Final Paper, Final Draft

Chris Breuner
Knapp
English 1A
5/26/13

Dear Wayne LaPierre,

     With the topic of gun control and regulation comes countless arguments stemming from all directions for many different interests. Some feel a need to protect the rights of Americans under the second amendment, and others desire to protect their families and live in a less armed country. From the drafting of the constitution, gun control has been a topic for discussion. Many feel that the right to own a firearm of their choice is written in the constitution, while others say it doesn't apply to heavy weaponry. Something that everyone can agree on however, is that gun owners should be educated. Not only on the proper use of weaponry, but proper storage, safety awareness, rules and regulations of gun ranges, as well as the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.

In a country that is split for the regulation of arms, comes debates and speculation about the best course of action. In light of recent tragic events, including Newtown and theater shootings, regulation has become the hype of the news and a call for action that continues to spread over all forms of social media. There seems to only be one detail that both "for gun regulation" and "anti gun regulation" parties have in common, that something needs to change. The purpose of gun regulation is an attempt to create a "safer nation" with less inward violence. This is not done simply with the removal of guns, but takes far more effort.

There are many that believe the freedom to own weapons is an unalienable right. That their right to own and operate weaponry is written in the constitution, and any law that prohibits them from using and carrying their weapons is infringing on the 2nd 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). While this counterargument is valid, it does not take into account that the Bill of Rights, which was written over 300 years ago, has always been subject to interpretation from an ever changing government. For example, the eight amendment clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." However people are still put to death for crimes. Some people feel this clearly violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" section of the amendment. Laws are always subject to interpretation. If the founding fathers could see what the semi-automatic weapons of today are capable of doing, they may have been more clearer on the second amendment. Or perhaps the amendments were written this way on purpose, to be changed and interpreted differently as the world continues turning.

Another argument against gun regulation, states that taking guns off of the streets will not make them disappear, it will only increase illegal gun smuggling and place more cash and guns in the hands of criminals. While this point is valid, we have to think of the greater good in the end. Lets use methamphetamines for example. If it was legal for meth to be sold in supermarkets. How many new citizens will become meth addicts? How much more meth would be created and sold in our society? A lot like methamphetamines, guns will never fully disappear, no matter how illegal we make them. A lot of gun related accidents happen when kids find guns. According to the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research "More than 31,000 people a year in the United States die from gunshot wounds. Because victims are disproportionately young, gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. In addition to these deaths, in 2010, there were an estimated 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes committed with guns, and 73,505 persons treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds." ("The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America." Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) More regulation means less guns on the street. These numbers can be drastically reduced.

A prevention of future gun violence lies in education, reform, and regulation. First we need to have all gun owners registered and educated about proper use and storage. This could be done by implementing a gun regulation law, that would require all assault weapons to be banned for citizens who do not possess the required permit (such as retired military personal) Only certain citizens would able to obtain this permit after mandatory instructional classes, and basic psychic exam. Background checks are mandatory for all gun owners. New guns (non assault) may be obtained with a license, after a 14 day waiting period. All guns need to be registered with the ATF. Problems like making assault weapons illegal would also take them out of the hands of well adjusted citizens. And making them illegal would create the daunting task of removing them from the hands of current gun owning citizens. This would prove quite a problem as there are people that would, and are willing to fight rather than give up their guns. So many Americans feel very passionately about gun regulation one way or the other, that it seems only a compromise, or middle ground, would make both sides moderately happy.

Its up to the country to decide how this would play out. Problems will continue to arise, and arguments will continue to be made. However we must bear in mind that safety is the ultimate goal here. How many deaths due to lack of gun control make it worth the luxury of owning guns for comfort and pleasure?

Regards,
Chris Breuner



Whitney, Craig R.  Living with guns : a liberal's case for the Second Amendment. New York : Public Affairs, 2012. Print.

"The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America." Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2013. Web. May 2013.
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf