How do America’s gun laws compare to other countries?

Blog #5

Usually, major events like the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona and the infamous University shootings, due lead to the reform of gun laws in different countries. Let’s start in Australia, when in 1996 a lone gunman armed with a high-powered rifle entered the Port Arthur historic site in Tasmania and began firing randomly. He shot tourists and set fire to buildings. The perpetrator, Martin Bryant, had killed 35 people.[1] This incident led to tougher gun laws in Australia where the Federal Government banned self-loading weapons and pump action shotguns.[2] In the UK, the killing of 14 people in Hungerford in 1987 brought up to light the effects of weak gun laws. [3] Again in 1996 in Dunblane, where 16 students and a teacher were gun down fueled the fight against weak gun laws. [4] These events also led the government to strike down on gun laws and ban certain weapons from the public.

Guesses are made in that gun crime will drop if guns are hidden from the public by virtue of strict gun laws. However, it doesn’t always work that way. Take for example, Germany where despite them having some of the harshest anti-gun laws, in the last decade they have had two scenes of mass murder. It makes me think, what are the relationships between the laws and the events? Gun rights defenders go to great lengths in the aftermaths of very gruesome events to point out that these shootings are the acts of mentally ill, or loners, or those who have a specific religious or political grudges.[5]

In all fairness however, there have been instances where the U.S. has put in place laws that strike down on guns. For example, in 1994 there was a ban for the manufacturing of certain assault weapons and high capacity magazines, however it expired in 2004. Only a few states remain with the provisions passed back in 1994. Despite the expiration of these bans, citizens, excluding some federal agents, still cannot buy fully automatic guns, short barreled shotguns, some rifles, and silencers. But typically if you are of Good Conduct with no criminal record and a sane mind, people can buy handguns. Despite what many think, this is a right, our 2^nd Amendment right, which distinguishes the way the US is seen by other countries. We go across the pacific where Japan also has some very strict laws and have to prove for it that about 1 in every 2,000,000 people is killed by a gun, where in the US it was about 14 deaths for every 100,000 people. [6]

There are just so many examples that help either side of the argument of whether guns should or shouldn’t be harder to get. Yet again, I say that despite having all this data where it has been proven to work in other countries, no one country is alike, but more importantly not one culture is alike. We need to remember how this country was founded and how it was liberated. It was liberated through instilling fear with greed, and with the help of weapons that goal of liberation could be achieved. Is this culture ever going to change? Is the 2^nd Amendment ever going to be amended or removed? I cannot answer that because I cannot see the future. If I could, I’d probably be rich by now. But if things are to ever change, the idea of having to live and die by the gun has to be abolished. Until then, if history tells us correct, the US might just continue to top the charts with the most deaths by guns.

---

[1]Website: Emergency management in Australia. “Historical Disasters – Port Arthur Massacre.” http://www.ema.gov.au/www/emaweb/emaweb.nsf/Page/EMALibrary_OnlineResource_HistoricalDisasters_HistoricalDisasters-PortArthurMassacre

[2]Website: Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/files.php/faculty/reuter/gun%20chapter.pdf

[3] Website: BBC. “1987: Gunman kills 14 in Hungerford Rampage.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/19/newsid_2534000/2534669.stm

[4] Website: BBC. 1996: Massacre in Dublane school gym. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.stm

[5] Website: The American Prospect. http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=weighing_the_consequences_of_political_rhetoric

[6] Website: Gun Deaths – United States Tops the Listhttp://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

Does the NRA have too much power in Washington?

How can the National Rifle Association (NRA) with 4.3 million members, a nominal percentage of the U.S. population, become such a powerful and influential group in Washington?[1] Some politicians dare not criticize the NRA in fear of being criticized themselves. Are 4.3 million members all it takes to turn most policy and law makers in Washington into puppets?

For every person that complains, asks a question, writes a letter, votes for something, there is a high probability that there are ten more people out there that feel the same way but did not act on their beliefs. Most members of the NRA are avid and passionate people who stand beside each other and fight the good fight. The NRA routinely holds Writing Letter Campaigns where they ask members to express their feelings and thoughts towards a certain bill or policy awaiting approval or denial by state or federal government. Though these campaigns can carry plenty of weight in changing the outcome, they don’t always succeed.

