Political Science

Gun Control Is it really working
Introduction The concept of Gun Control
The idea behind gun control is simple. Control the influx of weapons into the country and rid it of its current possessions by individuals so that the majority concentration of weapons is in the hands of government controlled authorities such as the militia. Those in favor of gun control laws argue that this curbs access to weapons by criminals, juveniles and those that may be a safety hazard to others, also referred to as high risk individuals. The aim is to curb the availability of guns in a federal setting so the country cleans itself theoretically. Whereas measures such as the registration of firearm owners and their weapons may not seek the exact purpose of ridding the society of weapons, other efforts such as the cash for guns scheme seem to complement it better. The suggested processes are easier to implement since they hold no positive constitutional barriers as such (save for the 2nd Amendment) and do not incur significant social costs.

However, the opposition to gun control law has been just as adamant to point out that such laws only curb the freedom of the law abiding citizen and use historical examples of gun control in other countries as proof since countries like Australia, Russia and Germany have seen significant rise in crime and deaths not long after guns were banned within the society. The logic is simple criminals do not stop using weapons just because there is a shortage of availability in the market but in fact become bolder with the knowledge that the average citizen will not be armed and can thus be easily looted. Widespread use of guns for personal use could thus prove to be an effective deterrent to crime and tyranny, whether it is at the hands of gangs or by the government itself.

The Second Amendment is the original constitutional endeavor that gave private individuals the right to possess guns. It was enacted by our leaders with the simple ideology that the widespread use of licensed arms would prevent the Federal government from pressurizing the general population in the future. The actual text that ratified the Amendment in 1787 stipulated that 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 (District of Columbia v Heller, 2008). Many try to affirm that this Amendment was designed to restrict the use of weapons by the State Militia federally administering the laws of the land, adopting a constrained and restrictive derivation of the text. Those in favor of gun control laws say that the Amendment was directed towards the National Guard, an institution that was created 130 years later in 1917 (Biggandy Magazine, 2007). The fact is that the Second Amendment was designed to keep the law abiding citizen in control of the democratically elected government in order to ensure that force never got used as a tool to incite fear and thus keep power confined to the authorities in an unbiased way. The Supreme Court agrees, and thus, in 2008 delivered the landmark judgment in District of Columbia v Heller establishing once and for all that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear firearms, immediately striking on the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional and signifying that possession of arms is as much as a right of individuals as it is of state militias (District of Columbia v Heller, 2008). This changes a few things, since the Supreme Court has ruled on this subject for the first time in U.S history. Prior to this case however, gun control has continued to exist in legislation and policy and to understand if it has improved or worsened criminal activity in the country, the last century must be taken into account.

History of Gun Control
The 20th century saw a few policy changes for the ruling class in the United State in favor of gun control. The first such legislation that brought to light the controlled use of arms was in 1934, when the Congress enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Act concentrated on regulating the sales of fully automatic firearms such as machine guns, introducing a transfer tax and strict registration requirements for those and short-barreled long guns (Krouse, 2002). It was centered on limiting access to weapons more commonly perceived as gangster weapons, such as automatic machine guns. Moreover, it also regulated arms that may be concealed (such as belt buckle guns but not revolvers or pistols) by introducing special taxes on them. Registration requirements with the Secretary of Treasury ensured that the manufacturing and distribution process was monitored. In 1938, the enactment of a new federal law made it compulsory for gun sellers to be registered, excluding persons convicted of violent felonies from purchasing weapons. Another regulation on similar grounds did not see the light of day till 1968, when the Gun Control Act was enacted. This was much more comprehensive than its predecessor, making extensive use of registration and licensing requirements at the hands of gun dealers, prohibiting the sale of weapons by mail-orders, barring interstate sales, consequently regulating imports of guns, as well as extending the list of people ineligible to purchase weapons so as to include persons convicted of a non-business related felony, minors, mentally handicapped individuals, drug addicts etc. It also limited access to new assault weapons.License holders were prohibited from letting a person under the age of 18 handle a rifle or a shotgun, or one under 21 to be allowed the use of handguns. Together these two Acts constitute the two most important statutes regulating the use of weapons federally. No further legislation was enacted for another couple of decades until 1986, when federal law necessitated a few penalties for gun related crimes, prohibiting the use of armor piercing bullets. In 1990, furthering the limited access policy for assault weapons as seen in 1968, the government banned the use and manufacture of semi-automatic assault-weapons.

In 1994, Congress enacted in what was to be the most comprehensive gun control bill to be enacted in its history the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993 was named after the press representative who was seriously injured in President Reagans assassination attempt. It introduced what is implemented today as the five day waiting period for purchasers of handguns and necessitated a background check for all the new purchasers, those seeking to procure firearms from federal license holders. From 1994 to 1998, during the Phase I Brady implementation, background check made a 5 day waiting period compulsory. Post 1998, Phase II of the Brady Act, the FBI introduced the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which did away with the waiting period and allowed for a computerized instant background check.

Congress adamantly stipulates in the Gun Control Act of 1968 the purpose of such regulations as to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in the ongoing effort to reduce crime and violence (United States Code, 1968). This of course stems from the belief that the widespread distribution of arms is directly responsible for the rise in criminal activity. In consideration of this, the weapons cache of the country must be taken into account.

