Rush 1

Course-Spanning Task

Over a Barrel: The Great American Gun Debate

Jennifer Rush

“I certify that I have read A Student's Guide to Academic Integrity at the University of
Oklahoma, and this paper is an original paper composed by me for this course. Except where
properly cited and attributed, it has not been copied or closely reworded from any other source
and has not been submitted as a whole, or in part, for credit in any other course at OU or any
other educational institution. It has not been created or submitted for any other purpose such as a
job assignment at my workplace or any other agency.”

LSTD 3253 Ethics in Liberal Studies

Professor Susan D. Nash

March 31, 2010

 Rush 2

Over a Barrel: The Great American Gun Debate

The term gun control refers to any government policies that influence the availability and

use of firearms among the general public. The unusual phrasing and punctuation of the Second

Amendment—“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”—keeps gun control supporters and

opponents at odds with each other. At the heart of the controversy is whether there is a way to

find a balance of freedom and individuality with protection and safety.

The two sides in the gun control debate are constantly trying to influence every piece of

legislation that arises in the United States. The main goal of gun control is to prevent violence,

but the purpose of gun use is not necessarily to cause harm. In trying to prevent violence, gun

control supporters want to create rules that prevent people from using guns so freely. Gun control

opponents believe these laws are unfair to good citizens who use guns responsibly (Lott, 2003).

If the right to own guns is purely individual—like the right to free speech or the freedom of

religion—the government has no business stepping in and limiting it to certain groups or for

certain purposes. If owning a gun is a collective right, designed to protect the states from federal

encroachments or foreign invasions, then government has every right, and indeed an obligation,

to decide what regulations are necessary (Braman & Kahan, 2006). The main issue with gun

control is where to draw the line between the right to make a personal choice and the

government’s right to control what people can and cannot do.

The main issues and arguments in the debate over controlling firearms in the United

States have not changed substantially in the last 75 years. The first federal gun control was a

1927 law prohibiting the sale of handguns to private individuals through the mail (Crooker,

2003). During Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, two significant pieces of federal gun control
 Rush 3

legislation were enacted: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Federal Firearms Act

of 1938 (FFA). The NFA was drafted in response to the highly publicized violent crime sprees

that wreaked havoc across America during the 1920s and 1930s (Bruce & Wilcox, 1998). The

media and the public demanded government response. The federal government had neither the

jurisdiction nor the organizational capacity to combat these groups. The NFA required every

importer, manufacturer, and dealer in firearms to register its name and place of business with the

local IRS collector in order to pay an annual tax. Owners had to register their weapons within 60

days of the act (Roleff, 2007). This system, the National Firearms Registration and Transfer

Record (NFRTR) exists to this day. The FFA established the system of federally licensed dealers

that has since remained at the core of federal gun control (Crooker, 2003). When the crime rate

soared in the 1960s, gun control made its way on to the social problems agenda. The Gun

Control Act (GCA) languished in Congress for five years, finally becoming a law in the wake of

the Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy assassinations (Bruce & Wilcox, 1998). The

National Rifle Association (NRA) successfully opposed the bill’s licensing and registration

provisions. The NRA and its allies were eventually able to secure a preamble that stated “it was

not the intent of Congress to restrict unnecessarily the rights of American citizens to purchase

and use firearms for lawful purposes, including personal protection” (Lott, 2003). The CGA

contained three major provisions—prohibition of firearm trafficking between states; prohibition

of firearms access to convicted felons, the mentally ill, and minors; and banning importation of

military firearms (Bruce & Wilcox, 1998). The CGA placed responsibility for administering

federal firearms laws in a new agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).

The social and political climate of the United States during the 1980s helped intensify the

gun control debate. President Ronald Reagan believed that individuals and state governments
 Rush 4

should have more power than the federal government (Magoon, 2008). The gun control policies

during this period were directed at criminals rather than at law-abiding gun owners. Reagan’s

dedication to individual freedom created a political space for the ideas of gun control opponents.

