Misenheimer 1

Will Misenheimer

Deby Jizi

UWRT 1102-028

6 April 2016

Gun Rights vs. Gun Control

For over two centuries, the 2nd Amendment has been commonly interpreted to give, “The People”

the right to bear arms, but is it time that Americans lock up their firearms? My family and I recently, in

the last 8 months, made the conscious decision to each become gun owners, with the exception of my 17-

year old brother. Despite my brother’s younger age of 17 years old, we all have experience with firearms,

even before becoming gun owners. With this being one of my first very expensive transactions, one may

understand the newfound interest that has been sparked within myself and my family. It is these interests

that have driven me to inform myself on the topic of gun control and ask the very conflicting question,

“Should firearms be controlled?” As an American gun owner, I have obvious biases towards gun rights,

but understanding how politics can be a whirlwind of conflicting thoughts at times, I wanted to learn

more about the other side. I wanted to understand what the thought process and reasoning that correlates

to the pro-gun control mentality. I understand that in order to develop a very well pre-meditated and

informed opinion of the topic of gun control, I must first delve into the minds of those who support gun

control and evaluate the thought process in that given circumstance.

The topic of gun control is of much concern to many Americans. Everyone should be informed

on the topic of gun control and gun rights, as it affects everyone. In Sage Journals’ article, “From the

Polls: Gun Control,” it is acknowledged that over 40 percent of Americans either have access to or own

firearms (From the Polls). I believe that the factor at stake in this topic is a factor of safety. Many people

believe that safety would be achieved through the restriction or complete abolition of firearms, while

others think that safety would best be obtained through the insurance of gun rights and allow individuals

Misenheimer 2

to privately own and acquire firearms in a timely manner. According to a Harris Poll displayed in Sage

Journals, roughly 70 percent of United States citizens would like to see stricter gun control (From the

Polls). I certainly believe this statistic. I perceive this as the point of compromise between the two sides.

As a gun owner, I can come to terms with the notion that there are individuals that are incompetent and

unfit to handle firearms. I believe that in order to ensure safety, a point of compromise is needed and the

question of “Should firearms be controlled?” must be answered, because until compromise is met, this

discussion will continue to linger over the head of American politics.

Many either strongly agree with or disagree with the Second Amendment, which is viewed as the

primary law concerning the ownership of firearms. In his book, The Triumph of the Gun-Rights

Argument, Harry Wilson questions if the meaning of the United States Constitution should be determined

by what the original framers intended at the time of its creation, or is it a living document, in which the

meaning changes as political and social situations change? (Wilson 21). Does the ability to defend oneself

by means of firearms take priority over the potential to commit acts of terror? The combination of these

two questions have fueled the “gun rights vs. gun control” debate for years. In the midst of the much

heated debate over gun control, many people refer to the 2nd Amendment as either the law that secures

gun rights, or the outdated, aged legislation that does not mold into our current society (Wilson 21).

Those who defend the right to bear arms usually found their arguments on the basis that the Second

Amendment is outdated, and the need for firearms has slowly dissipated over time (Gun Control vs. Gun

Rights). I can clearly understand why those who would want to restrict firearms would want the Second

Amendment to be interpreted according to today’s standards. The Second Amendment was adopted

shortly after the Revolutionary War, which featured an American army that consisted mostly of rag-tag

farmers with private firearms. Many would argue that the need for firearms in relation to domestic

defense is negligible in today’s society. Those who support gun rights would most likely prefer to see that

the US Constitution is interpreted according to the manner in which the framers had written it (Gun

Control vs. Gun Rights). It is also very understandable as to why the supporters of gun rights push for a

Misenheimer 3

direct interpretation of the Second Amendment, as it is often concluded that the right to bear arms is

directly and explicitly given under the original interpretation of the Second Amendment. I believe that the

Second Amendment should be interpreted as the original framers wrote it because societal conditions

change seemingly every day, and if the governing document were to change as often as the conditions as

the United States, not only the Second Amendment, but the entire US Constitution would be no more than

a whiteboard, subject to temporary writing.

The Gun Rights vs. Gun Control debate has been a lifelong issue for this country, with the current

interpretation of the Second Amendment as the People’s right to bear arms acting as the decider in a

heated stalemate. However, gun control does not necessarily imply the extermination of firearms, but also

the implications of more strict regulations (Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?). Following the

horrific shootings of news team members Jessica Parker and Adam Ward, the father of Parker released a

statement in which he declares that his legal team is not trying to take anybody’s guns, but only to see that

incompetent people do not get their hands on them (Gun Control Debate Explodes on ‘The Five’). This is

important to acknowledge as while firearms have not been banned, they may be monitored, and as

someone who enjoys shooting at the gun range, there is good reason for guns to be monitored. While the

recent Justice Antonin Scalia was known for having adopted a Pro-Gun Rights mentality, Scalia once

read that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited.” Therefore, the right to bear arms is subjected to

tighter restrictions, if need be. For example, of the 290 million guns that were recorded to be in

circulation in 2005, between 3 to 5 million of them were dealt through secondary markets and illegal

transactions (Gun Control versus Gun Rights). This is a very large amount of weapons to be dealt without

having serious record of the transactions, or who the weapons were dealt to. It is very easy to discern how

these under-the-table transactions may cause problems that jeopardize the safety of the general public.

