It's Time to Decide

We're nearing the end of the Civic Issue blog, and it is time to decide where you stand. Whether you are for or against gun control,  the time to put your beliefs into practice is close. This coming November, we vote for our president, the person who hopefully holds the beliefs of the nation close to his or her own heart. The issue of gun control is not the only thing to consider when voting for president, but it is an important thing to think about.

That being said, this post will be dedicated to looking at the front runners of the election's stance on gun control so that when November rolls around, you will be able to make the most informed decision. I will be focusing on Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.


Donald Trump

Via american3rdposition.com

 "The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period," 
 
 - Backs a concealed weapons policy in all states, and believes that if you have one in one state, it should be recognized in every state
Quote: “The right of self-defense doesn't stop at the end of your driveway. That's why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states,” (x)

- Believes armed teachers would have stopped Oregon Massacre, does not support Gun Free zones
Quote: "By the way, it was a gun-free zone... Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off." (x) 
“If you had more guns, you'd have more protection because the right people would have the guns.” (x)

- Believes gun violence is perpetuated by people with mental illnesses
Quote: "This isn't a gun problem, this is a mental problem,... It's not a question of the laws, it's really the people." (x)

Via en.wikipedia.org

 
 Ted Cruz

“I have never and will never support banning guns.”

- Supports people's right's to have guns, but believes people who buy them illegally should be punished more harshly
Quote: “We ought to do everything we can, for example, to be prosecuting the felons and fugitives who are trying to illegally buy guns.” (x)

- Does not support gun free zones
Quote: “Sadly, virtually every one of these shootings across the country has occurred in so-called gun-free school zones. If you look at the jurisdictions that have really strict gun control laws, they consistently have among the highest crime rates.” (x)


Hillary Clinton 
 

Via en.wikipedia.org

"More than 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. It’s time to act. As President, I'll take on the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals—including comprehensive background checks and closing loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands." 

- Stricter background checks
Quote: “I do support comprehensive background checks, and to close the gun show loophole, and the online loophole, and what's called the Charleston loophole, and to prevent people on the no-fly list from getting guns.” (x)


- Calls the NRA to change their tactics
Quote:  “...to form a different organization and take back the Second Amendment from the extremists.” (x)

- Does not want to completely take away guns, just wants to regulate them more strictly 
Quote: “At the very least, we need to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, people with serious mental challenges, terrorists, all of whom now are perfectly free to go and find a gun somewhere." (x)


Bernie Sanders
 

Via biography.com

"I will take the following concrete steps to reduce gun violence: strengthen and better enforce the instant background check system; close the gun-show loophole; make 'straw man' purchases a federal crime; ban semi-automatic assault weapons which are designed strictly for killing human beings; and work to fix our broken mental health system." 

- Stricter background checks, more laws restricting gun ownership
Quote: “I think the vast majority of the American people, as the president indicated, including gun owners... want sensible gun control legislation.”(x)

- Believes in a ban on military grade weapons
Quote: “...weapons designed by the military to kill people are not in the hands of civilians." (x)
 
- Wants to address the mentally ill situation in the country
Quote: “I believe that we have to bring people together to address this crisis of massacres and people getting killed every day with guns.” (x)

The View From Over Here

In my last post, I discussed how other countries have dealt with their treat of gun violence, all with incredibly positive results. Looking at our own country, which has such a horrifying record of fire arm attacks, it can be confusing as to why we wouldn't adopt similar principles. If it worked there, why not here?

Unfortunately, there are a few reasons why other countries stricter gun laws couldn't be paralleled here in the United States. That is not to say that they could never work, but to pass these laws, there would have to be a significant shift in the countries perception of gun violence and personal beliefs.

**Disclaimer before we get into this post: I have my personal opinion on this issue, and while I will not outright state my stance, there is a very real possibility that it may be a bit detectable as to where I stand as this particular post offers more of a place for that. That being said, I do not mean to offend or denounce either side of the issue. I urge everyone to keep an open mind until they've made their own decision.**

So, what are some oppositions to stricter gun control? Well, as I talked about in a previous post where I dissected each side of the issue, there are a few reasons. The main one is the second amendment. This is a pretty common argument, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which is all well and good, until you read the first half of that statement which says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state [being the reason for the legality of owning guns]". Because of our police force, militias are no longer needed to protect the free state. Now, this only protects peoples rights to own an unnecessary amount of guns. The constitutions should be there to protect us, not used as a reason for those who can hurt us to continue doing so.

