Canestaro 1

Andrea Canestaro

English 1201 Online

Dr. Cassel

28 July 2019

Debating Gun Control

If you live in America, chances are that you have probably heard of the continuous issue

of gun violence in our country. With devastating mass shootings at places such as the Orlando

nightclub, Sandy Hook Elementary, and most recently, Virginia Beach, gun control is becoming

a news topic which is constantly being argued for and against. This controversial topic, along

with many others such as abortion and immigration, have contributed to a “split” in political

parties. We as a nation feel more divided than ever. Most people who argue against gun control

feel that no amount of gun laws or regulations will fully stop gun violence. This statement is

definitely true. However, the purpose of a law is to prevent as much crime or wrong-doing in

society as possible, so if our nation can prevent even just one death by a gun, it would be better

than doing nothing. Regulations on the purchase of guns should be increased because it will

reduce the amount of homicide and violent crime rates in the United States using background

checks, increased gun violence research, and newer gun restriction laws.

America’s gun culture originates from colonial times after the instance of the

Revolutionary War. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution set the culture of

guns in America into full effect. For the right to bear arms, the Constitution states “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 question here is: How much of the Second

Amendment applies to our nation? Some of those who side with gun control believe that the
 Canestaro 2

Constitution interprets those serving in the military as the only citizens who should have access

to guns. On the opposite end, most opponents of stricter gun control analyze the Constitution

simply as a protection to an individual’s right to own guns. These viewpoints on each end are

one of the many factors that keep us as a nation from solving the issue of gun violence.

Just like laws, there are many topics of law written in the Constitution that have become

ironically outdated or misinterpreted. One of the main purposes of having a gun in the 17th

century was to protect one’s land from being trespassed on or stolen. Today, we can all agree on

the fact that it is highly unlikely that someone will come up to your house and take your land.

Unfortunately for gun rights, this section of the Constitution is very vague. Does owning a

firearm include people who have past criminal history, mentally unstable, or are classified as a

danger to society?

The history of gun control has stemmed largely from the question: What rights do

American citizens have? Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do We Need? is a book

written by two psychology professors, David DeGrazia and Lester H. Hunt. The book is divided

into two categories where David DeGrazia presents his beliefs for stronger gun regulations while

Lester H. Hunt argues against gun control; both bring excellent arguments to the table. Hunt

analyzes the Second Amendment in the first half of the book by breaking down the meaning,

explaining that it was not created just for the military to own guns. “The Americans were

pursuing their own policy as part of a wider, positive political ideal: a distinctive notion of a

sound polity as a free state” (DeGrazia and Hunt 17). However, this claim is flawed by Hunt

putting a blanket statement over America’s values in safety. Most can agree that freedom comes

with specific limits when dealing with the safety of an individual. David DeGrazia, a professor

at George Washington University, opposes Hunt’s argument, saying that there are many
 Canestaro 3

historical reasons to doubt this given interpretation of the Constitution. Why was there nothing

said about bearing arms independently outside the militia? DeGrazia explains that the militia was

intended. In the video, The Good of the Many: Gun Control and Individual Rights a different

interpretation of the word militia is brought forth. The title of the film produced from the

University of Notre Dame relates to the question: What point does the good of the many

outweigh the rights of the individual? Many different experts with various opinions are

interviewed, including Yale Law professor Akhil Amar, who describes the word militia as a

present-day trial jury. “It’s not a group of paid, professional government employees. That’s an

army, a standing army. And the militia was supposed to be different from that.” However, Amar

also states that the militia is not just day-to-day individuals who like guns either. Many have

analyzed the phrase “well regulated” as meaning “well trained.” The Second Amendment states a

well regulated militia and the right to bear arms. This, however, is not an unconditional right,

meaning that it can be regulated, such as having laws and regulations, as well as being selective

towards who can obtain or use a gun. Thus, regulations obtaining to firearms are not unjust.

Even if the militia argument is a bit radical to some, most can agree on the evidence

presented that there were forms of gun control in the earlier times as well. ProCon.org, a reliable

and resourceful website for looking at both sides of many widely debated arguments, states that

even back in colonial times, America had forms of gun control:

Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the

transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans;

regulating the storage of gunpowder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses;

and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about

guns owned. (Procon.org).