Number of Guns within the United States
In 1994, The National Institute of Justice reported that about 35 of American households (44 million people) own a multitude of firearms, amounting to a total of 192 million of which handguns constituted 35 (65 million) of the total. This figure was seen to raise to an estimated 242 million firearms by the end of 1996, according to the bureau of Firearms, Tobacco, and Firearms, a figure which included 72 million handguns, 76 million rifles and 64 million shotguns (Krouse, 2002). According to the Brady background check data, the sale of guns has gone up considerably in 2008 as well as 2009 on account of speculation that Congress under the Democratic regime would usher in a new wave of gun control laws. According to the Department of Justice, almost half of the gun owners own both handguns and shotguns or rifles. The same data also says that the typical gun owner is from a middle class setting and lives in a rural area. Even though gun ownership varies greatly from state to state, national statistical data suggests that there is a stark co-relation between the percentage of gun related homicides and handgun ownership (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006).

Criminal use of guns
Homicides committed annually by young people in the 14-to 24-year-old age group increased sharply (about 173) from 1985 to 1993. However, after that, the rate was seen to have declined. From 1993 to 1999, firearm related homicides created by the same age group declined by 47 (Fox, 2010). These figures are one of the key driving forces for implementing gun control measures. Question is has it been effective

The Effect of Gun Control
Gun control may have attained some of its objectives. The credit for that goes to the Brady bill, implementation of which necessitated background checks for all non licensed individuals seeking to obtain a firearm. Since its enactment in 1994 through 2000, nearly 30 million background checks were performed out of which 689,000 people were denied a license, which amounts to an overall 2.3 denial rate. These denials have helped keep the guns out of the reach of felons, as reported by the FBIs official statement of reasons published by the Department of Justice. The total number of required background checks declined by 11 from 8.6 million in 1999 to 7.7 million in 2000. Of total checks from October 1999 to September 2000, the total number of denials was 2.0 (153,000). Over 59 of denials occurred because the applicant was a felon or was under felony indictment in this period where as in the last fiscal year it was 72. The amount of deaths decreased significantly in the1990s but post 2000, the rate of decrease has leveled off (Krouse, 2002). As per the Department of Justice data, handguns constitute the majority of these fatalities which constitutes the preferred choice of concealed weapon for most offenders.

Since firearms contribute as the major reason for homicide and criminal assault, part of the decrease in their availability can be attributed to the overall decrease in crime. According to a rough estimate of the availability of handguns in the country, as evidenced by the domestic production of handguns, shows that the production of handguns slowed down in the early years of the 21st century but it is increasing again (Department of Justice, 2007).Given the approval ratings of the Brady checks however, handgun ownership can be said to have remained steady in the past decade (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008).
While figures may suggest a positive decline, the concern is more likely one because of an unprecedented level of recent violence seen in schools at the hands of students and young offenders.

This is the primary reason the gun control activists are still advocating stricter rules in this regard since seemingly such people have far too easy an access to weapons. Incidents such as the Columbine Massacre in April, 1999, the Virginia Tech Massacre in April 2007, and other incidents such as the one that took place at Binghamton, New York, on April 3, when a Vietnamese immigrant shot and killed 13 people at an immigration center before committing suicide gain enough press to incite fear into the hearts and minds of the general public. Where as in the case of students, experts blame such phenomena on violent video games and poor parenting but in essence each student had easy access to the weapons in question. Statistically such events are extremely rare but the media hype that surrounds them instantly broadcasts the horror of guns to the general public which demands action. Quite reasonably, gun control advocates support the issuance of trigger locks on all guns and the application of the Brady bill to gun shows, which have developed into a formidable loophole in the bill since gun shows are not federally administered.

Opposition to Gun Control
The rejection of gun control mechanism is spearheaded by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The protection of the Supreme Court given to the right of possession to individuals in 2008 is of primary importance here, as it establishes their long standing contention of being allowed to hold weapons under the Constitution of the United States. The common argument stipulates how gun owners restrict their gun use to deter criminals and therefore affectively contribute to the police force in their own way without causing the society any damage. They are concerned that with the passing of each regulation, the government would ultimately confiscate all weapons legally owned and thus rid of the society of an important means of self-defense. Their lobby has greater political power since gun control opponents spend far more contributing to elections than their counterparts.

John Lotts work More Guns, Less Crime supports the anti-gun control movement. His research shows that States which were lax in restricting private ownership of guns saw their murder rates go down by 8.5, rapes by 5, aggravated assaults by 7 and robbery by 3 and, if those states not having a similar legal setup had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

Moreover, the tighter the gun control restrictions become, the higher the crime rate goes up. The two cities having extensive gun control regulations that are prime examples of this are Chicago and Washington DC. These are the only two cities that have placed a ban on handguns. Still, according to Chicago Sun-Times Teenagers in Chicago are 10 times more likely to be the victims of gun violence than Illinois youngsters living outside the city. This indicates that laws themselves would not cease the usage of guns as criminals have plenty of means to obtain weapons from elsewhere.

Conclusion
Gun control while seemingly effective only manages to rid the licensed law abiding citizen of a means of self defense. There will always be a black market and a covert way of seeking weapons and while the government would persistently suggest lack of strictness as the reason for gun crimes, a ban on guns has not been able to bring forth positive results in either Chicago or Washington D.C, both of which suffer rising crime rates. If gun control does in fact all but eliminate crime, why is the number of employees in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and FBI continually on the rise The existing laws banning the use of handguns are already being challenged in courts thanks to Supreme Courts 2008 decision in DC Heller, and it would only serve for the betterment of society if the ban on guns is lifted.