Via partneringwitheagles.wordpress.com

Also stated in that same post was how the NRA argued that more guns make the country safer; arguing that in the cause of the Sandy Hook tragedy, had the teachers been armed, it could have been avoided. However, requiring teachers to carry firearms in schools in their classes crosses a line. Educators are not equipped to use said firearm in a hostile situation, nor should they be forced to be. It is not in their job description. Furthermore, the argument that more guns make things safer is a weak one. Research shows that in 2011, there were 14,675 injuries in the US involving accidental discharge, and the that number would only go up in a school setting where kids were around a firearm all day (the number increases if people are poorly trained or inexperienced, as the teachers would most likely be).

An article written by Joan Walsh,  The Nation’s National Affairs Correspondent, shined some light onto other possible reasons as to why stricter gun control laws wouldn't work. As we know, a lot of the time the Republican party is on the side of the NRA in that they oppose any kind of gun restriction. That is not saying it is all Republicans, it is mostly the radially far-right's sentiment. Why? Walsh offers a solution; "Our prolonged gun control stalemate reflects the far-right’s deep distrust of democracy... Increasingly this right-wing fringe believes it’s going to need its guns to overthrow an illegitimate government—especially the one run by gun-grabbing Barack Obama." The NRA even issued a 10-point guide stating the ways Obama would strip them from their basic gun rights. However, although these people believe Obama to be "coming for their guns" since before he became president, that is far from the case. In his first year he signed a law overturning a ban on loaded and concealed guns in national parks in 2009. Aside from that, which helps their cause, he has left the issue alone. It is not hard to see why people are reluctant for change; big business spread lies about the issue to keep people from challenging it.

The last issue I will be discussing is people's selfish attitudes toward their personal gun rights. In my post prior to this one, I stated how the epidemic of gun violence is only growing in our country. School shootings hardly even make the front front page anymore, they've become so common. Instead of thinking of our country as a whole, and how to keep the majority safe, people only worry about themselves in this situation.

Via cagel.com

Smaller countries have an easier job uniting their people under a common goal. In the US, an attack that happens in Connecticut doesn't really directly impact someone all the way in Arizona. On top of that, our country is pretty divided down the middle; the North generally being more for gun control and the South generally opposing it. This makes it hard for everyone to unite for the common goal.

For these reasons, it may seem improbable for a satisfactory end to come of it. However, that doesn't mean people aren't going to try. In my next and final post, I will discuss how the front runners of the presidential election are going about this issue.

A Global Perspective

Welcome back to Trigger Happy: Gun Control in the United States. Last week, we looked at the sides of this debate, and how each one stands. This week, we will be moving onto a new chapter.

Towards the end of last week's post, I briefly brought up how Australia handled their gun violence issue. And for those who don't see America has having these issues, look at this chart that shows exactly how big of a problem gun violence is:

Via Washington Post

 This can be directly related to gun ownership, as shown by this:

Numbers correlate to amount of guns, Via Voxdotcom

In my next post, I will delve more deeper into how our nation is effected, but first, I would like to address how other world leaders have dealt (successfully) which this issue in their own countries.


Australia
I've chosen to talk about Australia first because they have a shocking success rate with their solutions. Following the massacre in Australia on April 28th 1996, in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, John Howard, the Prime Minister at the time, decided to take radical action. This killing spree, which is still considered one of the deadliest shootings worldwide by a single person, was committed by 28 year old Martian Bryant, who shot 57 people; injuring 23 and killing 35. After this horrific event, Howard made swift moves to make sure this didn't happen again. That same year, he implemented the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996.

John Howard, via Topnews

 This act is very complex, but at the center of it was a buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. New laws were put in place to prohibit private sales of firearms, instead it required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon. This "genuine reason" does not include self-defense.

Although they may seem like radical steps, public support for these measures above 90%, mostly because people were still in the wake of the tragedy. And it worked. Big time. Homicides by firearms decreased 59% from 1996 to 2005. There was a 65% drop in suicide by guns. Interestingly, home invasions did not increase at all. This is interesting because a main argument of anti-gun law activists use the reasoning that they need to protect their homes. Coupled with the drop in robberies involving guns, this reason seems to put itself away nicely. One of the most amazing things from these policies is that since they were put into place a decade ago, there hasn't been one mass shooting in Australia.  