 Canestaro 4

Going back to Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do We Need?, David

DeGrazia concludes with the emphasis on common moral rights. Just as an individual’s freedom

of speech right is limited in the First Amendment, so is that person’s right to bear arms.

DeGrazia includes a direct quote from the decision of a case at the Supreme Court. “It is not a

right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever

purpose” the Supreme Court concluded in United States v. Miller (1939) (DeGrazia and Hunt

136). His claim ties into how many states have different laws on carrying guns. Most people also

have the common ground in agreeing on the fact that firearms should not be put in the hands of

someone who is proven to be mentally ill or a convicted criminal or terrorist. David DeGrazia

discusses the rights-based argument of some gun advocates. It boils down to two simple rights:

the right to own guns and the right to not be shot. Since both are rights, one cannot outweigh or

trump another (DeGrazia and Hunt 217). Reasonable gun control regulations limit an

individual’s right to own a gun if they pose a danger to society to protect an individual’s right to

not be shot. DeGrazia gives an example of how allowing someone who is a convicted felon to

own a gun threatens one’s right to not be shot (218). He also gives an example of how one’s

moral rights can be overridden in a reasonable manner for protection of society. If you are

walking in a city, you have a freedom to walk in a specific area until police show up and tell the

public to evacuate the area due to the investigation of a crime scene. At that point, your right to

freely walk in that area has been temporarily overridden by society’s attempt to catch a criminal

for the safety of the public. (DeGrazia and Hunt 144). The one point for certain is that The

Second Amendment does not fully protect our rights to own guns, it protects those who are

eligible to own guns.

 Canestaro 5

Fig. 1. Political cartoon depicts the irony in the NRA's response to mass shootings (Stahler).

One of the main concerns for the issue of gun violence are background checks. The

purpose of these are to be sure someone has had no previous history of any sort that can result in

violence or criminal activity. Mental health is also a huge topic relating to the issue of

background checks. Researcher Yu Lu conducted a study relating to the relationship between

mental health and gun violence, which will be discussed later. ProCon.org discusses the

argument for background checks, where a Lancet study from 2016 found that increasing federal

background checks could reduce firearm deaths by 57%. Ammunition background checks could

reduce deaths by around 80%, and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by 83%.

(Procon.org). One argument to go against this idea is that background checks are violating an

individual’s right to privacy. One opposing argument consists of how background checks would

provide information under government databases that keep personal information, with the worry

that this information may be used for other purposes besides the background check itself.

(Procon). This is a strong point; however, the Bill of Rights prevents the government utilizing

this information to its advantage.

There is also a term called “the gun show loophole” which has been making its way

around the gun control debate. A gun show is usually a gathering where guns are displayed,

purchased, and sold. The pertaining issue to these displays means that private sellers may not
 Canestaro 6

require background checks to purchase a gun, or other factors needed such as having a permit.

Over 40% of gun sales are undocumented from private sellers who do not require background

checks, according to ProCon.org. This also leads to the issue of guns being sold on the black

market. The Washington Post published an article in April 2018 discussing the negative

influence of firearms on homicide rates. Gun policy and data writer Christopher Ingraham

discusses the rates tying into gun violence and how this needs to be tackled in his article “Guns

Are Responsible for the Largest Share of U.S. Homicides in Over 80 Years, Federal Mortality

Data Shows." Ingraham states that there has been large amounts of agreement that the number of

firearms purchased continues to increase, and explains how this also increases more and more

guns to be sold onto the black market, where they then end up in dangerous hands.

“Should Lawmakers Tighten Firearm Restrictions?” is an article which gives an in-depth

overview for the many arguments of the gun control debate happening today in the news.

Barbara Mantel, who is an expert in history and economics, uses her platform to inform readers

of the current issues of gun violence. For the issue of background checks, Mantel describes the

relevant statistics of the lack of background checks by private sellers. A survey of prison inmates

who were convicted of crimes established that 80% obtained their firearms from private sources;

10% stole their guns, and the remaining 10% received their gun when they bought one from a

dealer who was licensed. (Mantel).

