Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Nicholas Layke
Ms. Russell
CAP 10
6/3/19
1. Introduction
Every American citizen is familiar with the gun control debate. For decades, it has
polarized our country, becoming one of the most prominent political issues and the vanguard of
many politicians’ policy agendas from both sides of the aisle. Those in favor of gun control
believe that limiting a citizen’s access to firearms and other related objects, specifically assault
rifles and as large capacity magazines (LCMs), will be able to effectively lower and prevent
homicides and mass shootings. Those against it generally believe that the problem lies not with
the right to bear arms given by the second amendment of the Constitution, but with our mental
health care, and that the government should take measures to prevent the wrong person getting a
firearms rather than limiting everyone's right to do so because a small minority abuse their rights
Both sides of the debate have good intentions, but more stringent gun control certainly
would not help prevent crime, and may even indirectly harm innocent citizens. Due to the
Second Amendment of the Constitution, the potential impact on hunting and sport shooting, and
a citizen's right to self defense, Congress should not and cannot take any new action in terms of
gun control legislation There is no evidence that gun control measures would be effective in
While drafting the constitution, our forefathers were split. The Anti-Federalists feared a
centralized government after the oppression the colonists faced from the English. The other
faction, the Federalists, decided that if their constitution was to be passed, they would have to
That Constitution, which is now the overarching legal framework of the United States,
was created to ensure that the government exist only through the consent of the governed. To
that end, the founders created the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing individual liberties and protection
from government overreach. One of the most important of these rights is the right to bear arms,
In the years after the Revolutionary War, Americans had “great confidence toward their
militias and distrust of standing armies. Many concluded that a standing army was the tool of an
absolutist government and that the militia was the proper means for a free people to defend
Americans had reason to fear the power of a professional military. Standing armies had
been used for centuries to oppress people all over the world, and when the colonists came to
America, they brought with them their beliefs against standing armies. During the period under
which the Colonies were under English rule, the English troops persecuted and oppressed the
colonists, and events such as the Boston Massacre led the colonists to rebel. “Many in the
Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people”
(Lund, Winkler), so they felt that felt that each American should have the right to keep their own
arms to protect themselves if the government were to use soldiers to oppress rather than protect.
Layke | 3
Thus, the second amendment was created and used to allow for the the continuation of local
militias, and to ensure that citizens would be ready to serve in their militias if they needed.
Today, the militia has become obsolete. Standing armies are commonplace and there is
little distrust associated with them. Despite this, the Second Amendment is still an essential
freedom, and the individual’s right to bear arms has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, passed by the D.C. City council,
effectively banned handguns in the district, and limitations on other types of firearms were very
strict. In the Supreme Court Case District of Columbia v. Heller, many aspects of this law such
as “The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled
or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment” (D.C. v Heller),
which rendered them unconstitutional. The more general impact of this case is that “the first
clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not
limit the operative clause of the Amendment” (D.C. v Heller), which essentially means that the
supreme court has held up the right of citizens to bear arms even though militias have become
The right to carry in America has allowed for an extremely prosperous hunting and sport
shooting industry that millions of citizens are involved in. Gun control would severely impact
hunting and sport shooting as well as the benefits that come from these industries, such as their
Across America, many believe that the preservation of the natural beauty of the Nation is
very important, and much of the federal conservation efforts are funded by tax revenue generated
from the sale of firearms and ammunition. In fact, “hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts help
foot the bill for roughly 60 percent of conservation efforts in this country” (Hoffman). A report
by directed by Larry Voyles, head of the Arizona Fish and Game commission, found that “An
estimated 58.8 percent ($3.3 billion) comes from hunting- and fishing-related activities, either
directly through the sale of licenses, tags, and stamps, or indirectly through federal excise taxes
on hunting, recreational shooting, and angling equipment.” Limiting the sale of guns and
ammunitions would severely deplete wildlife conservation funds, and prevent the upkeep of the
The hunting and sports shooting industries also allow for a huge amount of money to be
circulated into the economy, and limiting the sale of guns, ammunition, and other hunting and
shooting equipment would have extreme economic repercussions, both publicly and privately.
“The total economic impact of hunting and target shooting combined equates to $110 billion,”
and furthermore “Some $15 billion in taxes are generated by hunting and target shooting, and
these activities account for a whopping $48 billion in retail sales” (Economic Impact of Hunting
and Shooting). Limiting gun sales would cause extreme negative impacts on the economy
nationwide, and would limit tax revenues essential to the federal government’s budget.
Self defense is one of the most important arguments for the modern right to bear arms.
Despite the fact that there is no longer a need for citizens to protect themselves in the form of a
militia, crime is still commonplace and it is essential that citizens be able to protect themselves in
Layke | 5
whatever situation they may find themselves in. Many believe that “the risks of owning a gun
outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself”
(Raphelson), but this is incorrect. The CDC conducted a survey to document the amount of
DGUs taking place annually in the U.S. “Surveys generally yielded annual estimates of the
number of DGUs by adults against other persons in the 1-3 million range” (Kleck). The “CDC’s
survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived
from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime
victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals” (Kleck). This is a hugely
important statistic that gun control advocates deliberately ignore. It indicates that if more gun
control measures were passed, they would effectively disarm innocent citizens that use their
firearms to protect themselves and others from armed and violent criminals. Were these people
to be disarmed, more lives would be lost, and citizens would be left defenseless.