Germany
The second country I want to bring up is Germany, because they have one of the strictest gun control policies in the world. The current law is the German Weapons Act (Waffengesetz) which was installed in 1972; it is a modification to previous gun laws. These laws regulate firearms, knives, and ammunition. They have strict rules about how to purchase guns, how to store them, and how to maintain them. They also ban the possession and distribution of 'forbidden items' such as nunchacks, switchblades and brass knuckles. 

The history of their gun laws goes all the way back to 1495, with German Emperor Maximilian I. Called the Ewiger Landfriede, this ruling put an 'everlasting ban' on vandettas (private feuds) which seems kind of weird. Basically, people were only allowed to fight within the court of law. After that, there was the better known Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (post WWII). Loosely, this limited the German military's firearms. After that was the gun regulation of the Third Reich in 1928. Briefly, these laws set by the Nazi regime lowered the age to buy a gun from 20 to 18, the validity of permits were expanded from one to three years, and Jewish people were not allowed to manufacture or distribute firearms or ammo. 

There are no amendments in the German legal tradition that allude to a right to bear arms, however, given their sticky past, gun laws are supported by many people. Currently, in order to buy a gun, anyone under the ago of 25 must undergo a physiological evaluation. Like Australia, one must have an adequate reason for buying the gun (hunter, competitive shooter, ect.), and there is a ban on fully automatic weapons.  Liability insurance is required for anyone who is licensed to carry firearms.

A new Weapons Act became effective in 2003 after a school shooting in the city of Erfurt in which a student killed sixteen people. The new Act restricted the use of large caliber weapons by young people and strengthened requirements for the safe storage of firearms. Then, after a massacre at Winnenden, in which an eighteen-year-old killed fifteen people in a school shooting, further restrictions were made; this time, the authorities may request access to see a registered gun in order to monitor whether proper safe-storage procedures are being upheld. 

Like in Australia, their rates of violence involving firearms has decreased. They saw they had a problem, and they took swift steps to ensure it wouldn't happen again.

Why, then, aren't these ideals taking hold in the U.S.? In my next post, I will go further into that question, delving into America's troubles gun situation and why it is so hard to resolve. 

Up To Date...

Last week, we analyzed the basis of the gun debate. This week, we will look at a few sides of the argument in the hopes of us ourselves being able to make an informed decision about this issue. I urge you to read each side of the debate and keep an open mind, as you may learn something that could effect your current stance.

When we think about the gun control debate, I think most people think of two distinct stances: more gun control and less gun control. While those are good jumping off points, they are only the tip of the iceberg in their own respects. Each large side has a multitude of subsets which must be noted in order to completely understand the issue.

The largest players are the NRA (National Rifle Association) who are against more gun control, and Pro Gun Control, who are, as the name states, behind more gun control. The NRA's core purpose is to protect the rights of gun owners, although that is not the only think they do.

Via Wikipedia

Established in 1871, the NRA was founded to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis". In 1934, they began to inform their members about any firearm-related bills that passed through the government, and since 1975, they have directly lobbied for and against gun legislation. in 1960, the NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with their new NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program. There are more than 13,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors today. Their influence, although believed to be too strong by some (77% of liberal Democrats believe they have too much power), is definitely a plus for those who would like to keep their guns in peace. They stand behind the Second Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". 

Some huge aspects of pro gun control supporters are better background checks and tighter regulation of gun sales. Their argument is that anyone can gets their hands on a gun (you can buy one at Walmart), and thus the possibility of it falling into the hands of someone who wants to do harm with it is significantly greater. Unfortunately, we have seen such destruction happen, which I will discuss in a later post. The NRP counters that with this statement made by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice-president, "We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed", which is why they believe the shooting epidemic is as high as it is. It is a common misconception that the NRP is completely against background checks, but that is not the case. The NRA backs the FBI-run instant background checks system used by gun dealers when selling firearms. It supports putting all mentally ill people into the system, so that they cannot be sold the gun. It is up to the states to do this, and many are lax in that aspect, putting only a small number of records into the system.

