Many issues have become very controversial recently due to growing polarization in

America. One of the most important issues that has taken the limelight in recent years is gun
control. Gun control can be defined as the set policies that police the manufacture, ownership,
sale, and transfer of guns by common citizens. Upon researching this issue I came across an
article titled “It's Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.” written by Phoebe Maltz Bovy. In
this editorial Bovy stated how she was in favor of gun control, and her main point was that
banning guns needs to be a part of the gun control conversation.
The problem with banning guns is that there is an astronomical amount of guns in
America. According to Smalls Arms Survey, “there are over 393 million firearms in the
United States, and this number only includes civilian-owned firearms.” Essentially there are
more guns in America than there are people, which would make it quite problematic for the
government to ban guns. Another argument made by Bovy is that the Second Amendment
has been liberally interpreted in that it has come with too many liberties. To back her claim
Bovy states that the First Amendment gives the people the power to interpret the Second
Amendment however they want. The issue with this argument is that the Bill of Rights was
created and intended to protect the civil liberties of the citizens of America. The Supreme
Court, which consists of the most intellectual lawyers, whose job is to interpret the
Constitution and Bill of Rights to the best of their ability, has ruled on gun control multiple
times. One of the most recent rulings was in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller in 2008
where the US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, “The Second Amendment
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to
use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Again
in 2010 in McDonald vs. City of Chicago the court ruled that the Second Amendment is an
individual right. I find it difficult to refute such interpretations of the Court when the rulings
have stayed consistent over and over again. In regards to the use of guns for self defense,
Bovy states that if guns are banned and no one has a gun, then there won’t be the need to
defend oneself against guns. However, in a Journal Article titled “Underground Gun
Markets” published in The Economic Journal by Oxford University, in the city of Chicago
alone, the underground secondary market of gun sales was estimated at around 2-3 million
per year. This means that banning guns would only prohibit access to protect oneself as a law
abiding citizen, while criminals and those who commit the majority of gun violence still have
access to an unregulated market of guns. Another opinion of Bovy’s is that the reason gun
control is not in the conversation is due to gun culture in America. However Gun-culture is a
term made up to give gun owners a negative connotation. In fact, According to the Pew
Research Center only 1 in 5 gun owners are members of the NRA, and 1 in every 3 gun
owners believe that gun violence is a big problem in America. The term gun culture was
created by Richard Hofstadter in his piece “America as a Gun Culture,” in which he describes
gun culture as America's long history and sentimental feelings with guns. However, since
then Hostadter’s term has been maliciously used to create a negative connotation towards gun
owners of America, which is the case here.
If banning guns was needed, the American people would make it happen. However
not only does the vast number of guns make this a merely impossible task, but the Second
Amendment as interpreted by the court grants citizens their right to own a gun. As for gun
culture it is not an “issue” that needs solving, merely a term coined by those who view gun
owners and guns as the problem behind gun violence. With that being said the solution to gun
violence is not in banning guns, because not only will guns still be bought and sold illegally
but that wouldn’t be constitutional either. I conclude with this simple statement that Laws do
not deter criminals, only those who abide by them.