However, looking at the former, the technically forty million people who choose not to speak out on their beliefs are missing out on a major impact they could hold in our political process. For example, in California the NRA fought rigorously to pass Assembly Bill 1663 which would repeal the revisions of AB 962 that required vendors to store handgun ammunition behind the shelf to make the ammunition inaccessible to purchasers without the assistance of the vendor.[2] Despite the NRA providing over 70,000 letters to state government, the bill was denied--the NRA is notorious for fighting for bills that would weaken gun control laws. Another bill that the NRA was supporting was Assembly Bill 2115 which would allow about two million Veterans to obtain a concealed weapons permit disregarding the Good Cause requirement. The NRA makes it easy for members and non-members to support their cause through California’s NRA webpage where people can join the cause.[3] The NRA as an organization may not be able to vote in elections, but its individual members can, and do. So do so many other voters who agree with them, but just do not bother to join. Though this bill also failed to pass, it doesn’t mean that the efforts aren’t there anymore. These bills can be brought forth to congress for a second try sometime in the future.

On the other hand, the opposition of the NRA, The Brady Organization, does what it cans to fight against what the NRA proposes with the help of their members and letter writing campaigns, similar tactics of the NRA. When an Assembly Bill is brought to their attention, they too will do what they can to rally their members. Unfortunately, there are more people who would rather protect their gun rights than weaken them, which is why the NRA has more power. So there is no doubt that the NRA has pull in Washington and in local states, like here in California.

So how much power does the NRA have at the federal government level?  Well late last year and on to early this year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), put together a plan that they thought would crumble the smuggling of American made assault firearms into Mexico. However the plan was weakened by the Department of Justice (DOJ) all because officials were worried about how the NRA would react.[4] Mexico's drug war has claimed more than 30,000 lives since President Felipe Calderon launched a crackdown on the powerful drug cartels shortly after assuming control in late 2006. ATF tracks the weapons found in Mexico and has linked tens of thousands of recovered guns to U.S. dealers.[5] Despite this information the ATF hit a road block. The NRA and their $250 million in yearly revenue is the top contributor to the force that has been shaping the nation's gun laws. The NRA in the past two decades has spent more than $100 million on political activities in the United States, according to documents and interviews, including $22 million on lobbying and nearly $75 million on campaigns.[6]

So when we take a look at the numbers and how much money the NRA spends on policies regarding control, the money invested has more influence on decisions made than does the general public opinion. In other words, money buys power, and the NRA is no exception.

---

[1] Web Page: NRA-ILA: Frequently Asked Questions. Visited on, April 14, 2011. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Faq/?s =27

[2] Web Page: Legal Community Against Violence: Summary of 2010 California Firearms Legislation. Visited on, April 14, 2011. http://www.lcav.org/states/California_Legislation_2010.asp#AB1663

[3] Web Page: NRA Member’s Councils of California. Visited on April 14, 2011. http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=20 10&summary=ab2155

[4] Web page: “NRA-led gun lobby wields power influence over ATF, U.S. Politics”. Washington Post. Retrieved: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045.html

[5] Web page: “Obama’s Administration New Proposed Gun Regulations for Border States Met with Bipartisan Dissent”. Fox News Channel. January 15, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/15/obama-administrations-new-proposed-gun-regulation-border-states-met-bipartisan/#ixzz1Jo94w8Ys

[6] Web page: “NRA-led gun lobby wields power influence over ATF, U.S. Politics”. Washington Post. Retrieved: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045.html

The War on Guns: On and Off College Campuses

Earlier this year state lawmakers in South Dakota presented a bill that would legally oblige all residents, who were over the age of 21, to buy a gun beginning 2012. This bill was allegedly proposed because they were upset at Obamas health care reform.[1] Somehow that seemed to be a bit appalling to me. I understand that there will always be two sides to a coin. So those who oppose the health care reform should take part in the opposition and help overturn it in the courts. There are plenty reasonable policies that have been mandated  on the public. For example, driver’s licenses and vehicle insurance are required for someone to legally drive. However forcing everyone to buy a gun would not be in the best interest of the general public, but only the few. Having a driver’s license and vehicle insurance is in the best interest of greater public safety. I personally don’t feel that anyone should be forced to buy a gun. If someone would want to get a gun then they should go through all the standard procedures to do so. Same goes for someone who wants to drive.  However, those who chose not to drive are not required to obtain a  driver’s license. There should be strict requirements for obtaining a gun, and if an individual cannot pass all requirements then they cannot obtain a gun. Same goes for motorists, when someone fails a test, they are denied a driver’s license. Though I know people still get away with that and driving tests should get stricter, I’ll leave that to someone else to write about. That’s a whole different issue. I’m not anti-gun, I’m just anti-stupid.

