Rosen 1

Jeremy Rosen
Mr. Talevich
British Literature
6 February 2013
The Need for Meaningful Gun Control
In a matter of weeks, gun violence has become one of the most discussed issues on the
American political agenda, at times even surpassing economic woes, such as persistent
unemployment and an ever-increasing national debt. Even since former President William
Clinton crafted his famous slogan, "It's the economy, stupid!" Americans have recognized that in
times of peace, economic issues surpass all others. The Affordable Care Act gained a lot of
attention during its time in Congress and the federal court system, but health care is still related
to the economy, for the quality of someone's health care plan will directly affect his pocketbook.
On the other hand, guns have nothing to do with monetary or fiscal concerns. Thus, a major
shock to our country's collective sense of security was necessary to push the gun debate to the
forefront of politics. That shock took place on December 14, 2012 in the form of a school
shooting that left the shooter's mother dead, along with twenty six people working for or
attending Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Many Americans were
quick to note that the shooter, Adam Lanza, was carrying three semiautomatic firearms, all of
which were capable of firing large quantities of bullets in a short amount of time. Within a matter
of days, liberals jumped on the issue, declaring that new gun control laws are needed to prevent
future massacres like the Sandy Hook one from occurring. Is the liberals' push reactionary?
Absolutely. There is no guarantee that tougher gun control would have prevented Lanza from
getting his hands on those firearms, especially since his mother purchased them legally. In

Rosen 2
addition, it is somewhat petty to use a tragedy to push a political agenda. However, Congress
should pass gun control laws for the good of America. The opposition is strong, due to the
American culture, varying interpretations of the Second Amendment, and misconceptions about
the protection guns offer. However, commonsense reforms, such as an assault-style weapons ban
and universal background checks, will save lives while still preserving essential liberties.
The right to bear arms has been a major issue in the United States since the writing of the
Constitution itself, for many Americans claim that this right makes all the other rights possible.
They say that a tyrannical government will only be able to maintain its hegemony over a
defenseless population. In reality, this statement is somewhat romantic since a shotgun is not
going to stop an army, but this statement's value cannot be completely ignored. When the
Constitution was written in 1787, many of the states refused to ratify it without amendments
guaranteeing civil liberties. The second of these amendments is written as follows, "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." In other words, since a militia may be necessary to
protect a free country, the government may not take away the right of the people to own guns.
There are two major questions about this amendment. Firstly, do people have the right to own
guns if they are not part of a militia? Secondly, does Congress have the power to pass gun
control laws? The answer to both these question is an empathetic yes. The Supreme Court has the
final say in Constitutional matters, and it ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the
right to bear arms extends to the general population but is not unlimited. Constitutional questions
aside, both these conclusions make sense. Banning private gun ownership is not enforceable, but
it would not be reasonable to allow everyday Americans to purchase grenade launchers. Now,
even if the Constitution did ban gun control laws, which is does not, gun control should not be

Rosen 3
dismissed. The Constitution can always be changed, and some of its original provisions, such as
the one permitting slavery, are shocking by today's standards. The guns the Founding Fathers
possessed were not capable of killing many people at once. Those guns were muskets capable of
firing exactly once before they needed reloading, which was a time-consuming process.
However, this discussion is moot. The Constitution allows for gun control, so any broad
Constitutional questions may be safely put aside.
The next set of questions that must be answered pertain to whether owning guns increases
or decreases personal safety. On one side lie many Democrats and proponents of the Brady
Center who argue that guns, though not autonomous beings, kill people. On the other side lie
many Republicans and proponents of the National Rifle Association who argue that, as the NRA
Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre put so succinctly, "The only way to stop a bad guy
with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." Unfortunately, absolutes aside, LaPierre's statement is
not true. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, owning a gun puts the owner and his
or her family at risk. A gun in a home is forty three times more likely to kill a family member or
friend than it is to kill a "bad guy." That same gun also triples the risk of homicide and quintuples
the risk of suicide. Thus, the AAP advises families not to own guns. Yet, popular myths about
guns providing protection still persists, so some mythbusting is needed. The main reasons behind
almost all "guns can be used for protection" myths are overestimating potential outside threats
and one's own skills. For example, contrary to popular belief, guns are not that useful in
protecting against robberies. When the robber breaks into the house, the gun owner will not have
time to retrieve and load his locked up and unloaded weapon. The only way the gun will help is
if it is accessible and already loaded, which anyone with common sense should realize is a major
safety hazard. Then, there is the case of concealed carry. Would it not be helpful for an armed