The amount of annual DGUs outnumbers the amount of crime related gun uses in
America, further proving why it is essential that we retain the right to bear arms. Compared to
the estimated amount of of DGUs “in the 1-3 million range” (Kleck), “There were 39,773 gun
deaths in 2017” (Mervosh). This number of gun deaths alone is dwarfed by the amount of
DGUs. If one takes into account that “In 2017, about 60 percent of gun deaths were suicides,
while about 37 percent were homicides” (Mervosh), then the number of homicidal gun deaths
equates to only 14,771, far less than the estimated millions of DGUs. Even at its most extreme
minimum, the amount of DGUs per year as estimated by the CDC is still hundreds of thousands
more uses than the total amount of gun deaths in 2017. Gun control legislation would primarily
aim to prevent homicides, which accounted for only 14, 771 of the total deaths in 2017.
Layke | 6
Some may argue that there are far more criminal gun uses per year that are not lethal than
those that result in a death, and that is true, but even in non-lethal crimes committed with a gun,
the lowest CDC estimate of DGUs still doubles criminal gun uses. “According to the National
Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm
in 2011” (National Institute of Justice). More preventative gun control measures would end up
disarming citizens protecting their own lives and the lives of others. Additionally, it would do
essentially nothing to prevent crimes committed with guns, for if a criminal is going to break the
law with a gun, they will break the law to get a gun.
No one in the gun control debate wants more lives to be lost, and the reason it is such a
polarizing issue is because the stakes are the loss of human life. Unfortunately, many of the gun
control measures proposed to prevent homicides and mass shootings are simply not effective.
One of the most common gun control measures proposed is a ban on assault style weapons and
LCM, but neither of these measures would be effective. Assault style weapons have been
demonized in today’s America, but what many gun control advocates do not know is that “Six
out of every 10 mass public shootings are carried out by handguns alone, while only one in 10 is
committed with a rifle alone” (Malcolm, Swearer). The RAND corporation conducted a study on
various gun control measures, and they found that “Evidence for the effect of assault weapon
bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive.” The same study also found
inconclusive, furthermore solidifying that many favorited gun control measures have no evidence
to back them, and that gun control legislation would be inconsequential in the occurrences of gun
A ban on LCMs, which is one of the most popular gun control proposals, would limit the
amount of rounds per magazine and theoretically force a shooter to reload more often, hopefully
slowing them down and allowing for a chance for disarming or other means of stopping the
shooter. This would most likely be ineffective because “LCMs are known to have been used in
less than one third of 1% of mass shootings” (Kleck). The same study, conducted by Gary Kleck,
found that “ of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs
were known to have been used, … there was only one incident in which the shooter may have
been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.” Furthermore, there was
evidence that if the same shooting occurred without large capacity magazines, the result would
have been the same. “In all of these 23 incidents, the shooter possessed either multiple guns or
multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing
without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or changing smaller loaded
magazines with only a 2- to 4-seconds delay for each magazine change,” which would not slow
the shooter at all, as “mass shooters maintain such slow rates of fire that the time needed to
reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective
victims to escape.”
Even the widely popular measure of more strict background checks would be ineffective,
as “straw purchases are one of the main ways that criminals acquire firearms” (McHale). Straw
purchases are when a person that is able to pass a federal background check buys a gun and
supplies it to another individual that would not be able to purchase the firearm themself. If the
original transaction is not done by those who commit the crimes, background checks would not
affect the accessibility of guns through straw purchases. Despite good intentions, gun control
Layke | 8
measures would do little to prevent gun violence in America, and would have more adverse
6. Conclusion
Gun control is an issue that has torn Americans apart, and it does not seem to be slowing
down. No matter what people think ideologically, no one can deny that the Constitution allows
for the right to bear arms, and any further gun control measure is a direct attack on the
Constitutional freedoms granted to every citizen, depriving them of their fundamental right to
protect themselves. Taxation on guns also provide essential funds to wildlife conservation efforts
and national parks, and not only would limiting guns deprive these funds, it would also deplete
the U.S. economy of billions of dollars circulating due to gun related businesses. While some
think that limiting citizen’s access to guns will prevent death and lower crime rates, the number
of DGUs compared to crimes committed with guns shows that guns are more commonly used for
lawful purposes then not, and if someone is going to be committing a crime with a gun, they
likely will not follow the law concerning if it is legal for them to get a gun or not in the first
place. The Constitution, the impact on hunting and sport shooting industries, and a citizen’s right
to self defense are all reason why congress should pass no new gun control legislation.
Layke | 9
Works Cited
2019.
Dougherty, Chuck. “The History of the Militia in the United States.” University of Dayton,
academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm.
Hoffman, Gabriella. “Gun Control Is a Sure Way to Hurt Conservation Efforts.” The Hill,
thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/391916-gun-control-is-a-sure-way-to-hurt-conservation-
efforts.
www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx.
www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/violent-crime.html.
Kleck, Gary. “What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?”
Kleck, Gary. “Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The
Plausibility of Linkages” Justice Research and Policy, vol. 17(1) 28-47, 2016.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1525107116674926
Lund, Nelson, and Adam Winkler. “The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” National
constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii.
McHale, Tom. “Buying and Selling a Firearm: Straw Purchases.” NRA Blog, National Rifle
Layke | 10
www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/7/buying-and-selling-firearms-part-6-straw-purchases/.
Malcolm, John, and Amy Swearer. “6 Reasons Gun Control Will Not Solve Mass Killings.” The
www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/6-reasons-gun-control-will-not-solve-mass-killin
gs.
Raphelson, Samantha. “How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?” NPR, NPR, 13 Apr.
2018,www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defens
e.
Swearer, Amy, and Peyton Smith. “Latest News of Self-Defense With Firearms Contradicts Gun
Control Rhetoric.” The Heritage Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, 9 Apr. 2019,
www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/latest-news-self-defense-firearms-contradicts-gu
n-control-rhetoric.