Gun Control: Right to Handgun Ownership - Research Paper Example

? The issue of gun control in America has always been, and continues to be, a very controversial topic and the of ongoing debates, such as whether or not gun control laws reduce gun violence, whether gun ownership rights apply only to federal laws or to state and local laws, and other similar issues. The Second Amendment of the Constitution gives Americans the fundamental right to bear arms; however, it has many different interpretations, each of which has a different understanding of its original intention, scope, protection and meaning. In 1994, the National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) found that American adults owned approximately 192 million guns, which is an average of one gun per adult; and, approximately 4.5 million firearms are sold every year in the United States (Cook & Ludwig, 1996). Currently, the culture and trend in the United States is in support of the Second Amendment and is against the imposition of new laws or regulations regarding gun ownership or use; and, although more research is needed, a growing body of literature which finds that gun control laws do not have a significant effect on reducing rates of gun violence and/or death (Kwon, Scott, Safranski & Bae, 1997; Nigourney & Steinhauer, 2011). In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the right to gun ownership granted by the Second Amendment is a federal law and should be protected from state and local laws and regulations (Barnes & Eggen, 2010; McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). Furthermore, according to a good deal of existing research, a combination of socioeconomic factors, not gun control, appear to affect rates of gun violence and/or death, which continue to increase in the United States despite laws or regulations regarding gun ownership and use (Kwon et al., 1997). These factors, the current political environment, and the national culture supporting gun ownership, make the imposition of new gun control laws or regulations unlikely in the foreseeable future (Nagourney & Steinhauer, 2011). Therefore, instead of imposing further regulations on gun use or ownership, perhaps resources (e.g. time, money, effort) would be better used in an attempt to understand and change the factors and circumstances which have been shown to increase the likelihood of gun violence and/or death. In 2008, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging the District of Columbia's gun registration process which basically prevented the registration of handguns, and thereby their ownership (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008; Greenhouse, 2008). In a landmark five to four ruling, the Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own a firearm for personal use and not only for “militia” related use (Greenhouse, 2008). For the first time in United States history, the Supreme Court found that an individual has a constitutional right to keep a loaded firearm in the home for the purpose of self-defense; however, this decision only applied to federal laws, not state or local laws regulating gun ownership (Id.). Therefore, the ruling began a wave of litigation throughout the country regarding whether the Second Amendment protected the right of gun ownership from state and local law and regulations. In another five to four decision in 2010, the Supreme Court confirmed that state and local governments cannot interfere with Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms because it is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). This case was brought by a gun advocacy group, on behalf of a group of Chicago citizens, in order to challenge broad and unreasonable regulations regarding gun ownership in the city of Chicago (Barnes & Eggen, 2010). The Court's decision is basically an extension of the Heller (2008) decision which, for the first time, found that gun ownership for reasons other than military service, including self-defense of an individual in the home, is a fundamental right (Greenhouse, 2008). The majority opinion stated that the decision was based on the Second Amendment’s fundamental right to bear arms being guaranteed through the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from depriving individuals of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Barnes & Eggen, 2010; McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). The Court clarified that the decision would not affect some existing laws, such as those prohibiting felons and the mentally-ill from owning firearms or banning firearms from certain places (e.g. schools, government buildings) (Barnes & Eggen, 2010). Due to the ongoing debate over the rights granted by the Second Amendment, Cramer and Olson (2008) attempted to determine what the original framers of the Constitution intended; and, in order to accomplish this, they conducted a study which examined the history of firearms, specifically pistols, and the technological advancements leading to the pistols of today (Cramer & Olson, 2008). The study found that the pistols of today differ from those in the 1600 and 1700s, but not as significantly as previously believed (Id.). Cramer and Olson (2008) agree that the modern pistols of today look different and may be more technologically advanced than pistols that existed when the framers of the Constitution were at work; however, even with all of the advances in technology, the basic ideas and mechanisms used to build all pistols are quite similar, no matter what year they are built. Therefore, the researchers agreed with the Supreme Court ruling and concluded that technological advances in firearms, specifically pistols, do not negate the right to own a firearm as granted and protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution (Id.; Barnes & Eggen, 2010). Although more research is needed, a growing body of literature finds that despite the nearly 20,000 United States laws and regulations regarding the use and ownership of firearms, gun related violence and deaths in America are constantly increasing (Cramer & Olsen, 2008; Kwon et al., 1997). While there is existing research in support of both sides of the argument, a majority of the existing research on the subject of gun control finds that socioeconomic and environmental factors combined seem to have a much more significant effect on gun violence than any laws or regulations. These findings lend support to the already well established link between certain socioeconomic factors (e.g. ethnicity, poverty, unemployment) and criminal activity (Sampson, 2000). Using a multivariate statistical analysis, one study examined state gun laws and regulations and number of gun deaths in order to determine if any relationship existed between them. Results of the study revealed that gun control laws and regulations had an unimpressive effect on gun violence (Kwon et al., 1997). The 1997 study also found that a number of other factors, mostly socioeconomic factors, contributed to gun related deaths, including unemployment, alcohol and/or drug use, and a transient lifestyle. In other words, states with high unemployment rates, large amounts of alcohol and/or drug use, and a large number of transients, had higher rates of gun related deaths regardless of the state’s number of existing gun control laws or regulations. The results of this study add to the support of a well established link between criminal activity and poverty, unemployment and ethnicity. