The age-old issue of gun control in the United States has transcended centuries, sparking an innumerable amount of political debates and fundamental disagreements.  With a concrete Constitutional Amendment explicitly protecting of the right of American citizens to possess firearms, any effort to place limitations is an uphill battle.  As widespread gun-related violence and mass-shootings become ever more commonplace within the United States, pushes for these limitations become more impassioned.  Mass-shootings such as Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and the DC Navy Yard have been viewed as strong motivations for proactive measures.  This issue is one of the most diverse, complex issues within our nation, which often effectively polarizes the entire American population.  Political, geographical, and socioeconomic factors often strongly impact individual beliefs on this topic.  In the wake of the tragic Newtown Elementary School shooting, President Barack Obama summed up this topic beautifully, by stating "we know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides" (Christian Science Monitor).

First I will be examining the nature of the anti-gun, pro-gun-control ideologues, and their stigmatization of efforts made by gun lobbyists.  Then I will highlight my case study of gun-related murder within the District of Columbia, largely focusing upon the statistics that do not support such strict regulation of firearms.  I will address counter-arguments to my position, largely the general insistence that firearms are trafficked from areas with less stringent regulations.  Finally, I will offer alternatives to such methods of gun control, instead urging that our focus be evolved towards addressing mental health, as well as gang violence that plagues our inner cities.

With each tragic event that transpires within the United States, blame is often irresponsibly placed solely upon the presence of the firearm itself.  Various forms of media, lobbyist organizations, and politicians promote this blatant anti-gun rhetoric at any viable opportunity.  Those who share and promote this train of thought generally insist that limiting the amount of firearms in circulation will proactively decrease the amount of gun-related incidents and fatalities.  These individuals criticize pro-gun-rights lobbyist organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), for limiting the power of the voting American public.  A passionate editorial, published through the Indianapolis Star, promotes this belief by stating, "[t]he gun lobby is powerful, well-funded and aggressive, driven by the highly lucrative sale of firearms and ammunition" (Take Country).  Such organizations influence decision making at all levels of American politics, as well as reaching out to the American voting public, in an attempt to sway votes towards candidates with a lax history on gun control.  Pro-gun-control thinkers also criticize these organizations for spending millions on vigorous assertion of their respective beliefs, citing instances such as "[t]he NRA spent millions on TV spots; one seven-figure ad buy last October attacked the president for 'chipping away' at Second Amendment rights, urging Americans to 'defend freedom" (Stone 12).  Pro-gun-control ideologues also demonize facts such as "[o]verall, the NRA spent just north of $25 million on last year's election: $7 million supporting Republican candidates, and $18 million attacking Democrats" (Stone 12).  These individuals view these practices as problematic, as such organizations not only promote candidates that embody their interests, but violently attack those who are in opposition.  Those who oppose such interest groups also assert that financial influences have no such place in such a passionate, impactful debate.  These two sides are constantly battling for influence, often resulting in political gridlock and inaction on this topic that is experienced throughout all levels of American lawmaking, most notably on the national level.

With as complex of an issue as this is, I believe it is necessary to examine specific evidence that displays the sheer ineffectiveness of gun control policies.  I will be examining the historical context, as well as the current gun-related violence statistics that plague our Nation's Capitol.  Washington, D.C. has been home to some of the most strict gun control measures, in a battle that has ensued for decades.  The most stringent legislation within the District was passed in June 1976, with an affirming vote of 12 to 1 (Smith).  Specifically, this bill restricted all city residents from acquiring handguns, in addition to requiring that all firearms be kept unloaded and dissembled, except those in business establishments (Smith).  This law also required that all firearms kept in private homes be rendered inoperable through means of a trigger lock (Agresti).  These provisions were groundbreaking developments within the debate of gun control, never before had such a strong limitation been instituted on such a level.  The law withstood numerous attempts to repeal, until gaining vast overwhelming opposition in the late 2000's.  As the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in November 2007, members of the House and Senate filed an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold the ruling that the stringent law blatantly violates Second Amendment rights (Smith).  The law lasted an astounding 25 years on the books, before officially being struck down by the United States Supreme Court in June 2008 (Smith).  The sheer ineffectiveness of this law is obvious, with a simple observation of the statistics over the decades.  According to statistics complied from various sources, in 1977 (the first full year of the law), D.C. experienced a rate of roughly 28 homicides and non-negligent manslaughters per 100,000 individuals (Agresti).  By the year 1991, this rate had skyrocketed to an astounding 80 homicides and non-negligent manslaughters per 100,000 individuals per year (Agresti).  This explosion of gun-related deaths can be directly attributed to the stringent limits placed upon firearms.  Astonishingly, during the years which this law was in effect, the rate of murders within the city of Washington, D.C. averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the national murder rate averaged 11% lower (Agresti).  These statistics should be viewed as a wake-up call for our entire nation, as historical proof of what stringent gun-control measures can do to a significant population.  One can only imagine the would-be effects such similar instances of legislation would have on a national level.