In 1986, gun rights advocates to some degree succeeded in their two-decade-long campaign to

cut back on the GCA (Magoon, 2008). The NRA and its congressional supporters charged that

the BATF regularly violated the civil rights of law-abiding citizens in its fervor to enforce the

GCA. The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) was enacted, which prevented the

abuse of regulatory power (Bruce & Wilcox, 1998). After the assassination attempt of Reagan in

1981, the public began to question the process of purchasing and owning a gun. The gun control

movement took this opportunity to push its message. A decade-long fight began within Congress

over gun control legislation that would change the way guns could be purchased and how buyers

were screened. In 1993, after a tortuous legislative history, Congress passed and President Bill

Clinton signed the most important gun control legislation in 25 years. Commonly known as the

Brady Law, the Handgun Control and Violence Prevention Act required the delay of gun sales by

up to five working days so that local law enforcement officials could conduct a background

check on prospective gun purchasers (Caldwell, 1994). While the GCA permitted dealers to take

the word of prospective handgun buyers, the Brady Law provided for an independent check on

the purchaser’s eligibility. Firearm purchases surged in 1993 and 1994 after the Brady Law was

passed, and would surge again if and when passage of any major federal gun control measures

seemed at all likely (Roleff, 2007).

Proponents of gun control would like to see the enactment of a national regulation of

firearms. Of the many aspects surrounding the issue of gun control, none is more important than

whether there exists a causal link between gun prevalence and violence. Gun control advocates
 Rush 5

believe the more firearms circulating in a society, and the weaker the regulations governing their

possession and use, the greater the likelihood of the occurrence of violent crime, suicide, and

accidental firearm-related death (Kleck, Gertz, & Bratton, 2009). For decades, gun control

advocates have opposed gun rights on the grounds that the Second Amendment is limited to the

establishment of state militias. The object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that is

likely to commit a crime to obtain a gun (Kleck, et al, 2009). Some gun control advocates urge a

number of strategies directed at reducing the criminal misuse of firearms such as trigger locks,

smart guns, and safe storage laws (Roleff, 2007). Gun control encompasses a much broader

range of policies than just preventing dangerous people from obtaining firearms. Gun control

includes strategies for apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing people who illegally possess,

carry, or use guns in the commission of crimes. By far the most important gun control lobbying

organization in American history is the Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), also known as the Brady

Campaign. According to their mission statement, the group is “devoted to creating an America

free from gun violence” (http://bradycampaign.org). HCI has focused and stimulated gun control

interest and activism and provided a respected and constant gun control voice in Washington,

D.C.

Gun control opponents believe the people have a right to bear arms as stated in the

Constitution, and that the government should never infringe on that right. Gun rights advocates

are fierce supporters of the right to self-defense (Lott, 2003). They claim it is one of the rights

reserved to the people in the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, according to this view, any

government infringement of that right is unconstitutional. Gun rights advocates speak often of

the need to be self-sufficient in defending oneself in light of the fact that police cannot be

everywhere (Polsby, 1994). Gun rights advocates also tout the deterrence aspect of displaying a
 Rush 6

gun when necessary. Although nobody should pull a gun unless circumstances warrant firing it,

it may be that the sight of a firearm in the hands of a potential victim will scare off an attacker

(Crooker, 2003). Gun right advocates believe efforts to curtail the supply of firearms inflict

collateral damage on freedom and privacy interests that have long been central to American life

(Polsby, 1994). The NRA represents the most influential group who opposes gun control. They

argue for the interests of sportsmen and offer training to millions of gun users. The NRA argues

that the focus should be on people who misuse guns, not on the weapons themselves. The NRA

frequently opposes new gun control proposals with the argument that the Department of Justice

does not enforce existing laws. While neither the BATF nor any other federal agency is in a

position to increase gun seizures and arrests by means of street-level policing, federal

prosecutors could take more aggressive legal action against armed felons (Lott, 2003).

The debate over gun control is skewed in favor of stricter laws because the positive

effects of guns are rarely discussed. We are inundated with bad news about guns and rarely hear

about the benefits. It is easy to count the bodies of those who have been killed or wounded with

guns, but not as easy to count the people who have avoided harm because they had access to

weapons. A Media Research Center study concluded that media coverage of firearms is

overwhelmingly biased to the negative, noting that between 1995 and 1999, television networks

collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than

11-to-1 against firearms (Braman & Kahan, 2006). Many Americans are accustomed to

associating gun ownership with criminal activity, when in fact the opposite is true. Hundreds of

thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, yet there is no movement to ban them.