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) is a nonfederal, independent group that developed the Guide to Community Preventive Services (the Community Guide) with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (CDC, 2003). Although the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) provides staff support to the Task Force for development of the Community Guide, all of the included reports were developed by the Task Force and do not necessarily reflect the conclusions of DHHS or CDC. The Community Guide is a resource that includes systematic reviews of numerous topics, each of which focuses on a specific preventive health topic (Id.). From 2000--2002, the Task Force conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence (i.e. violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury). The review included evaluations of the following laws: specified firearms or ammunition bans, firearm acquisition restrictions, firearm acquisition waiting periods, registration of firearms, firearm owner licensing, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, laws preventing child access, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. After performing a systematic review, the Task Force could not find sufficient evidence to determine whether any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws that were reviewed had any effect on violent outcomes. The Task Force report also stated that while the review did not reveal sufficient evidence to determine effectiveness of firearms laws, the results should not be interpreted as evidence that firearms laws or combinations of laws were totally ineffective on violent outcomes, and that more research is necessary in order to explore specifically what relationship, if any, exists between gun control laws and violent outcomes (e.g. gun related violence and/or death) (Id.). Recent events, such as the shooting of a Congresswoman and others in Tucson, Arizona, led gun control advocates to call for new legislation regarding guns or a change in the national culture that supports and accepts guns and gun ownership. Gun control advocates believed that they would be more effective in introducing new regulations because a member of Congress was actually targeted in the incident (Nigourney & Steinhauer, 2011). In fact, on the contrary, lawmakers and gun advocates believe that lawmakers are less than ever willing to support new restrictions on guns (Id.). One reason for Congress’ reluctance to impose new restrictions on firearms may be the fact that many members of Congress now carry guns for their own protection. Furthermore, the current political climate in Congress does not lend itself to the imposition of new gun laws or restrictions. Therefore, the Tucson shootings will probably not lead to the imposition of restrictions on gun ownership, change existing laws or regulations, or change the national culture in support of gun ownership (Id.). Controversy and debate on the issue of gun control in the United States will likely continue for many years to come. Due to a combination of factors, the current national trend seems to be in support of the Second Amendment right of gun ownership and against the imposition of new laws or regulations regarding gun ownership regardless of a continuing increase in gun violence and/or death in the United States. Recent Supreme Court decisions have upheld the fundamental right of gun ownership granted by the Second Amendment based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and protected those rights from state or local laws or regulations against them (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008; McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). Furthermore, a good deal of research, including the results of the Task Force 2000-2002 review, exists that finds gun violence to be more significantly related to socioeconomic factors than to any laws or regulations concerning gun use or ownership and that there is insufficient evidence to determine any effectiveness of firearms laws on violent outcomes (CDC, 2003; Kwon et al., 1997). This appears to be a logical conclusion as gun violence and/or death in the United States continues to increase despite the imposition of any number of gun laws or regulations. Gun control advocates argue that the imposition of stricter regulations on gun ownership would help reduce the incidents of gun violence and/or death in the United States; however, existing research and an examination of the history of gun control in the United States does not show this to be the case. Socioeconomic factors, including poverty, unemployment, alcohol and/or drug use, transient lifestyle and ethnicity, have actually been found to have a more significant effect on increasing rates of gun violence and/or death than gun control laws or regulations. In fact, existing research has repeatedly established a strong link between socioeconomic factors and any criminal behavior (i.e. gun related violence). Therefore, government and private resources, such as time, money, effort, would appear to be better utilized to understand this relationship rather than simply imposing additional laws or regulations on gun use and ownership. A good understanding of the relationship between crime and socioeconomic, or perhaps other, factors is required in order to find effective solutions to the increasing rates of gun violence and/or death that exist in the United States today. References Barnes, R., Eggen, D. (2010). Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms. Washington Post, June 29, 2010. CDC (2003). First reports evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for preventing violence: firearms laws. Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR; 52(RR14); 11-20. Cook, P.J., Ludwig J. (1996). Guns in America: results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Cramer, C.E., Olson, J.E. (2008). Pistols, crime, and public safety in early America. Williamette Law Review, vol. 44. District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Greenhouse, L. (2008). Justices, ruling 5-4, endorse personal right to own gun. The New York Times, June 27, 2008. Kwon, I.G., Scott, B., Safranski, S.R., Bae, M. (1997). The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, January, 1997. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___; 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010). Nagourney, A., Steinhauer, J. (2011). A clamor for gun limits, but few expect real changes. The New York Times, January 13, 2011. Sampson, R.J. (2000). Whither the sociological study of crime? Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 111-114. Read More