In lieu of the Supreme Court ruling, the District of Columbia is still currently home to the tightest firearms restrictions in the country.  As the ruling was passed down in June 2008, the D.C. Council passed revised gun laws within a month (Agresti).  New propositions consisted of stringent laws related to gun registration, as well as vastly expanded background checks (Smith).  However, through all of these developments, the Nation's Capitol still experiences unrivaled rates of gun-related homicides.  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), has the highest incidence of gun murders per 100,000 inhabitants within the entire country.  In the year 2010, D.C. racked up an unprecedented rate of 16.5 gun-related murders per 100,000 citizens (Table 20).  To put this into proper context, the closest comparable rate by state in the entire country is Louisiana, which only totaled a rate of 7.7 gun-related murders per 100,000 inhabitants (Table 20).  The District of Columbia's vast issue with gun-related fatalities is only intensified by the "efforts" that lawmakers aim towards decreasing its prevalence.  These statistics do not occur out of coincidence, as they correlate directly with the increased restrictions placed upon firearms.

Opponents to my stance on this issue will highlight many other factors that plague the example of gun-related statistics within the District of Columbia.  Many proponents of gun control measures insist that guns are trafficked on high levels from jurisdictions with slacker restrictions, to areas with strict laws, such as Washington, D.C.  One would believe that these jurisdictions would be geographically proximate to the jurisdictions that experience high levels of gun-related violence.  Applying this logic, the states of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and West Virginia would experience unprecedented rates of gun-related fatalities, much as the District of Columbia does on an annual basis.  However, this is merely not the case.  In 2010, the State of Maryland witnessed an annual rate of 5.1 gun-related murders per 100,000 individuals ("Table 20").  Even more revealing, in this same report, the Commonwealth of Virginia reported an annual rate of 3.1 gun-related murders per 100,000 individuals ("Table 20").  These rates simply do not rival the rates experienced within the District of Columbia, with Maryland hardly making up a third of the rate ("Table 20").  I view this as evidence that these surrounding jurisdictions cannot be dished the blame for the sheer inability of the District to efficiently control its issue with firearms.

Through extensive forms of research, as well an application of logical reasoning; gun control is a vastly ineffective "end all" solution to this diverse issue.  This topic is far too complex to be dealt with in such a simplistic way, as the true issues at hand lie tucked beneath the visible surface.  The senseless perpetrators behind the guns themselves should be more closely examined as we search for a viable solution to this pressing issue.  Motives and past experiences should be examined, as opposed to lifeless objects that are used to harm others.  Our society is simply too violent, and often promotes violence through any possible medium.  James B. Jacobs, of whom I will be referencing throughout this paper, is a prestigious scholar who has written extensively on the topic of gun control.  He makes a great proposition, asserting that America has been an extremely violent society since our inception, as violence simply goes hand-in-hand with our nature as Americans.  He illustrates this belief by stating, "[v]iolence is a multifaceted and deeply entrenched phenomenon in American society" (Jacobs 214).  Using this logic, any institution promoting limitations on firearms would have no relevant effect on preventing future instances of violence in general.  If we are to eliminate violence as a whole, we must rework our entire society, and undo our history, both of which are utopian in nature.

In instances of rampage shootings, we as a society do not place an adequate amount of emphasis upon the importance of mental health and wellbeing.  Not only does our society not properly handle those diagnosed with a predisposed mental illness, it often alienates countless individuals who do not have acceptable traits.  In both instances, these individuals often are victims of humiliation, which only intensifies the issue.  According to a New York Times article from the year 2000, in 100 cases of rampage shooting incidents, 63 involved people "made threats of violence before the event" (Faria).  This statistic is stunning, and truly illustrates the signs that are outwardly visible before an individual carries out such an act.  Each threat should be valued equally, and actions to evaluate the mental health of each individual should be handled accordingly.  From Sandy Hook Elementary, to the Aurora Movie Theater, to the campus of Virginia Tech, each perpetrator projected prior signs of being prone to committing senseless violence.  Great examination of the obvious correlation between mental health and mass-shootings is displayed throughout Jessica Rosenberg's "Mass Shootings and Mental Policy."  For example, a report that observed the mental background of the Virginia Tech shooter, Sueng-Hui Cho, revealed a vast mental health record, that dated back to his years in middle school (Rosenberg 117).  Even more shocking, two years prior to the incident, Cho was labeled by a clinical social worker as "presenting an imminent danger to himself and others" (Rosenberg 117).  In the wake of these tragic occurrences, our country has slowly begun to recognize the constant reoccurring theme of an element of mental illness.  As recently as June 3rd, 2013, President Barack Obama played host to a national symposium on mental health, largely evolving the debate from focusing upon simple gun control, to instead addressing the national plague that is mental illness.  Within this conference, he is quoted as vowing to "bring mental illness out of the shadows" (Rosenberg 117).  This is a promising development, especially as much as our President has maintained an image as a figurehead for recent pushes for intensified gun control measures.  With the most influential individual in the country calling for such measures, we can hope that many others will not only be influenced by his beliefs, but that these beliefs will be acted upon.  We also can only hope that this is a direct response by the President to the realization that our states have combined to cut a total of $4.35 billion from funds that aided in combating public mental health (Rosenberg 117).  I believe that it is no coincidence that incidents of mass-murder have became more prevalent, with the irresponsible slashing of funds directed towards mental illness.  If more attention and funds were directed at combating mental health, we simply would have a safer society in general, more effectively controlling those who are at a heightened risk of harming innocent others.

