Works Cited

Works Cited

Brady, Jim and Sarah Brady. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. 12 Nov 2007.

<http://www.bradycampaign.org/>

Contreras, Alan. “In Defense of Self-Defense.” The Chronicle Review. 15 June 2007. 12 Nov 2007.

<http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i41/41b00201.htm>

Galvez, Pol. “Gun Control Now.” Philippine News Online. 25 April 2007. 12 Nov 2007.

<http://www.philippinenews.com/article.php?id=850>

Lott, John R. “D.C.’s flawed reasoning.” The Washington Times Online. 7 Sept. 2007

<http://www.washingtontimes.com>

Nisbet, Lee Ph.D. Ed. The Gun Control Debate: You Decide. New York: Prometheus Books, 2001.

Petries, Carol V., John V. Pepper, and Charles F. Wellford, editors. Firearms and Violence: A Critical

Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

United States. Department of Health and Human Services. WISQARS (Web-Based Injury Statistics Query

and Reporting System. 25 Sept 2007. 12 Nov 2007. <http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/>

United States. U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 11 July 2007. 12 Nov 2007.

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html>

Virginia Tech Review Panel. The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report. Aug 2007. 27 Nov 2007.

<http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/docs/>

Weisman, Jonathan. “Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks.” The Washington Post Online. 20 April 2007. 27 Nov 2007. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902437.html>

STEP OCHO: THE MEDIATION

Gun Safety, Not Gun Control

Gun control has been a hot topic in American politics for over 30 years. Numerous attempts to limit the negative effects of firearms have been undertaken; however, they have not had a clear impact. Washington, D.C. first took on the lofty burden of banning handguns in 1976. Five years prior to this ban, D.C.’s murder rate fell from 37 per 100,000 to 27 per 100,000. Five years after the ban on handguns, D.C.’s murder rate jumped back up to 35 per 100,000. Chicago was the next major U.S. city to try out gun control by banning the sale and acquisition of handguns in 1982 (Lott). As John Lott analyzes this law in his Washington Post article, “Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law, and then rose slightly to 23 [per 100,000]. The change is even more dramatic when compared to five neighboring Illinois counties: Chicago's murder rate fell from being 8.1 times greater than its neighbors in 1977 to 5.5 times in 1982, and then went way up to 12 times greater in 1987.” Banning guns has proven to be ineffective in lowering the amount of violence; however, some measures must be taken to enhance the safety of everyone. A more detailed background check is necessary to prevent guns used most often in crimes from getting into the wrong hands. Also, every person who owns a gun should be required to attend a gun education class that promotes safety.

Left to themselves, guns contribute greatly to crime rates in the U.S. The FBI estimated that 66% of murders in 2004 were committed using a firearm (U.S. Bureau of Justice). According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, in 2005, guns were responsible for 11,346 homicides, as opposed to more than half as many homicides, 5,346, with knives, blunt objects, and other weapons. It was estimated that, in 2005, for every firearm-related mortality, there were more than two nonfatal firearm injuries (WISQARS). The Bureau of Justice also found that in 2005, 71% of all homicides, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm. These alarming statistics illustrate the necessity of safety measures to lower the violence rate in America. However, not every gun that is sold in America is being used for criminal purposes. In 2005, more than 3 out of every 4 homicides committed with firearms were done by handguns (U.S. Bureau of Justice).

One reason for the high violence rates associated with gun use is the ease with which one can purchase a handgun. A 1997 survey of state prison inmates revealed the source from which criminals most often attain their firearms: 80% of state prison inmates who owned a gun got it from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source (U.S. Bureau of Justice). For each of these sources of firearms, a background check is not required. Also, a law that prohibited the sale and ownership of assault weapons expired in 2004 and was not renewed (Brady Campaign). As a result, people can now legally obtain and sell assault weapons as long as they meet the qualifications to own a gun in the specific state (Brady). Assault weapons serve no practical purpose in today’s society: hunters don’t kill deer with uzis; a machine gun would not protect citizens any better than a handgun; assault weapons fire at a rate too high to ensure the safety of any bystanders. As Pol Galvez argues in his Philippine News article, “how insane is today’s situation where no civilian under any circumstance can own military vehicles or communications equipment, but where young men barely past puberty can buy the deadliest of all firearms through the simple act of going to any gun shop, filing an application, then waiting a few days as his papers are processed?” There are obviously numerous flaws in the current gun laws.

While firearms play an active role in crime in America, they cannot simply be banned. A significant percentage of the American population use guns recreationally. It is estimated that there are 13 million hunters across America. These people enjoy hunting, skeet shooting, and other hobbies that involve guns (Petries). The guns used for recreation pose a much smaller threat to American citizens than handguns or automatic weapons. Hunters are licensed with the state in which they hunt and, as a result, are very well trained with the weapons they use. People also use guns as a means of protection and security. The threat of robbers and other criminals leads to people buying a firearm to ensure the safety of their home. In numerous areas throughout the U.S., dangerous animals, such as cougars, bears, and snakes, pose a threat to the safety of all people in the area. These citizens use guns to ward off potentially dangerous animals and defend themselves in case of an attack. As Alan Contreras argues, “the police can’t be everywhere…. There are very few police officers in rural America.” In some areas of the country, “the closest police officer may be 50 miles away across uninhabited country,” Contreras continues. These people, as well as many others, need guns to ensure the safety of themselves and their families.

