necessary. Working in countries where citizens do not have access to guns give police officers

a much better work environment. Iceland where citizens do have guns has one of the lowest

global crime rates in the world. Most of their crimes do not involve firearms. Being a police

officer comes with great risks but better training can reduce this risk.

People ask does gun control really help? Other people ask if guns are keeping people

more or less safe? There is no right and wrong side to this argument. There are many different

approaches to solve the same problem. As you can see there are many different reasons to side

with either solution. This can include anything from your personal experiences, to having been

trained to handle firearms and hearing someone else's opinion on the topic based on their life and

how firearms have impacted them. It is up to the individual person to make the choice between

the two approaches to own a gun and learn to use it properly or not own a gun at all. People also

have to be willing to follow and obey the laws regardless of their view of the laws. So does gun

control really help? Are people safer with or without firearms? Which side will you choose to

be a part of, stricter laws against ownership of firearms or will you choose to support the

ownership of firearms? It is your time to pick Yes or No.

 Works Cited

Goldhill, Olivia. How Do Police Handle Violence in Countries Where Officers Don't Carry

Guns?Quartz, Quartz, 9 July 2016, qz.com/727941/how-do-police-handle-violence-in

-countries-where-officers-dont-carry-guns/. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.

Lotts, John R. Effects of Gun Control. Effects of Gun Control, University of Chicago Law

School, www.largo.org/Lott.html. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.

Prez-Pea, Richard. Gun Control Explained. The New York Times, The New York Times, 7

Oct. 2015, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control

-explained.html?_r=0. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.

Sacks, Chana A, et al. In the Wake of Orlando - Taking Steps against Gun

Violence. Shibboleth Authentication Request, The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of

MEDICINE, 1 Sept. 2016,

www.nejm.org.librarylink.uncc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe1608173. Accessed 10 Mar.

2017.