The same train of logic applies to instances of senseless inner-city violence that plagues our country.  "Firearm Localism" written by Joseph Blocher and published in the Yale Law Journal, attempts to tackle the evolution of the varying American opinions on firearms.  This article asserts that urban areas are far more likely to support gun control measures, as it is described "[c]ity-dwellwers are victimized by gun crime at much higher rates, and are far more likely to support stringent gun control" (Blocher 91).  These rates are absolutely astounding, depicted in a 2006-2007 study conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that found that "[t]he 62 center cities of America's 50 largest metro areas account for 15 percent of the population but 39 percent of gun related murders" (Blocher 91).  For a specific demonstration of these rates, a 2013 report published by the Connecticut Association for Human Services (CAHS), reports that "[o]nly 11% of Conneticut residents live in Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport.  But these three cities are home to 67% of homicides, 62% of armed robberies, and 81% of aggravated assaults involving firearms in the state" (Geography of).  These rates are unprecedented within our country, blatantly displaying the geographical discrepancies that are related with this issue.  As an alternative to simply combating the guns themselves, the underlying factors that are prevalent within these environments should be observed.  Mass levels of economic and social destitution give rise to gang-related activity throughout the inner cities of our country.  James B. Jacobs similarly asserts, "[a]ny satisfactory explanation of lethal violence would have to take account of the socioeconomic predicament and cultural norms of communities and neighborhoods with disproportionately high rates of violence" (Jacobs 11).  As these individuals have few opportunities to move up the social ladder, these alienated citizens are effectively recruited by gangs, in which result in massive amounts of gun-related incidents.  Therefore simplistic methods focusing upon gun control are attempting to solve current issues, without attempting to combat these underlying issues at their roots.  "Homicide -- much of it gang-related -- has been the leading cause of death for young black men ages 15 to 34 for more than a quarter of a century" (Kingsbury).  This is an absolutely astounding statistic, displaying the senseless impacts that inner-city culture has upon countless lives, as it has for multiple generations.  In order to save further lives, we must not strictly blame the objects that are used to commit these crimes, but instead combat the underlying factors.  Jacobs offers a possible explanation for the lack of other levels of social examination, stating "[p]erhaps the emphasis on firearms availability (and drugs) provides a convenient distraction for those analysts who prefer to avoid addressing some very distressing questions about the nature of our society and ourselves" (Jacobs 11).  This train of thought could be applied to inner cities across our nation.  As constituents of these areas have pushed for further restrictions upon firearms, the impact of violence within these environments has remained as being far too prevalent, a call for a change in belief.

Each American citizen should be passionately concerned with this controversial topic.  Each year, further restrictions are placed upon a simple, fundamental guaranteed right that we share as Americans.  Regardless of personal interest or use of firearms, this issue can be viewed symbolically as things to come.  If our government now possesses the ability to limit such a fundamental Constitutional protection, who is to say that any other simple liberty will not be similarly violated?  The founding fathers of our country viewed this issue as important enough to explicitly state within the Second Amendment, "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" (US Constitution).  A value emphasized as strongly as gun rights should not be taken lightly, through strict adherence to our Constitution.  While we may currently not need a formal "militia," we as American citizens, should always have the ability to band together, and fight any threats that we see to our society.  The measures that our elected officials take to protect us from such violence are ineffective, and often intensify the issue at hand.  If we are to properly address the issue of gun-related-violence as a nation, we must examine the surrounding factors.  Simply combating the objects used to commit this violence has proven vastly ineffective time and time again.
