Throughout the history of the United States, the issue of gun control has been a focal point of political discussions and created a polarizing effect in citizens. For many, gun control is a black and white issue where an individual believes that his or her opinion is the correct one and nothing someone says can change their mind. The idea of being able to have a firearm dates to when the framers wrote the Constitution, and in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights it states, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” But with the increase of gun violence and crime in the 21st century, the topic of gun control has become more prevalent than ever. The public is split on whether guns should be strongly regulated because of the crimes and shootings that have been occurring or if this right should not be changed just as the founders had intended. With the increase of mass shootings and crime in major cities, many legislators have called for the creation of laws on guns to make people safer, but some go as far as demanding to ban guns from the public completely in gun free zones. Doing away with guns is far too extreme, but there should be regulations put in place to keep the public safer from gun violence without the laws taking away an individual’s right to own a firearm.  The right to bear arms is one of the most fundamental and paramount amendments in the constitution and should not be infringed upon; however, laws surrounding gun control must be increased to keep citizens safe from crime and wrongdoings without directly effecting peoples’ constitutional rights to individually own a gun. 

The first topic to address when creating this argument is interpreting the constitution. When the founding fathers adopted the Bill of Rights in 1791, guns were used completely differently than how people use them today. Because of this massive separation between muskets and automatic weapons, law makers in America debate one another on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Some believe the Constitution should not be changed and left exactly as the founders wrote it and others believe that firearms are too powerful now to go unregulated by the government.

Despite this topic being so polarizing, supporters on both sides of the spectrum share the same common goal, which is to keep guns away from those who mean to do harm. It is hard for people who call for intense regulations to understand that it is still the right of every American citizen to own a firearm, even if they do not personally want one. Now, there is no reason for an individual to own an AR-15, but if a person enjoys hunting and would like a rifle, or a family wants to keep a pistol in their house for protection that is within their rights and is completely constitutional. Economist and author of, More Guns, Less Problems, by John Lott argues that without the presence of guns in the hands of citizens’ crime rates will go up. Through his research, Lott found that one year after the hand gun ban in DC became a law, the murder rates had increased and continued to increase for many years. The lack of firearms in the public created an environment in which only criminals were carrying guns, while law- abiding citizens were without any protection (“The Second Amendment”). This is because only about 3%- 11% of guns used in violent crimes are obtained by criminals legally. To properly keep guns out of the hands of bad people, legislation needs to focus on stopping the illegal selling of guns as opposed to trying to stop the legal purchase of firearms that average citizens do.  In a similar article written by Christopher Goins who interviews John Lott and comments on his book previously mentioned, Goins concedes that “Laws that restrict gun ownership do nothing to deter someone who’s decided to fire on fellow citizens” (Goins). 

 The Washington DC Ban on hand guns was brought up as an example for why completely doing away with firearms is unconstitutional. Back in 1975, law makers created the Firearms Control Regulation Act. This law outlawed residents from owning any guns including: pistols, automatic weapons, or high-capacity semi- automatic weapons. Although this was used in attempt to make the Capital a safer place, it did not work and over time people wanted firearms for protection. That is why in 2003 the District of Columbia was sued by six residents of DC in the court case of District of Columbia v. Heller. After a grueling 5-year trial, the case made its way to the Supreme Court for the final verdict. There in a 5-4 decision the court voted that the ban was unconstitutional and individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, should not be infringed upon (“The Second Amendment”).

Even with the Supreme Court ruling, the right to bear arms is still one of the biggest political issues to date. Michael Bellesiles, an Emory University historian, argues that when the Second Amendment was written, guns were not widely owned or reliable enough to be important to the average citizen. He claims that the founders intended this to be an amendment that protects the states, not for personal protection (Will). Many agree and think similarly with Bellesiles which causes the huge political divide seen today. The Republican Party believes that the right should not be infringed upon and it is an individual’s right while the Democratic Party thinks there should be stronger gun control and it should focus on less individual’s owning guns. 

While many people who do not support guns choose to villainize weapons and call for a ban on them, democrat Dan Gross, the President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Control, has a different perspective on the issue. Despite being a very strong activist against gun violence he does not believe there should be a ban, just stronger regulations. Throughout his TED Talk, Gross finds common ground amongst the two sides of this issue with the fact that guns keep people safe so long as they stay out of the hands of villainous people. Gross sites that the Brady Background Checks are effective with 90% of Americans agreeing with them, but people are finding loopholes to obtain firearms. Criminals and people mentally unfit to acquire a weapon either obtain guns illegally or take them from people who purchased theirs legally. On average, in the United States nine people are shot each day on accident because a firearm was misused or in the wrong hands (Dan Gross). But this statistic does not change Gross’s opinion because he states how there are 300 million gun in America and because of that number people are safer than if there were little to no guns. The power of a firearm can protect families and households from those who obtained guns in illegal ways and wish to harm others. (Dan Gross)

With this information, legislators are attempting to create different types of gun control laws to stop crime. Some examples of these laws are: the banning of assault weapons, one- gun- a month rule, and required trigger locks to help prevent accidental shootings (Lott). These laws have helped reduce gun related incidents since each one was put in place, but other gun control laws have fallen through. For example, the gun-free zones that are in Europe and are starting to be put in place in America become criminal playgrounds. The worst shootings in all of Europe happen in their gun-free zones because the criminals know there is no one there with firearms to stop them except the police (Lott). Gun control can be a strong tool in preventing shootings, but certain extreme measures can make the circumstances worse.  