We go south to Arizona where the state has become a leader in the gun rights movement, as it has enacted law after law to protect the public’s right to bear arms almost everywhere. Aside from Arizona, new legislation in Texas, Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico and Oklahoma would legalize the "concealed carry" of weapons on college campuses. “Since the fall semester of 2006, nine publicly funded colleges and one technical college in Utah allow licensed students to carry concealed weapons on campus.”[2] The topic of having guns on campus will be a never ending debate. We will have those who say, that people will think twice about going on a shooting rampage after being denied to take their midterm, because the student standing next to them will have a .45 caliber handgun pointing at them. Well, that’s a reasonable argument. Well what if the only two students that had a concealed weapon (CW) permit were late to class, who’d  defend the rest of the class from those two students? If one is a reasonable scenario, then the second one is as reasonable too. If one can happen, the other one can as well. There have been plenty of shootings involving CW permits as the data from “Reported Crimes and Misdeeds by Concealed Weapons License and Permit-Holders” states.[3]

We must also take into consideration who qualifies for a concealed weapons permit. All applicants, aside from many other requirements, must meet a Good Cause requirement. For example, it is reasonable for someone to get approved if they own a business in a bad geographical area. Well, what if I, who is a good citizen with no criminal record and mentally stable, wanted to carry a weapon on campus but couldn’t because, I didn’t meet the Good Cause requirement. Now, I feel that is unfair. How am I going to go about my regular day knowing that there are people around me with guns and I don’t? Now, I want to have a gun to protect me from those who do have a concealed weapons permit. People forget to acknowledge that in this country, maybe others, we are taught to never fully trust someone. Well I’m part of that culture and I don’t trust many of those with a CW permit. If I pass all requirements aside from having a Good Cause, I want a CW permit as well. I know others who fall in my position would feel the same way. With that said, we really have to think about CW permits and whether or not it is safer to have one on or off campus. If we allow CW’s on campuses should we allow CW’s on commercial air flights? Is it reasonable? That is something to really think about.

---

[1] Web Page: “South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Individual Mandate To Require Gun Ownership.” Huffington Post. February 1, 20011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/south-dakota-individual-mandate-guns_n_816772.html

[2] Dataset: LaPoint, “The Up and Down Battle for Concealed Carry at Public Universities”, Colorado State University Journal of School Affairs, 16. http://www.sahe.colostate.edu/Data/Sites/1/documents/journal/2010_Journal_of_Student_Affairs.pdf

[3] Dataset: “Reported Crimes and Misdeeds by Concealed Weapons License and Permit-Holders.” http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

The Dominant View Of Those Who Are Pro Gun Control

Note: I have chosen to try and keep my own views/perspective/what side I’m on, for a later blog. As I write these blogs I will try to maintain neutral as much as possible until I disclose where I stand. Please keep in mind the difference between gun control and a gun ban. I will try my best to keep both separate, as I will focus on gun control only.

Many on both sides of this debate have agreed that the 2^nd Amendment can be understood only in proper historical context and each has important claims about the text. Many crucial questions are raised by the text of the 2^nd Amendment: Who is the Militia? Is Militia, in the context of time, is different from then to now. Does "the people" to the entire body of citizens, whether members of the militia or not? Is the right to "keep and bear" arms unique to the military? We need to understand what is meant when we say that guns cause harm. Guns kill because other individuals use them to kill people or, through negligence, abuse the power and kill others. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has said it best in that "guns don't kill people, people do." On the contrary, though they state to be neutral on the topic, the American Civil Liberties Union is referred to as the "states' right" view. They have long stated that the 2^nd Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right to bear arms.[1]

One can argue that murder is the act of an individual, and guns are not people. But that argument can be found somewhat irrelevant. It is true that guns are objects and objects do no evil. However, not all objects are ever created equal. Well, hypothetically speaking, what if one day someone claimed that "nuclear bombs don't kill people, people do," or “napalm doesn’t kill people, people do.” Although in one sense these claims would be true, in a more critical perspective, it would be ridiculous. Obviously guns are not Weapons of Mass Destruction because they are not as dangerous, which can mean that some guns have legitimate use. But where do guns fall along the danger spectrum of, if there was one, WMD and missiles to spoons and pencils? So then we must think about what has been purposefully made to cause harm to that causes harm but was not intended to. For example, guns and WMD were created to defend and inflict harm on others or objects and we can agree on that. However, though pencils for example, weren’t created to cause harm, one can still poke another person’s eye out, inflicting harm. Another example would be of cigarettes, which were not intended to cause harm but would eventually kill people from lung cancer.