A smaller, yet still relevant part to gun control laws include the concealed-carry law

debates. Right-to-carry laws allow individuals who are eligible by background checks or a

license/permit to carry guns in a concealed manner for their safety. While advocates for less gun

laws utilize this as their right to defend themselves, others disagree, claiming that having a

concealed gun can cause additional problems. There are many stronger advocates of guns that
 Canestaro 7

still feel differently about concealed carry. State representative Sherri Greenburg of Austin,

Texas discusses her views on the right to carry concealed guns in the short documentary “The

Good of the Many: Gun Control and Individual Rights.” “Speed limits-- you're not allowed to

drive 150 on the highway. Why? Because there's been a determination made that although it

limits your individual freedom, the greater good, the safety of the thousands of people driving

the highways, has to be protected.” Sherri’s point is that some given rights that can pose a threat

to society as a whole can limit absolute personal freedom, which ties back to David DeGrazia’s

argument about personal rights in Debating Gun Control. A 2016 Lancet study found that areas

with gun licensing laws had a 14% decrease in deaths by firearms, while areas with right-to-carry

laws had increases in deaths. (Procon). While many believe that having right-to-carry laws will

reduce crime, it actually has quite the opposite effect.

Domestic violence has also led many Americans to question the safety of guns in a

household with someone that is mentally or physically abusive. According to ProCon.org, a

woman is 500 percent more likely to be murdered in a domestic dispute if a gun is present. These

statistics answer the situation as to why five women are murdered every day in the U.S. with a

gun; however, a report by Pew Foundation states that 79% of men and 80% of females feel that

having a gun in their home makes them feel safer. (Procon). JustFacts.com is a website dedicated

to statistics and research backed up by recent updates. This website has a section of their

webpage dedicated to gun control with data and statistics that are pulled from various resources.

For domestic violence, Just Facts ties the law incorporated into gun ownership. “The Gun

Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of

persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person who

has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” (JustFacts). This further
 Canestaro 8

justifies the need for more thorough background checks to see if a person has had a previous

history of violence. Although this alteration may not be the permanent solution, it is a start.

Over time, America has turned many heads to recognize the issue of gun violence due to

more and more school shootings happening nationwide. While mass shootings account for a

smaller percentage of deaths, they do not lack importance for understanding the issue of

firearms. If schools cave to the need of people wanting teachers to carry guns, this means that

movie theatres, grocery stores, or other common places with large amounts of people will have

to start carrying guns as well. This means that teachers will have to go through mandatory

background checks that could possibly be even more in-depth to be qualified to have guns in the

classroom. This flaws the whole argument for gun advocates wanting less regulations and

background checks.

People that disagree with stricter gun laws usually argue that someone could simply

assemble a bomb or threaten or kill someone with a knife instead. However, these options

usually require a lot more strategic planning. A bomb is hard enough to assemble on its own, and

a knife does not harm as many people in a given amount of time compared to a gun. Christopher

Ingraham from the Washington Post brings up how these alternatives compare to gun homicide

rates. Ingraham states that recent data concludes to gun homicides have always exceeded other

forms of homicides, such as stabbing or strangulation. This is due to how much easier it is to kill

people with guns. Individuals who argue against stricter gun regulations use the phrase “Guns

don’t kill people, people kill people”. The problem with this statement is that it distracts people

from the main argument. It is correct that people do kill people, but the whole debate of gun

control is how a gun can make killing significantly easier compared to a knife or assembling a

bomb. It is reasonable to conclude that a person cannot kill one hundred people with a knife. A
 Canestaro 9

car is also a good example of gun control. Writer Dennis Henigan from the website, The Daily

Beast, provides his argument of gun control with an example of a car in his article “The 3 Worst

Arguments against Gun Control.” When parked in a driveway, it can be pretty harmless until it

comes into contact with a person who is intoxicated or does not have a license or any other

training. A person who carries a driver’s license or permit shows that they are not a direct danger

to others who are around them. Henigan states that a licensing system prevents dangerous people

who can be seen as a threat to those around them from driving in the first place.

