James Thomas Mr. Munoz Dual Credit Eng,, Per. 5 December 15, 2014 Will Bans Work? Because of the many recent school and public mass shootings that have ended in death and injury, the Second Amendment has been put into question: should civilians have the right to own assault weapons? Assault weapons were created as an alternative to military grade weapons, which were deemed as too dangerous for civilian use, Anti-gun activists feel that assault ‘weapons are military grade weapons and should be treated as such. Pro-gun activists feel that any weapon not deemed as a true military grade weapon should be available to the public, The debate is whether or not banning assault weapons is seen as effective against violent crime rates. Banning assault weapons is not effective against the battle against violent crimes such as mass shootings. Ww hye i) \wAyo.. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated wit being necessary to the security eon ofa fice State, the right of the people to keep and bear stat not be infringed” (“The Constitution”). This amendment is part of Bill of Rights, a document aimed towards the nationg government because the citizens of the United States felt that they did not haye enough mn. Since the Second Amendment was ratified, United States citizens have the right to own firearms of any kind, so long as the weapon is used properly. This means that the owner must be fit, emotionally and psychologically, to own any kind of firearm ranging from a simple .22 caliber pistol all the way to a .50 caliber rifle. Certain regulations go along with this such as: you mustbe eighteen in order to buy a rifle or shotgun, you must be twenty-one to buy a pistol, you must have a background check every time you purchase a firearm, and you must register the weapon as soon as you purchase it Pro-gun activists base their side of the debate on the fact that the Second Amendment declares, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (“The Constitution” ffPre Constitution isthe basis for our government and other legal procedures, so why is the Second Amendment being put into question? The framers of the United States Constitution knew that American citizens should not only have to rely on the government for protection. If someone is trying to break into your house to cause you physical harm, perhaps even end your life, would you not want to be able to defend yourself? The Second Amendment was created in order for the common defense; for everyone to be able to defend your own life in the case that you are left without the aid of a police officer or other military officer. Anti-gun activists see this and ask the only logical question: what is the right to bear arms? What is the definition of arms? Pro-gun activists would define the right to bear arms as the right to own any tool that can be used as an effective weapon to defend yourself. This means that if the person must have an assault weapon in order to feel safe in their own home, then the Second Amendment grants their right to do so. The definition of arms is any weapon that is not military grade or capable of mass destruction, Anti-gun activists believe that an assault weapon is the same as any military grade weapon. It is true that most assault weapons are based on military grade weapons such as the M16, it is not true that assault weapons are military grade. Assault ‘weapons are usually classified with these characteristi pistol grip, high magazine capacity, astock made to absorb continuous shots in a short period of time, and semi-automatic (every time you pull the trigger one bullet is fired from the chamber). Pro-gun activists are against the banning of assault weapons because it has done nothing in the way of reducing crime rates. Statistics show that since the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 was not renewed in 2004 there has been a significant decrease in violent crime rates that included assault weapons. “The n: \n’s total violent crime rate peaked in 1991. Since then, through 2012, it has decreased 49%, to a 42-year low, including a 52% drop in the nation’s murder rate, to a 49-year low—perhaps the lowest point in American history” (“Ten Reasons”). This is because of the millions of assault weapons produced and sold to the American people, also having an all-time high of ownership (“Ten Reasons”). The opposing argument is that, “[iJn the ten years that the federal ban on assault weapons was in effect, the percentage of assault weapons traced to crime fell by 66 percent, The ban worked” (“About Military-Style”), This statement is flawed because of the lack of evidence: “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it can ‘in no way vouch for the validity’ of Brady Campaign’s claim...that the federal ‘assault weapon’ law reduced crime” (“Ten Reasons”). Since the ban only lasted for 10 years, its effectiveness cannot be accurately documented. The biggest issue with the assault weapon debate is because of the recent mass shootings: Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut—20 children and 6 faculty murdered with a semiautomatic copy of the U.S. military’s M-16 rifle; Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado—13 killed and 23 wounded with four guns, including 55 rounds fired from a TEC-9 semi-automatic assault pistol; Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California—s small children killed and30 wounded with a semiautomatic copy of the Soviet military’s AK-47 rifle. ("About Military-Style Assault Weapons”) < Though all of these shootings included assault weapons, they could have been easily avoided had there been more security or a higher number of people that carried a firearm. The main issue is not “why do we have people with ‘highly lethal weapons" the bigger question should be “why do we allow public places, such as schools, not have security guards that are capable with dealing with areas that are capable of mass shootings?” If these three schools had & better equipped and better trained officers or personal firearm owners then perhaps all of this could have been avoided. A few examples of these are: the Pearl High School shooting, the Parker Middle School dance shooting, the Trolley Square shooting, and the San Antonio Theater | |\_- Shooting. All of these incidents did not have the chance to become mass shootings because o ye personal firearm owners that stopped the perpetrator before he caused a high body count. It is true that most mass shootings involve assault weapons but just like the incidents listed before they can be stopped before there is a high body count. The solution to stopping mass shootings is, ne not banning cde SEAT at weapons will always be around; the real solution is % to have better security and to educate the public about safe firearm usage. If more people carry a firearm on their person instead of just relying on police force, then most mass shootings can be stopped in its early stages. Looking into violent crimes alone, assault weapons are only used in a fraction of violent crimes leading to injury or death, “The vast majority of firearms that gun control supporters call ‘assault weapons’ are rifles, and during the most recent five years of data, there were nine times as many murders with knives, blunt objects (hammers, clubs, ete.), and ‘personal weapons"(“Ten Reasons"). Banning assault weapons will not help solve violent crime rates since most firearms used in murders and other felonies are not registered and are usually bought by an unlicensed dealer or on the black market, The main issue is not the weapon itself but the people that use them. Looking back on mass shootings, every perpetrator was mentally and emotionally unstable that then bought the assault weapons used in the shootings from unlicensed dealers. jer Keith Morgan, president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, states that “[pleople are killed in greater number by cars, bats, hammers, hands, and feet...Examining the tool and attempting to ban the tool will have absolutely no effect. We’re dealing with a people problem, We've got to find a people solution” (“Why Gun Groups”).