Rosen 4
civilian to be present to take down a shooter? In reality, not really. That civilian would have to
aim perfectly in a situation far removed from target practice, and he would have to avoid turning
more innocents into victims. Imagine the bloodbath that would have resulted in the Aurora,
Colorado theater James Holmes attacked if some moviegoers had and fired guns. One shooter
firing wildly in a dark theater is bad enough. With multiple shooters, there would have most
likely been a lot more than twelve deaths. Yet, the NRA continues to insist that guns save lives.
According to Ed Magnuson of Time Magazine, the NRA claims that guns are used anywhere
from nine to twenty seven times more often for self-defense than murder. Aside from the fact that
the NRA cannot be considered an unbiased organization, making its data largely worthless in the
first place, there are a couple of problems with those numbers. Firstly, they do not define what
self-defense is. In many instances, self-defense entails nothing more than a homeowner shouting
out to a nonexistent threat that he is armed. Secondly, the NRA is comparing apples to oranges,
self-defense uses to actual murders. A more accurate comparison would be between self-defense
uses and menacing. How many times does an armed robber break into a house but not use his
gun? How many times does an abusive husband threaten his wife with his gun but not use it?
When comparing apples to apples or oranges to oranges, the data are clear. Guns do not promote
but inhibit personal safety.
Still, America is America, and guns are here to stay. Lax gun laws have allowed guns to
proliferate at startling rates, and this proliferation has allowed gangs and criminals to stockpile
large numbers of guns. (Note that just because gun control does not prevent criminals from
getting guns does not mean that gun control does not make people safer.) In today's political
climate, the Second Amendment cannot and should not necessarily be repealed. Not all
dangerous things should be banned. Cars kill more people than guns (although, according to Liz

Rosen 5
Goodwin of Yahoo! News, that fact will change soon), and alcohol is pretty deadly too. But, it is
irresponsible to reject gun reforms on the slippery slope argument that the government is trying
to take away people's guns. A ban on assault-style weapons will help save lives and hurt no one.
No sportsman needs an assault rifle to gun down a deer, and as explained earlier, neither an
assault rifle nor any other gun increases personal safety. Universal background checks and an
end to the gun show loophole that allows people to buy guns without background checks will
also save lives and hurt no one. Yes, background checks will not deter criminals. But, criminals
are not the only sources of gun violence. As the Sandy Hook massacre proves, people without
criminal backgrounds are still capable of extreme violence. While proponents of gun control
should admit that this isolated incident is not grounds to push a political agenda, this agenda
must be pushed, and if this way is the only way to push it, then Americans must push onward.

Rosen 6
Works Cited
"District of Columbia v. Heller". Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 6 February 2013.
Goodwin, Liz. "Gun Deaths Set to Outstrip Car Fatalities for First Time in 2015." Yahoo! News.
Yahoo Inc., 19 December 2012. Web. 6 February 2013.
"Gun Safety: Keeping Children Safe." Healthy Children. American Academy of Pediatrics,
September 2005. Web. 6 February 2013.
Magnuson, Ed. "Do Guns Save Lives?" Time Magazine. Time Inc., 24 June 2001. Web. 6
February 2013.
"NRA: 'Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun.'" CBS
DC. CBS Local Media, 21 December 2012. Web. 6 February 2013.