Via Alex Fulford

In addition to this, the NRA also believes that more guns make the country safer. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, Mr. LaPierre argued that the lack of an armed guard at the school was to blame for the tragedy. The NRA has also lobbied for confiscated guns should be resold, saying that destroying the weapons is a waste of perfectly good guns. Lastly, they are very behind "open-carry" laws, which allow gun owners to carry their weapons, unconcealed, in most public places.

If these sound like values that you believe in as well, then the NRA's website can keep you up to date with all things firearms, especially with the election looming nearer.

However, if you are into a more restricted approach to gun control, then Pro Gun Control is the place to look. Those who are pro gun control do not agree with how the second amendment is utilized, as the first part, "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", is often left out. Before a centralized government and military system came into play, it made sense that people needed guns. How, however, there should be no need for them. Pro gun control supporters argue that more guns equal more shootings, as most shootings are done with a legal weapon. They believe that the assault weapons that can do the most damage should be the most strictly regulated. 

Via theodysseyonline.com

Seeing how other countries have banned guns has also been a driving point in supporters of gun control. I will go into this more in a different post, but after a massacre in Australia in 1996, the Prime Minister of the time clamped down on gun control-hard. The following decade, there was a 95% drop in gun homicides. If it worked there, why can't it work here?

These views are polar opposites, and which side you chose is up to you alone. In the next few posts, I will delve deeper into how this issue effects the United States, how other countries have handled it, and where each candidate stands on this issue. 

Let's Go Back...

Welcome to Trigger Happy: Gun Control in the United States, the Civic Issues blog where I will be discussing the importance of understanding the current gun control (or the lack thereof) climate that our nation is enveloped in. This is a particularly opportunistic time to discuss it, as the elections are moving closer, and each candidate has his or her stance on the issue (81% of Americans say that gun control is an important issue to help determine which candidate to vote for). However, each candidates stance will be in later post. We must first understand the issue completely to form our own options before we can back someone else's.   

To move forward, we must first go back. Why is this issue so prevalent in our society today? Firearms have been around since their creation in 1364, although the automatic handguns most seen today weren't invented until 1892. Since that time, guns have only become more advanced, and subsequently more dangerous. Our military currently uses M16A2 Rifles most frequently, with almost every solider in the combat zone equipped with one. These guns can shoot up to 45 rounds per minute when in semiautomatic mode, to a distance up to 800 meters. However, this is not the most deadly firearm in the military, that is reserved to the DSR-Precision DSR 50 Sniper rifle.

Via World Defense Review

What about regular people then? The military has access to, and utilize, some of the most destructive weapons in the world, but the majority of gun violence cases in the United States do not occur with military grade weapons. Country wide, the percentages of types of gun ownership are divided by these statistics; 58 percent own pistols, 63 percent own shotguns and 59 percent own rifles. However, The most common civilian gun is the Colt AR-15 rifle. According to industry figures, almost 1 in 5 guns sold in the U.S. are the semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle. Not suprisingly, it is also the weapon of choice in most mass shooting that have overtaken our nation, which I will discuss in a later post.

Every American has a right to bear arms, as stated in 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". However, the current debate is questioning if the pros of owning a gun outweigh the cons, which would be the increase in mass shootings. 

Oddly enough, which all the tension brewing between pro and con supporters, there has not been a Supreme Court case to address it. Actually, the last case brought to the Supreme Court pertaining to infringement of the second amendment was in 1939, in a case called "U.S. vs Miller". The case addressed the unconstitutionality of the 1934 National Firearms Act, which imposes a excise tax on the manufacturing and transferring of specific firearms, and mandates that those firearms must be registered. Also, all transfers of ownership of registered NFA firearms must be done through the federal NFA registry, and permanent transport of NFA firearms across state lines by the owner must be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This act was put into effect following the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of president Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. The Supreme court ruled in favor of Miller, who had brought this case to the Court because he had been arrested for illegally transporting firearms under the NFA. They said that he had the right to transport his guns without notifying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, since they were not technically military grade, which would have prohibited him from moving them. 

This case, although it was a long time ago, still effects how people view gun laws today. In the next few posts, I will address every aspect of gun control in the United States, from the increase in gun violence to each side's argument.