Firearms, unlike pencils, are naturally dangerous. Guns were invented and designed to cause harm. New guns are redesigned making it easier to assemble, clean, accurate, powerful, all to inflict more damage. Though cars can hurt innocent bystanders, cars are being made safer for the driver, opposite to that of the goal for weapons. Just knowing that guns are inherently dangerous, we as a society need to create control so that these dangerous objects do not get on the wrongs hands. Under these factors we should regulate weapons. We must show how risky firearms are before we can abolish or restrict them. Also, we must determine whether or not, if any, there are benefits to where they should be permitted, even if they are risky.

The more widely available firearms are, the more that people will be murdered, will die from accidents, or commit suicide. Gun supporters state that by having guns more available to the public, criminals will think twice before committing a crime.[2] They say that would be robbers would be less likely to commit the crime if they knew that the person they were about to rob possibly had a gun as well. It has also been suggested that burglars would be less likely to continue with the burglary in fear that the home owner was waiting for them with a gun. Furthermore, arming every single citizen in this nation will not effectively end crime.

---

[1] Web Page: American Civil Liberties Union (2008). "Second Amendment: Gun Control'" http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

[2] Web Page: “The Gun Control Debate: Crime and Firearm Use Today.” (1997) http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/GSR716A_KUECHLER/linda-r.htm

A Quick Look AtThe Controversial Topic

Do gun control laws lead to a less violent country or does it leave law abiding citizens unprotected from violent criminals? Do we need stricter gun control laws? Are the laws already in place being enforced? As of 2009 the U.S. population was at 307 million.[1] According to the gun manufacturers, there are about 300 million firearms owned by citizens as of 2010. Of those 300 million, about 100 million are handguns.[2] So we can see that 100 million hand guns can become a problem if the wrong hands get a hold on them. But can anyone buy a gun? Well obviously someone who is not a citizen cannot, but the list does not stop there. A convicted felon, a fugitive, the mentally disabled, etc., just to name a few, are those categorized as not being able to own a firearm.[3] Even if someone qualifies for example, in certain states like California, there must be a background check and they must have obtained a Handgun Safety Certificate. I just recently went and took the test, and successfully passed. California requires that the individual taking the test receive at least 75% (23 out of 30 questions correct).

Even though there are all these restrictions, somehow weapons seem to land on the hands of the criminal. There is a two side supporter section for this gun control topic. There are those who believe that guns kill people, but there are also those who believe that guns do not kill people, but rather the person shooting the weapon does. This controversial topic can seem at times very black and white with no gray area. We constantly think of not wanting criminals to have the option of having weapons, but at the same time most of us would not want to see ourselves helpless without protection against the criminals. Most Americans will choose to live in fear with guns rather than to live in fear without guns. It all comes down to where we, as a society, draw the line. However, that decision is not as easy as flipping a coin and having it decide for us.

If we really think about it, this nation’s early history is filled with guns. As early as the conquest of the native indigenous people of this land, guns were in play. In those days, it seemed as if though only power was considered to be justice. Americans had to protect themselves and their freedom. Americans reached out for guns in the belief that the power the weapon held was justice, consequently only creating a more subconscious anxiety amongst each other. So we can see by this nation’s history how firearms have been instilled in the people and how weapons reflect an image of protection and power. This is why I find it hard to believe that stricter gun laws will actually be put in place. In the blogs to come I will provide information which show both sides of the spectrum. I will further try my best to explain the controversial topic on whether or not the Second Amendment was meant only for the militia, or now known as the National Guard, or for an individual citizen.

[1] Dataset: "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008." U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

[2] Web page: "Firearms Fact Card, 2010." National Rifle Association http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

[3] Web page: "Identify Prohibited Persons." Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

---