Thus, while guns are necessary in today’s society, they also threaten the lives and security of the American public. Prior to the tragedy at Virginia Tech earlier this year, Cho bought two semi-automatic handguns against federal law. Cho had been admitted to a mental hospital and was deemed “a danger to himself or to others,” making him ineligible to purchase a gun according to federal law. Cho was able to purchase the guns despite being ineligible due to inaccurate information supplied to the national background check system (Virginia Tech Review Panel). There is a bill currently in Congress that would require that all states keep the National Instant Check System (NICS, the system used in background checks) current. “Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases.” States would face penalties if they failed to comply (Weisman). If passed, this bill would help keep guns out of the hands of ineligible people, thus enhancing the security of U.S. citizens. Another measure that would improve gun safety in America is a mandatory gun education class. This class would be offered many times throughout each year, and each gun owner would be required to attend one class annually. The course would promote gun safety, teach the individual how to safely use a firearm, inform the students of new technologies and techniques, and ensure that the individual understands why he is legally allowed to own a firearm. At the end of each course, a test would be given to ensure that every gun owner understands the responsibilities that accompany gun ownership, and is capable of safely operating a firearm. Lawyers, doctors, and educators are required to attend annual classes to stay current with new technologies and practices in their respective fields. Why, then, should gun owners, who have a great impact on American society, not be required to attend annual classes as well?

While measures must be taken to enhance the safety of the American public, not every firearm needs to be regulated in the same way. The guns that are used mainly for recreation purposes, and are intrinsically less threatening, should not be treated the same as automatic weapons that are designed to harm others. There should be three classes of firearms: recreation/sport firearms, handguns, and fully automatic/large caliber rifles. Each class should have different requirements in order to own a gun in that specific class. More threatening guns, like handguns and fully automatic firearms, should require more detailed background checks to ensure the eligibility of the person to bear the responsibilities associated with such powerful weapons. These higher class firearms should also require more hours in the annual gun education classes than less threatening guns. These steps would allow flexibility in the gun acquisition system. Those who wish to purchase a lower class weapon, such as hunters, will not have to wait as long or meet as many requirements as those who attempt to purchase a highly threatening weapon.

Dr. Lee Nisbet argues in his book, “everyone involved in the gun control debate agrees that since firearms can be used wittingly or witlessly as lethal weapons, it is both legally and ethically essential to regulate and hence restrict firearm possession and use." The debate rests in the amount of regulation necessary to ensure safety without infringing the rights of American citizens. A more detailed and accurate background check system would not require much more money or effort than is already given, and would have a greatly improve the security of the nation. While annual gun education classes will require more funding, the extra money can come from higher sale prices of firearms. This cost will prove to be minimal compared to the number of lives these measures will save. Just a few minor enhancements to the current firearm regulations will have a profound impact on the safety of all American citizens.

Step SEIS: The New Brief

Thesis: Controlling or banning guns has proven to be ineffective in lowering the amount of violence; however, some safety measures must be taken to enhance the safety of everyone. A more detailed background check is necessary to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. Also, every person who owns a gun should be required to keep their gun on lock while not in use and to attend a gun education class that promotes safety.

Introduction:

1) People will kill others regardless of whether guns are controlled or not. “Individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use," (Kates and Mauser).

2) There is no correlation between gun ownership and number of deaths per year (Kates and Mauser).

3) In Washington, D.C. when guns were banned, “D.C.'s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban.” Also, “…in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35.” (John R. Lott)

4) In Chicago and its neighboring suburbs, “Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law and then rose slightly to 23. The change is even more dramatic when compared to five neighboring Illinois counties: Chicago's murder rate fell from being 8.1 times greater than its neighbors in 1977 to 5.5 times in 1982, and then went way up to 12 times greater in 1987.” (John R. Lott)

Reason: Guns lead to an increase in violence.

Evidence: In 2005, 71% of all homicides, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Evidence: In 2004, 29,569 people in America died from firearm-related deaths. 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)

Evidence: In 2005, it was estimated that for every firearm related mortality in America, there were more than two non-fatal firearm injuries. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)

Evidence: In 2005, guns were responsible for 11,346 homicides, as opposed to more than half as many homicides, 5,346, with knives, blunt objects, and other weapons. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Reason: Guns are too easy to obtain.

Evidence: There are currently no required background checks for the sale of guns between family, friends, or other private sales.

