ODell 1

Emily ODell
Dr. Savidge
English 102
17 April 2014
Gun Control: The Fight Against Change
In March of 2001, a 15 year old boy killed two of his classmates and hurt 13 other
students. In December of 2012, 20 first graders from Sandy Hook Elementary were killed in
Newtown, Connecticut. In early April of 2014, three people were shot and 16 were injured by a
gunman at Fort Hood. Shootings of innocent people occur every day, causing the issue of gun
control to be a very controversial issue among society. The ability to own a gun should not be
taken away, but there should be some restrictions concerning their usage.
Many individuals believe that taking firearms away from members of society will solve
the problems associated with guns such as mass shootings. However, this not only goes against
the second amendment that gives individuals the right to bear arms, but it also wont solve the
underlying root of the problem. Robert A. Levy says, Violence in America is due not to the
availability of guns but to social pathologiesillegitimacy, dysfunctional schools, and drug and
alcohol abuse. Historically, more gun laws have gone hand in hand with an explosion of violent
crime. Guns do not increase violence; they reduce violence. Levy describes in exactness that
guns are not the issue, but the social issues and the individuals who acquire the firearms are the
problem. Many people are being controlled by alcohol and drug abuse, mental issues, or even
social problems among peers or coworkers. These issues are the cause of mass shootings and the
ODell 2

killing of innocent people. Michael J. Perry says, The issue is not the gun but the owner. Even
the most rabid gun enthusiast has to have nagging doubts about a gun in the hands of an unstable
person. Like Perry says, the gun is not the problem, but the owner is. If this right to own
firearms is taken away, these underlying issues that gun owners have, however, will not be taken
away.
When individuals are faced with the issues and struggles described above, many will get
to the point where they will do whatever it takes to stop the pain or get rid of the problem.
Taking away guns all together will not stop gun usage, but lead to illegal activity to obtain
firearms. Black markets can arise, allowing unstable individuals and even criminals to obtain
guns to pursue their war against pain and sadness. These gun laws that completely take away the
right to bear arms will not stop the crime; they will just make the committing of crimes slightly
more difficult but still achievable.
Along with the reasoning that guns should not be taken away because of underlying
issues, self-defense is another reason to not take this right away. Clayton E. Cramer and David
Burnett say, If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to
consider how many crimes murders, rapes, assaults, robberies are thwarted each year by
ordinary persons with guns. Every day citizens are the victims of crimes, and they need to have
the means to protect themselves. If citizens are denied this ability to carry a gun in their
possession, more deaths and crimes will occur because of the lack of self-defense. Cramer and
Burnett go on to say, the law-abiding would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals
acquire guns from underground markets. After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to
get to every scene where they are urgently needed. Laws that eliminate the owner of firearms
will decrease protection and increase crime and fatalities because, like Cramer and Burnett state,
ODell 3

police will not be able to reach every crime scene. William J. Bennett explains a relatable
example to this reasoning of self-defense when he says:
In 1997, high school student Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then
drove to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot and killed two people.
He then got back in his car to drive to Pearl Junior High to continue his killings,
but Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, ran to his truck and grabbed his pistol,
aimed it at Woodham and made him surrender.
The principle of Pearl High School, Joel Myrick, was able to not only defend himself, but defend
the school as he cornered the raging high school student. Myrick was able to stop the shooting
and potential deaths of more children attending the school. This example is only one instance
among many that shows why guns should be permitted. Bennett sums up this reasoning that
advocates self-defense when he goes on to say, And the best self-defense against a gunman has
proved to be a firearm.
Having the ability to defend oneself from harm and criminals is very important; however,
restrictions should be made to make sure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands. In an article
entitled Gun Control vs. Gun Rights it says:
Still, despite various, highly publicized murders and mass shootings -- such as the one in
2007 at Virginia Tech, in which 33 people were killed, the American Civic Association
killings in 2009 in Binghamton, N.Y., that took 14 lives, or the 2011 shooting that
severely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and killed six -- no gun control
measures have made it through the House and Senate in recent years.
ODell 4

These few examples shown above show how unstable individuals are in the possession of
firearms can kill innocent people. Background checks are crucial to prevent mass shootings in
the future. Many people dont like the idea of having any regulations. However, if an individual
has a clean record and no criminal history, there should be nothing to worry about when a
background check has to be done. Perry says, Registration is not confiscation. This statement
show that registration and completing a background check does not mean that confiscation of
firearms, it only means the protection of society and its members. This safety percussion of
completing a background check will help ensure that guns do not land in the hands of unstable
individuals who can cause a lot of harm and death. Background checks are of utmost importance,
and Nora Caplan-Bricker says:
The study, from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found
the murder rate in Missouri jumped 16 percentan additional 55 to 63 murders a
yearafter the repeal in 2007 of a state law that required anyone purchasing a
handgun to obtain a permit showing they had passed a background checks.
This example helps to show the increase in murders occur when background checks are not
implemented and utilized in society. David Webster says, This study provides compelling
confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence (qtd. in Caplan-
Bricker). The fewer and weaker the laws, the more shootings and deaths will occur because there
would be no way to find out who will use or abuse a firearm.
Gun control is definitely a sensitive topic in todays society. However, it is important to
realize the real reasons behind the tragedies that involve firearms. The right to own a gun should
not be demolished; however, there should be some restriction on their usage. So many people
pass away every day because of individuals who possess a gun when they have an alcohol or
ODell 5

drug addiction, or even suffer mentally. Ordinary citizens are targeted every day and also need
the means to protect and defend themselves from those instable members of society. Because of
all these terrible tragedies that occur, background checks should be required to reduce the
amount of deaths and to help society to become improved and safer. Like Chris Rock says, You
dont need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Gun rights
should not be taken away, but the people and the bullets that the guns possess need to be
controlled to move society forward to a brighter and less violent future.