Within the last twenty-five years, there have been multiple forms of gun control that have proven to be beneficial for the American people. The first major piece of legislation put into effect was on February 28, 1994 with The Brady Handgun Violence and Protection Act. This act made it so that there are instant background checks for individuals seeking to purchase any type of firearm. The Brady Act is a paramount piece of legislation because it allows the prevention of guns falling into the wrong hands legally (Kleck). In a study, it was found that gun owner licensing laws, background checks, and permit laws have helped reduce the risk of homicide. With this information, Kleck, the author of the article, suggests that background checks have value in preventing crime. Another law put into place in certain states are waiting periods when purchasing a weapon. These periods can last from 2-14 days depending on the state in which they are implemented. The point of this is to allow for time to adequately check the purchaser’s backgrounds. In addition, it creates a “cooling off” period for people to calm down in case they were planning on using the weapon for malicious intent that was not well thought out (Kleck). 

These gun control laws have helped keep guns out of the hands of bad people legally, but criminals acquire their guns illegally most of the time. That is why in 1996 the city of Boston created the Boston Operation Ceasefire. This is an attempt to disrupt the illegal gun markets and help reduce gun trafficking to gang members (Kleck). Being from Boston, there is a very personal connection from my community and this operation because it has made myself and people who live near me feel safer.  People who lived in Boston before 1996 say that they have noticed a greater sense of safety in the city since the police have been doing the operation.  One major outcome is that youth violence has decreased a considerable amount because of the severe punishments the police are giving to younger gang members (Kleck). With all the talk of violence and crime it is easy for people to believe guns are evil, but they do serve an important purpose in society that can prove to be beneficial to people.

But the truth is the average citizen does not see the benefits of owning a gun and typically leans away from supporting individual gun rights because of mainstream media. Despite it being well known that most crimes are done with illegal guns or hand guns, certain media outlets have created an unfair bias towards legally purchased pistols, semi-automatic firearms and hunting rifles (SPRINGER). Because of this, the people have associated all guns with crime and violence as opposed to safety and constitutionality. Not only does this bias effect citizens, but it creates a chain effect within the country. An increased hysteria of firearms allows for legislators with anti- gun agendas to create laws which benefit them and their personal beliefs instead of helping the people whom they serve. It is a fact that aggressive gun control reduces the risk of criminals encountering a victim with a gun, and when this happens crime rates increase. The media tries to get the most interesting and sad stories involving guns and then manipulates how the public thinks to push across the anti-gun agenda (Lott). 

Recently on February 7, 2017, the New York Times published a column claiming that President Trump and the House voted to scrap a policy on gun control that was proposed by President Obama (The Editorial Board). While this is true, the House only got rid of the policy because Trump was working on a different one. In the article “Trump Administration Signals Intent to Enforce Existing Gun Laws” by Allan Cors, he discusses what Trump has done and will do to improve America’s safety with firearms. In doing so, Cors talks about Trump’s efforts that have proved to be beneficial. An example of this is Project Exile which forces criminals to disarm themselves or they must serve a mandatory prison sentence. This has caused a significant drop in violent crime in some major cities (Cors). 

In contrast, Cors writes about Chicago’s failures in previously enforcing federal law to get rid of crime. A prime example of this is the Youth Rehabilitation Act, which allowed young public offenders to be given a shortened sentence, released on parole, and a second chance in society. While this act is extremely noble, statistically it did not work. The reason this failed was because when implemented in Chicago, the youth that were released had a higher rate of going back to jail on gun related offenses because of gang affiliations and lack of resistance from unarmed citizens. Cors uses this failing act as a staple in his argument that a city with very high crime rates such as Chicago should not have a hand gun ban (Cors). Through this article, the reiteration of a gun ban is shown to be unconstitutional because it takes away the citizens’ rights to protect themselves in an area where people clearly need guns to deter crime. 

The final source is an analysis of President Trump’s inauguration speech by Shibani Mahtani and Zusha Elinson where Trump promises to control gun violence. In the article they argue that an increase of gun control in major cities is unconstitutional for the people (Mahtani and Zusha). While my thesis agrees with Mahtani and Zusha’s to an extent, there are many ways in which the increased gun control proposed is constitutional, more beneficial for many cities, and can help prevent further crimes. Throughout their analysis, the two counter the Trump Administration’s claim that crimes in Washington D.C. have increased by 50%, with the FBI’s statistic saying the city’s violent crime rates are down from 24.1 to 19.8 within the two past recent years (Mahtani and Zusha).  While true, this statistic fails to analyze that these rates have gone down because the removal of the gun ban just a few years prior. Trump is a conservative who firmly believes in the Second Amendment and already has experience with creating legislation on the national level in his short term so far. This is his attempt at providing gun control in a more bipartisan way without infringing on constitutional rights. If the gun control that he proposes can be accepted by Congress, then this would be a monumental step forward in gun control laws that both parties can compromise on.

People can’t make what criminals do with guns any more illegal than it already is. No piece of legislation banning guns from cities can prevent crime. If anything, criminals use this as an opportunity to strike more fear in their victims because they know there’s no resistance except from the police. Gun control such as this does not work, instead it criminalizes what good people do using firearms. It makes criminals more confident. It makes crime rates increase. It takes away from the constitutional rights promised to every citizen. That is why the Second Amendment needs remain unchanged, but the laws surrounding gun control should be increased in such a way that it stops illegal gun trafficking and does not take away from a citizen’s constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is what keeps Americans safe because they know their protection is in their own hands. If the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun then why would legislators not come together and have a bipartisan agreement to regulate guns for the betterment of the American people, without infringing on the Second Amendment. 
