The Right to Bear
Arms
Henry Peter
AB School of Sciences
The Right To Bear Arms
"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." Second
Amendment.
Irrespective of all arguments relating to the syntax
of the above, the fact remains that per se the amendment
guarantees the continuity (Gun Week September1991) of
the right to keep and bear arms to the people. The question
is whether today's world can accommodate this 200 year
old article whose amendment requires two-third majority
of each house and three-fourth of the states; whose
amendment process can be stymied by as little as 4.5%
of the US population.
It is essential to understand that the constitution
is not etched in stone and can be subject to, if not
serious flaws of formation, then with flaws of age and
surrogate error. With the advent of technology and formulation
of automatic weapons, the US Government has prohibited
sales and ownership of such since 1934. In 1993 the
Brady Bill was passed resulting in a very obvious Show-Gun
Loophole. Again in 1994 an act was passed resulting
in prohibition of weapons within a said radius of schools
and government buildings. Still further acts of installing
safety features in guns to prevent tragedies of minors
and to keep the gun under lock and key have been points
of controversy.
Experience and reason dictate that laissez faire and
totalitarian rules are equally harmful and fine boundaries
need be drawn to fully capture the essence of democracy.
Proponents of further gun control argue that with fewer
guns violence will decrease. Tragedies involving minors
will reduce and we will have a safer place to live.
The argument is akin to saying that with fewer swords
or with fewer arrows violence will decrease. Violence
is not a function of the weapon. It is a result of temporary
and/or permanent state of mind. A gun can trigger violence
no more than a knife or a sword or an arrow can.
In an average year five times as many children die in
bathtubs than they do in gun related violence. And whoever
heard of the "Bathtubs Control Act?"
Criminals are those who do not obey laws. Irrespective
of what law exists in the country they will continue
to obtain weapons, if not through legal channels then
through illegal ones. Currently background checks are
required for issuing a gun. As much as each act of violence
stands on its own, such a check at least provides us
with some little assurance of who has the guns. Predominantly
criminals use handguns for violence. If the police that
is at a dismal statistic (Reynolds) of one policeperson
per 3000 plus civilians, is not available what are those
fired upon to do?
If guns are to be completely eliminated (Sullum January
2000) from the society then control laws are surely
the slowest means of doing so.
Those who advocate strict gun control laws refer to
the increasing murder rate over the last tqo decades
attributing this trend to the increase in the private
ownership of arms. Kates (1979) refers to it.
the causal connection here is not that more handguns
have resulted in more violence, but that more violence
by the kind of disturbed, aberrant people who commit
murders (and by the equally aberrant, but much less
disturbed, people who commit robbery, burglary, etc.)
has caused law-abiding citizens to buy handguns in self-defense
And it cannot be reduced by handgun bans because these
people-who won't obey a law against murder-aren't going
to obey a law against owning handguns. (90)
For all crimes that are committed stricter laws will
be passed. Those who abide by them will suffer the hardships.
Those who will not will continue to do as before. Nothing
can justify tragedies like that of Columbian High School,
April 20, 1999, resulting in deaths of thirteen students.
But isn't the cause of such tragedy deeper than the
presence of guns? Shouldn't the circumstances that lead
to such acts of violence be investigated just as adroitly
as the gun control laws are lobbied? What is required
is enforcement of the existing laws and plugging of
loopholes before passing of newer ones. Until and unless
complete guarantee of the lives of the civilians can
be ensured, which surprisingly is exactly what the constitution
states it is not responsible for; stricter and stricter
laws will continue to penalize law-abiding citizens.
References
Kates, Don B., Jr. (July 1979). "Gun Control: The
Real Facts." Field and Stream: 90
Reynolds, Morgon O. Myths about gun controls. Retrieved
fro the World Wide Web on May 02, 2001.
(http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176.html).
Sullum, Jacob. (January 2000). "Cold Comfort".
Reason Online.
|