Evidence: A survey of State Prison Inmates in 1997 showed that, of those who owned a gun, the gun was from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Evidence: “How insane is today’s situation where no civilian under any circumstance can own military vehicles or communications equipment, but where young men barely past puberty can buy the deadliest of all firearms through the simple act of going to any gun shop, filing an application, then waiting a few days as his papers are processed?” (“Gun Control Now” article in The Philippine News)

Evidence: A bill that prohibited the sale and ownership of assault weapons expired in 2004 and was not renewed. People can now legally obtain and sell assault weapons as long as they meet the qualifications to own a gun in the specific state (Brady Campaign). Assault weapons serve no practical purpose in today’s society: hunters don’t kill deer with uzis; a machine gun would not protect citizens any better than a handgun; assault weapons fire at a rate too high to ensure the safety of any bystanders.

Reason: Guns are necessary for protection and recreation.

Evidence: The personal account of Alan Contreras, a gun owner

i. His reasons for owning a gun: self-defense from criminals and dangerous animals
ii. “Surely each person has the right to decide whether to kill or die” (In Defense of Self-Defense)
iii. “Some people would not shoot another person in self-defense. I would.”
iv. “the police can't be everywhere,” and “there are few police officers in rural America."

Evidence: Many people enjoy hunting, skeet shooting, and other hobbies that involve guns.

i. 12.5 million hunting licenses were sold in 2006 (Rocky Barker)

Reason: Necessity and positive effects of a more detailed background check and a gun education class.

Evidence: Virginia Tech tragedy was the result of false information reported during background checks. (Virginia Tech Report pp 71-73)

i. Before purchasing a gun, a person must go through a background check to determine whether or not the person is qualified to own a gun.

ii. Because Cho had been involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility and was deemed “a danger to himself or to others,” he was ineligible to purchase a gun.

iii. When Cho went to purchase his guns, neither of the background checks performed at the licensed firearm dealers prohibited the dealer from selling him the gun.

iv. “The FBI indicated in a press release dated April 19, 2007, that just 22 states reported any mental health information to the federal database.”

Evidence: There is a bill currently in Congress that would require that all states keep the National Instant Background Check System (the system used in background checks) current. “Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases.” States would face penalties if they failed to comply. (Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks)

Evidence: A person should have to attend a gun education class in order to purchase a firearm. This class would promote gun safety, teach the individual how to safely use a firearm, and ensure that the individual understands why he is legally allowed to own a firearm. The instructor of this course must meet certain requirements made by the federal government to ensure competency in firearm use and safety. A person would only need to attend this course once. This class would also increase the amount of time between when the person goes to buy a gun and when the person can purchase a gun, giving the background check system more time to ensure its accuracy.

Step TRES: The Brief

Thesis: More laws controlling the sale, ownership, and usage of firearms in America need to be passed in order to ensure the safety of all Americans.

Reason: An increase in guns leads to an increase in violence and crime.

Evidence: In 2004, 29,569 people in America died from firearm-related deaths. 11,624

(39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents;

and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)

Evidence: In 2004, firearms were used to murder 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 56 people in Australia, 37 people in Sweden, and 5 people in New Zealand, as compared to 11,264 people in America. America has more guns and fewer gun restrictions than all of the aforementioned countries.

Evidence: In 2005, it was estimated that for every firearm related mortality in America, there were more than two non-fatal firearm injuries. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)

Evidence: In 2005, guns were responsible for 11,346 homicides, as opposed to more than half as many homicides, 5,346, with knives, blunt objects, and other weapons. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Evidence: In 2005, 71% of all homicides, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Evidence: Of the 11,346 homicides reported in America in 2005, only 533 were deemed justifiable by law enforcement.

Reason: Guns are currently too easy to obtain.

Evidence: There are currently no required background checks for the sale of guns between family, friends, or other private sales.

Evidence: A survey of State Prison Inmates in 1997 showed that, of those who owned a gun, the gun was from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Evidence: “How insane is today’s situation where no civilian under any circumstance can own military vehicles or communications equipment, but where young men barely past puberty can buy the deadliest of all firearms through the simple act of going to any gun shop, filing an application, then waiting a few days as his papers are processed?” (“Gun Control Now” article in The Philippine News)

Evidence: A bill that prohibited the sale and ownership of assault weapons expired in 2004 and was not renewed. People can now legally obtain and sell assault weapons as long as they meet the qualifications to own a gun in the specific state (Brady Campaign). Assault weapons serve no practical purpose in today’s society: hunters don’t kill deer with uzis; a machine gun would not protect citizens any better than a handgun; assault weapons fire at a rate too high to ensure the safety of any bystanders.

Reason: Guns kept in homes pose a great risk to all nearby people.

Evidence: In 2004, on average, almost 8 children and teenagers (age 19 or younger) were killed by firearms each day. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)

Evidence: Between the years 1999 and 2004, on average, nearly 1,000 children and teenagers (age 19 or younger) committed suicide with a gun each year.

Evidence: For every legally-justifiable shooting in a home, there are 22 criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shootings. (Kellermann, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home”)

Evidence: The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide and increases the risk of suicide fivefold. (Kellermann, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home”)

Step Dos - My Topic

I am arguing for gun control in opposition to Sarah Camille. I will use evidence from current events, such as the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings, as well as statistics taken by government agencies and reputable sources that support gun control.