Supporters of tighter gun control also argue that there is a linear relationship between guns and gun-

related deaths (Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?). Between the years of 1999 and 2013, there

were approximately 464, 033 gun-related deaths in the United States, claiming the 12th highest manner-of-

Misenheimer 4

death (Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?). My father used to tell me, “If it can happen, it

will.” I feel that this same mentality fuels much of the skepticism on the part of the Gun Control in

regards to gun rights. In such a diverse society, with millions of different minds and attitudes, it is easy to

understand how discrepancies may arise (Gun Control versus Gun Rights). If a gun is present in the midst

of conflict, things may potentially turn fatal because guns give power, and with power, certainly comes

abuse (Gun Control versus Gun Rights). The recent death of former New Orleans Saint Will Smith, as

reported by The Washington Post, is a good example (Boren). Smith and his wife were travelling on the

highway when a collision with another driver occurred, prompting Smith to confront the driver of the

vehicle with which he and his wife collided with (Boren). During the confrontation, the man drew a

handgun and shot and killed Smith, while wounding his wife (Boren). I believe that the most persuasive

answer to the question of, “Should firearms be controlled?” is not necessarily tight restriction, but

confidence in knowing that the people who obtain guns are conscious enough to properly use them. I do

not believe that it is right to disarm the conscious, law-abiding citizens and deprive them of the right to

bear arms and defend themselves; however, I understand that there is a very minute group of Americans

that do not have the capacity to safely operate a firearm. That is why I believe background checks and

licensed permits are so vital to ensuring safety within the boundaries of the Second Amendment. While

guns are often defended as tools of self-defense, let us not forget the potential to commit terrible acts with

them.

When you visualize a Pro-Gun Rights activist, do you see a middle-aged, shirtless man driving a

big truck, brandishing the Confederate flag? Whatever your illustration of the common Pro-Gun-Rights

activist may be, this man or woman represents the gun values of over half of early 21st century America

(From the Polls: Gun Control). In a study done by the Washington Post at the turn of the 21st century,

roughly 65 percent of Americans stood against the idea of a citizens’ ban on handguns (From the Polls:

Gun Control). But what makes these individuals feel so strongly towards their respective gun rights? In

many ways, the Pro-Gun Rights argument has not changed since even before the adoption of the Second

Misenheimer 5

Amendment in the late 1700s (Wilson 23). In the case of Malloch v. Eastly in 1744, colonial courts

settled early controversy over gun control by ruling that families may keep firearms in order to ensure

“defense of home and family (Wilson 23).” This is a fact that the NRA (National Rifle Association)

believes is widely used by Americans (Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?). According to the

NRA, guns are used as a means of self-defense roughly 2.5 million times each year (Should More Gun

Control Laws Be Enacted?). When the NRA cites this as self-defense, could this describe preventative

measures and not just instances in which a woman defended herself from an attacker? Self-defense is an

important commodity to supporters of gun rights, as seen in the statement made by the husband of Vicki

Gardner, a survivor of the 2015 Virginia TV Shooting (Gun Control Debate Explodes on ‘The Five.’). In

light of the horrific and senseless killings that had just taken place, Gardner says, “If he didn’t have a gun,

he’d have had a knife, a machete; he was bound and determined. I don’t blame the gun, I blame the guy

holding the gun (Gun Control Debate Explodes on ‘The Five.’). NRA Executive Vice President Wayne

LaPierre is also recorded as describing that nothing can stop a villain with firearm capabilities is a good

individual with firearm capabilities (Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?). I really agree with

what Gardner and LaPierre are saying. I believe that villains will always find ways to get their hands on

guns, as they have already shown that they have minimal regard for the law. I’ve noticed that this pattern

of thinking has been passed down to me from my parents and their parents before them. Nevertheless, in

refutation to the argument commonly made by supporters of gun control that there is a linear relationship

between guns and gun deaths, Laws.com states that gun rights supporters insist that regions practicing

tighter gun control laws witness the most violent crime rates in the United States (Gun Control versus

Gun Rights). Advocates for gun rights also believe that the violent crime that occurs in these regions,

such as Washington, D.C., and New Jersey, are not elevated due to the gun control controversy, but

because of poverty and dissipating urban environments (Gun Control versus Gun Rights). Just as I can

understand the notion that gun restriction could possibly decrease violence, I feel that I can also really

understand the mentality that gun restriction could possibly lead to higher levels of violence. It coincides

with the mentality that criminals will find ways to obtain firearms. In the environment in which guns are

Misenheimer 6

restricted, I envision the law-abiding citizens stripped of firearms and self-defense, leaving them

vulnerable to the criminals that have obtained firearms through a strong disregard for the law. Lastly, to

complement NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s words and my genetically predisposed

belief, Laws.com even argues that most gun-rights supporters believe that denying law-abiding citizens of

the right to own a firearm will not stop villains and horrible people from acquiring them, but only make

the law-abiding citizen vulnerable (Gun Control versus Gun Rights). This directly agrees with my belief

that criminals will find ways to obtain firearms through no regard for the law and is a very solid support

for my main belief relating to the question, “Should Firearms be Controlled?” Should they be controlled?

