| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
| | Proponents use the discredited – but superficially appealing – claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns lead to less crime, although guns are primarily defensive weapons<ref>People who support gun control claim that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> (see [[Concealed carry]]). | | Proponents use the discredited – but superficially appealing – claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns lead to less crime, although guns are primarily defensive weapons<ref>People who support gun control claim that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> (see [[Concealed carry]]). |
| | | | |
| − | Gun control laws cause enormous hardships. In May 2012, a gun control law resulted in a 20-year prison sentence against an [[African American]] woman for merely firing warning shots against her husband, and there was widespread outrage in [[Florida]] against this unconscionable sentence.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3</ref> | + | Gun control laws cause enormous hardships. In May 2012, a gun control law resulted in a 20-year prison sentence against an [[African American]] woman for merely firing warning shots against her husband, and there was widespread outrage in [[Florida]] against this unconscionable sentence.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3</ref> |
| | | | |
| | In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are: | | In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are: |
| Line 55: |
Line 55: |
| | | | |
| | == Trends == | | == Trends == |
| − | After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref> | + | After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref> |
| | | | |
| | By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref> | | By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref> |
| Line 65: |
Line 65: |
| | Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a [[Free States Movement|free State]], the [[unalienable rights|right]] of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." | | Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a [[Free States Movement|free State]], the [[unalienable rights|right]] of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." |
| | | | |
| − | The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches. | + | The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches. |
| | | | |
| | Only six cities in the United States ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref> Some specific locations have also been labeled "gun free zones," including schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, corporate offices, and more. In most cases, mass-shootings take place in these gun-free zones, since those who obey the rules do not carry, while those already planning to break the law disregard this rule. When attempted in areas where firearms are permitted, [[Mass shootings prevented by armed citizens|mass-shootings have often been quickly stopped by armed citizens]]. | | Only six cities in the United States ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref> Some specific locations have also been labeled "gun free zones," including schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, corporate offices, and more. In most cases, mass-shootings take place in these gun-free zones, since those who obey the rules do not carry, while those already planning to break the law disregard this rule. When attempted in areas where firearms are permitted, [[Mass shootings prevented by armed citizens|mass-shootings have often been quickly stopped by armed citizens]]. |
| Line 96: |
Line 96: |
| | | | |
| | [[Emily Miller]] wrote, | | [[Emily Miller]] wrote, |
| − | "New York City Mayor [[Michael R. Bloomberg]] has spent tens of millions of his billions trying to get his gun bans instituted in the rest of America, even though these laws have never stopped criminals from getting guns."<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/miller-bloomberg-loses-stop-and-frisk-and-nra-gets/ Bloomberg loses stop and frisk, and NRA gets blamed: The mayor’s default disgust for gun owners tarnishes his life-saving program] - [[Emily Miller]]</ref> | + | "New York City Mayor [[Michael R. Bloomberg]] has spent tens of millions of his billions trying to get his gun bans instituted in the rest of America, even though these laws have never stopped criminals from getting guns."<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/miller-bloomberg-loses-stop-and-frisk-and-nra-gets/ Bloomberg loses stop and frisk, and NRA gets blamed: The mayor’s default disgust for gun owners tarnishes his life-saving program] - [[Emily Miller]]</ref> |
| | | | |
| | Critics, such as Awr Hawkins of [[Breitbart.com]], have argued that background checks, a form of gun control, have done nothing to prevent gun crimes.<ref name="Hawkins"/> | | Critics, such as Awr Hawkins of [[Breitbart.com]], have argued that background checks, a form of gun control, have done nothing to prevent gun crimes.<ref name="Hawkins"/> |
| | | | |
| − | Hawkins has also pointed out that despite [[France]] having very strict gun control laws, the nation has had many [[List of Islamist terrorist attacks|Islamic terrorist attacks]] that used a variety of weapons, including guns and rifes.<ref>Hawkins, Awr (April 21, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/21/france-2015-to-present-strict-gun-control-a-paper-tiger/ France 2015 to Present: Strict Gun Control a Paper Tiger]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> | + | Hawkins has also pointed out that despite [[France]] having very strict gun control laws, the nation has had many [[List of Islamist terrorist attacks|Islamic terrorist attacks]] that used a variety of weapons, including guns and rifes.<ref>Hawkins, Awr (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/21/france-2015-to-present-strict-gun-control-a-paper-tiger/ France 2015 to Present: Strict Gun Control a Paper Tiger]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> |
| | | | |
| | ==Constitutional Debate== | | ==Constitutional Debate== |
| Line 206: |
Line 206: |
| | Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws. | | Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws. |
| | | | |
| − | U.S. Senator from [[West Virginia]] [[Joe Manchin]] supported legislation to establish universal background checks across the nation. He pushed it after the [[Sandy Hook massacre]], despite the fact that even he admitted that the legislation would not have stopped the massacre, since the shooter stole the weapons he used.<ref name="Hawkins">Hawkins, Awr (April 21, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/joe-manchin-trump-fortitude-make-senate-pass-gun-control/ Joe Manchin: Trump Has the ‘Fortitude’ to Make Senate Pass Gun Control]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> Background checks have been shown to be ineffective in preventing other shootings as well.<ref name="Hawkins"/> | + | U.S. Senator from [[West Virginia]] [[Joe Manchin]] supported legislation to establish universal background checks across the nation. He pushed it after the [[Sandy Hook massacre]], despite the fact that even he admitted that the legislation would not have stopped the massacre, since the shooter stole the weapons he used.<ref name="Hawkins">Hawkins, Awr (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/joe-manchin-trump-fortitude-make-senate-pass-gun-control/ Joe Manchin: Trump Has the ‘Fortitude’ to Make Senate Pass Gun Control]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> Background checks have been shown to be ineffective in preventing other shootings as well.<ref name="Hawkins"/> |
| | | | |
| | ==See also== | | ==See also== |