Mental health has also been a huge factor linked as one of the most direct causes of

homicides by guns. The bottom line is: mental health issues are not the main contributing factor

towards gun violence. Researcher Yu Lu discusses how mental health issues and committing

violence with a gun are not directly related in her academic article, “Dangerous Weapons or

Dangerous People? The Temporal Associations between Gun Violence and Mental Health.” Lu

uses data from high school students and young adults along with statistics in her research. This

research comes from the University of Texas medical division. For the process, students in seven

public high schools were asked questions such as how often they carried a gun with them, if they

had access to a gun if they needed one, and if they have ever threatened someone with a gun

before. The students who participated in the first questions also were measured by how they

ranked themselves on known mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and stress.

The results were staggering. From research performed on high school students and young

adults, mental problems were not the main cause of gun violence and homicide. Instead,

individuals who had access to firearms were the main factor leading towards gun violence, as the

study found that individuals were over 18 times more likely to have threatened someone with a

gun if they had access to one. Lu states that even though threatening someone with a gun does
 Canestaro 10

not automatically relate to gun violence, it is a factor that usually leads to it happening. These

findings support gun control being more necessary as ever. This discovery links to the needed

emphasis on more research to further understand contributing factors to gun violence and how to

solve with stricter gun regulations. The NRA claims that mental health issues were a direct cause

to gun homicides; however, it is reasonable to believe they need to double check their facts and

look at the real problem.

Gun control is a controversial topic that is going to continue to be an issue until

something changes. Our country could never fully take away guns, and it would be unjust to do

so given that it is permanently written in the Constitution. Many gun-owners have a fear that

stricter gun regulations will take away their freedom to have a gun. Most of these people are

legally allowed to purchase or carry a gun and need to understand that creating newer laws will

not take away their guns, instead, simply take away that right from people who are not able to

purchase or have a gun in the first place, such as someone without a permit. As well as more

background checks, we can also push to increase gun violence research. By doing so, we are

already educating ourselves further as a society on this issue, as well as coming together to be

more aware of gun safety. With better research, better background checks, and better laws,

America can work together to reduce the amount of homicides that happen to innocent people.

We as a country have more work to do.

 Canestaro 11

Works Cited

DeGrazia, David, and Lester H. Hunt. Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do

We Need? Oxford University Press, October 20, 2016. Oxford Scholarship

Online.<https://www-oxfordscholarship-.com .sinclair.ohionet.org/view/ 10.1093 /acp

rof:oso/9780190251253.001.0001/acprof-9780190251253>. Accessed 23 June 2019.

Henigan, Dennis A. “The 3 Worst Arguments against Gun Control.” Daily Beast, 12 July 2017,

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-3-worst-arguments-against-gun-control. Accessed 12

July 2019.

Ingraham, Christopher. "Guns are responsible for the largest share of U.S. homicides in over 80

years, federal mortality data shows." Washingtonpost.com, 2 Apr. 2018. Opposing

Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A533078667/ OVIC?u=dayt3

0401&sid=OVIC&xid=d935aaa6. Accessed 28 June 2019.

Just Facts. Just Facts, 2007, www.justfacts.com. Accessed 23 June 2019.

Lu, Yu, and Jeff R. Temple. “Dangerous Weapons or Dangerous People? The Temporal

Associations between Gun Violence and Mental Health.” Preventive Medicine, vol. 121,

Apr. 2019, pp. 1 – 6. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.01.008.

Mantel, Barbara. "Gun Control, Should Lawmakers Tighten Firearm restrictions?" CQ

Researcher, 8 Mar. 2013, pp. 233-56, library.cqpress.com/cqresrre2013030800.

ProCon.org. “Gun Control ProCon.org.” ProCon.org, 2 May 2019, gun-control.procon.org.

Accessed 23 June 2019.

 Canestaro 12

Stahler, Jeff. “Gonna need more guns!” 2013. CartoonStock. https://www.cartoonstock.com

/directory/g/gun_controls.asp. Accessed 12 July 2019.

“The Good of the Many: Gun Control and Individual Rights.” Films Media Group, 1996,

digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=19259&xtid=6382. Accessed 23 June 2019.