I don’t think so. Should we know who has them? Absolutely. I am beginning to see the reasoning as to

why there must be a point of compromise in the middle of each argument. It would be a horrible situation

if guns were outlawed, but on the flip side, it would be an equally worse situation if guns were dealt to

anyone who wanted them. The most appealing argument in my eyes does not lie solely in the hands of

one side, but a mixture of both. It is very important to balance the equation. If guns are withheld from

those who fail background checks through reasons relating to a criminal record or mentally illness, and

firearms are marketable to the law-abiding citizens, then the primary threat of danger is eliminated, while

the valuable commodity of self-defense is secured.

Regardless of your views of gun control, during the ongoing stalemate that is the American gun

control debate, the deciding factor, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, gives the edge to the

original question, “Should the US Constitution be interpreted word for word as it was written, or is it a

living document that should be molded to fit the current society that it governs (Wilson 21)?” Those who

wish for tighter gun control would most likely wish to see that the Constitution be interpreted to fit

today’s environment, while those who support gun rights most likely interpret the Constitution in the

manner that it was written (Wilson 21). This is where the future of the gun control debate lies. Thus, the

gun rights vs. gun control debate is not the initial controversy, but rather a mere sub-topic that is

completely dependent upon the way that the United States Constitution is interpreted. I am witnessing the

Misenheimer 7

original question of, “Should firearms be controlled?” shift to fit into the much larger picture and become

a matter of how the Second Amendment and the US Constitution are to be interpreted.

It has become evident that both sides aim to achieve self-defense, but in different manners and

through different processes. Supporters of gun control typically aspire to create a safer environment by

restricting deadly weapons (Gun Control Debate Explodes on ‘The Five.’), while those who advocate

guns rights wish to ensure safety through self-defense with the use of firearms (Should More Gun Control

Laws Be Enacted?). This illustrates the diversity that is America. The general population holds a mostly

similar goal, but with different processes and variables along the way. It is equitable to a mathematical

function. There are two formulas, one representing the gun rights supporters and the other symbolizing

the advocates for gun control. A safer environment for all is represented by the supporters of gun rights as

the idea of self-defense, while it is also depicted in the argument for tighter gun control through the

abolishment, or restriction of deadly firearms. Thus, the two equations share the same y-variable, or

outcome. However, where the two arguments are conflicting is in the x-variable, where the input is

changed. The x-variable of the argument for gun rights would represent the continuation of the right to

bear arms and for law-abiding citizens to purchase and acquire firearms in a timely manner. The x-

variable of the movement for gun control would not necessarily be limited to the abolishment of firearms,

but could also even be the restriction of firearms. The two equations are very identical in terms of the y-

variable and outcome, but polar opposites in respect to the x-variable, and how that outcome is to be

achieved. Thus, the difficulty of this topic lies in the majority-rule factor. How do we create a system that

caters to one specific way of thinking, without depriving another group of its way of thinking, but

ultimately accomplishes the goal of each argument? I began my investigation of gun control with a very

skeptical mindset in terms of the nature of the argument. I love guns. I don’t want them to go. But now I

understand that they don’t necessarily have to. I have seen that some amount of gun control is good.

There needs to be a compromise. If the ones who are incapable of properly operating firearms are

identified and their actions with firearms are monitored, and in severe cases, they are denied the ability to

Misenheimer 8

obtain firearms, I believe that this could lead to a very happy, safe America. That is why I believe that

background checks and licensing is a great safety feature. We must be sure that the instruments of self-

defense do not become instruments of aggression and malicious rage. In conclusion, I have realized that,

while I still love my firearms and think that everyone who is mentally and physically capable of handling

them should research the benefits, take a trip to the shooting range, and see if they like it. But after

researching the question, “Should firearms be controlled?,” I have come to the mindset that some form of

control would not necessarily be a bad thing if it targets only the mentally incapable and does not hinder

the law abiding citizen from purchasing and obtaining a firearm in a timely manner.

Misenheimer 9

Works Cited

Boren, Cindy. “The Will Smith shooting leaves Drew Brees, New Orleans in shock.” The Washington

Post. 11 April 2016. Web. 11 April 2016.

“Gun Control Debate Explodes on ‘The Five.’” The Five: FOX News. 28 August 2015.

“Gun Control versus Gun Rights.” Laws.com. n.d. Web. 23 March 2016.

Sage Publications. “From the Polls: Gun Control.” Sage Journals. January 2003. Web. 29

February 2016.

“Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?” ProCon.org. 26 February 2016. Web.

2 April 2016.

Wilson, Harry. The Triumph of the Gun-Rights Argument: Why the Gun Control Debate is Over.

Santa Barbara: 2016. Print.