Back to Sample Page » U.S. Health Care
Requriments:The U.S. Supreme Court announced today (by 5-4 vote) that basically leaves firearms laws intact --Supporting the right to own guns. Given violence on the streets, in schools,etc we should re-visit this. Site examples of violence (Columbine, etc) and stress the need for gun control.
One of the core arguments for American gun control is the following rationale:
Virtually every advocate for strong American gun laws adopts this reasoning. Sarah Brady, chairperson of Handgun Control, Inc., states: "We are the only civilized nation in the world without a good gun law and we are the most violent in the West." Presidents who want gun control, attorneys general, congressmen, academics, medical researchers, and newspaper and magazine writers all promise that adopting the stringent gun laws of foreign countries will dramatically lower the American crime rate. When restrictive American gun laws are upheld in court, judges often cite as justification the strict laws abroad. The anti-gun lobbies agree that foreign gun laws would work in the United States, and so do the police lobbies that have aligned themselves with the gun-control movement. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, in conjunction with the Fraternal Order of Police and Handgun Control, Inc., promises: "Gun laws can, do, and will work, contrary to the claims of the National Rifle Association. Other democratic nations clearly prove that." They reassure skeptical gun owners: "The rights of hunters and sportsmen are well preserved in those nations as well."
That promise of reduction in crime, with no detriment to the sportsman, was made in a 1988 debate on gun control, repeating a promise made by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 in his plea to the nation for gun control. Indeed, the promise may be traced back to the turn of the century; as long as modern America has been trying to control guns, it has looked abroad for justification.
Now that the mass shootings in Atlanta have led to predictable demands for more federal gun control laws, let us at least make an effort to think rationally. Is the way to prevent more tragedies like the one in Atlanta to pass laws ensuring that virtually all Americans will be as helpless as those who were shot and killed by Mark Barton? Does that make any sense? When people ask emotionally, "How can we stop these things?" the most straightforward answer is to ask: How was it in fact stopped? It was stopped, like most shooting sprees, by the arrival on the scene of other people with guns. It is the monopoly of guns by people with evil intentions that is dangerous. Some of the most dangerous places in America are places where strict gun-control laws provide assurance to violent criminals that their victims will not be able to defend themselves. What if every third or fourth person in that building in Atlanta had a gun available at the time? Under such conditions, it is vary unlikely that Mark Barton could have shot 22 people before he was stopped. There are communities whose gun laws permit law-abiding citizens to have ready access to firearms and where many citizens accordingly have registered guns. These communities have less violence in general and fewer shooting sprees like this in particular. Wouldn't it be better if nobody had guns? Of course it would. It would be better if man had never invented the bow and arrow, much less modern weapons. But that is not a serious option. The one thing that so-called "gun control" laws do not do is control guns. They disarm potential victims. People who do not care about the law can always get guns in a country with 200 million guns and more coming in, both legally and illegally. We can't even stop millions of human beings from coming into this country illegally -- and a handgun is a lot smaller than a person. That basic reality is not changed by politicians and media loudmouths who appeal to emotions and symbolism by crying out for more guns laws. (Sowell, Thomas 2018)
There is also some evidence that fear of crime among those who most strongly believe in gun control effectiveness results in even higher levels of support for universal firearms registration. This interaction between fear and perceived effectiveness may help explain some of the contradictory results regarding the effect of fear of crime in previous research that did not consider such interaction. Contrary to the instrumental argument, perception of violent crime as a problem is not a significant net predictor of support for gun registration. But it appears that the more direct notion of anticipated effectiveness of gun control as a means of lowering crime, particularly in combination with fear of crime, rather than a more generalized concern for crime is what contributes to support for universal gun registration. Perception of a violent crime problem may be too diffuse to get translated into support for gun control as an instrument or means for addressing this concern.
One of the reasons that the foreign control aspect of the American gun-control struggle has remained stuck on the same point for the entire twentieth century is that American academics have failed to provide useful guidance. Outside of some statutory compilations by the Library of Congress, there is barely any American research on the subject of foreign gun control. As a result, Americans have little idea what the actual laws in foreign countries are, and no understanding at all about how those laws are administered, how they have affected crime rates, and—most importantly—how the gun controls fit into the rest of the society's culture.