Instead, the focus is on training and education of better drivers. We must stop trying to take hand

guns away from law abiding citizens and concentrate on taking them away from criminals. There
 Rush 7

are already over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are being ignored by criminals (Bruce &

Wilcox, 1998). In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen existing anti-gun laws

were broken. Obviously, the shooters did not care they were breaking those laws. Many crimes

are committed with weapons other than guns yet it is not illegal to possess some of those items.

It is possible to strike a balance between a broad right to gun ownership and limits that guard

against real risks.

Because all rights are subject to limitations, reasonable gun controls would be compatible

with the Second Amendment. Gun control should be about reinforcing the responsibility of gun

ownership and use. Recognizing that the Second Amendment guarantees individual Americans a

right to keep and bear arms would promote more rational gun policies. We should consider the

use of guns with the same mindset that we approach alcohol consumption and driving. We talk

about “responsible drinking” and “safe driving” but not about banning drinking and confiscating

cars. Firearms accidents are clearly caused by gun operators just as automobile accidents are

caused by car drivers. Our focus should be on violence control and not gun control. Consumer

safety should be a concern, but not to the point that it allows for paternalistic control. I believe

the best firearm policy for the United States is to provide firm and unfailing punishment for

every defender who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. The most unrealistic control

policy is prohibition of private ownership of firearms or handguns. Demanding disarmament

only fans the flames of a culture war between gun owners and gun controllers. Furthermore,

disarmament is counterproductive; it reinforces the resolve of gun owners to resist all gun

controls because they are steps down a path to involuntary disarmament.

The regulation of firearms is not exclusively, nor above all, a federal concern. American

federalism presents an impediment to firearms regulation. It has and will likely continue to be
 Rush 8

very difficult to get a congressional majority to support far-reaching gun controls. Even if

Congress could agree on gun control legislation, the Supreme Court has become less willing to

permit Congress to exert authority over essentially noneconomic intrastate matter, like crime

control. However, there is currently an attempt to impose strict gun controls via Presidential

decree rather than legislative action. There is no federal police force with the authority or

resources to carry out street-level policing necessary to enforce gun laws against individuals

(Polsby, 1994). The BATF has experience in administering and enforcing certain gun laws, but

the agency is micromanaged by Congress.

Gun rights advocates and gun control proponents sharply disagree about whether the

Second Amendment poses an obstacle to gun control. Gun control proponents contend that the

Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual rights and that it guarantees only that

states can maintain organized militia units. Gun owners’ rights advocates cite a large and

impressive composition of mostly historical scholarship that demonstrates how the founding

fathers intended the Second Amendment to protect the individual American’s rights to be armed.

Since gun control advocates and opponents both have rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court to

support their position, the debate is sure to continue for some time.
 Rush 9

References

The Brady Campaign. (2010). “Mission Statement.” Retrieved March 20, 2010, from

http://www.bradycampaign.org

Braman, D., & Kahan, D. (2006). Overcoming the Fear of Guns, the Fear of Gun Control, and

the Fear of Cultural Politics: Constructing a Better Gun Debate. Emory Law Journal,

55(4), 569-607. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Bruce, J. & Wilcox, C. (Eds.) (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Oxford: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Caldwell, R. (1994). Gun control flops as crime deterrent. Human Events, 50(3), 17. Retrieved

March 2, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Crooker, C.E. (2003). Gun control and gun rights. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Kleck, G., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2009). Why do people support gun control?: Alternative

explanations of support for handgun bans. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 496-504.

Retrieved March 2, 2010, from Web of Science database.

Lott, J. (2003). The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun

Control is Wrong. Washington, D.C.: John Lott.

Magoon, K. (2008). Gun Control. Minnesota: Abdo Consulting Group, Inc.

Polsby, D. (1994). THE FALSE PROMISE OF GUN CONTROL. (Cover story). Atlantic

Monthly (10727825), 273(3), 57-70. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from Academic Search

Premier database.

Roleff, T. (Ed.). (2007). Gun Control. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.