While it is unlikely that any of us would endorse unrestricted access to all types of firearms, our nation’s focus should not be solely on gun control. Instead, we should prioritize addressing crime, tackling its root causes rather than just its visible effects.
In an article titled “Gun Control: An Issue for the Nineties,” David Newton from New Jersey discloses that in 1994, a total of 18,954 Americans were murdered. Out of these victims, guns were responsible for the deaths of 11,832 individuals, making up approximately 62% of all fatalities. These statistics demonstrate that roughly every 2.5 minutes in the United States, someone becomes a casualty of gun violence and experiences either death or injury (Newton 7).
There are differing opinions among Americans regarding the reduction of gun-related deaths and injuries. Some, like James Brady, believe that making it difficult for ordinary citizens to possess firearms is the solution. However, others, including myself, argue that stricter punishments for criminals would have a greater impact. The issue of gun control has been extensively debated in the United States and gained attention due to specific events such as the attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley Jr. This event raises questions about whether stricter laws would have prevented the crime.
In 1994, legislation passed in the House of Representatives prohibited assault weapons; however, this law has proven largely ineffective as many criminals still use these banned firearms. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), only 1 percent of all firearms nationwide are classified as assault weapons. Nevertheless, these assault weapons account for approximately 8 percent of crime-related traced guns (31).
In my opinion, this government-imposed law is a significant initial measure aimed at disarming American citizens. On the other hand, the NRA argues that this ban unfairly targets specific gun types and claims that these prohibited weapons are no different from other semiautomatic firearms not covered by the ban.According to their perspective, these firearms do not possess higher firing rates, additional power, or cause larger wounds compared to other guns. They also argue that criminals do not prefer these banned firearms (31). However, I disagree and believe that implementing laws to regulate gun ownership will not effectively combat crime. Instead, I support the enforcement of stricter legislation with harsher penalties against criminals. My stance is for tougher laws resulting in imprisonment for individuals who commit crimes using firearms. In the past, I strongly believed in the principle of “crime doesn’t pay,” but now I find myself uncertain as criminals can engage in various illegal activities while remaining confident about avoiding a complete jail sentence.
“According to Sarah Brady, chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc., the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley in 1981 is seen as a crucial example for supporters of the Brady law,” she said. She has suggested multiple times that if there had been a waiting period in place, it could have dissuaded Hinckley from shooting Reagan and her husband, Jim. In 1988, she told USA Today that “if there had been a waiting period seven years ago, John Hinckley would not have been able to purchase the firearm he used” (49).
In the view of David B. Kopel, a gun-control expert and the director of research at the Independence Institute, implementing stricter laws on gun control would not have been effective in preventing John Hinckley’s attempted assassination. Kopel stresses that Hinckley bought a .22-caliber revolver from a Dallas gun dealer using his Texas driver’s license, as required by federal law, without any criminal background or history of mental illness. Moreover, even if there had been a waiting period for purchasing firearms, it would not have made a difference since Hinckley committed the crime months after acquiring the gun. Furthermore, even if it was impossible for Hinckley to obtain the .22 revolver, he still possessed other legally owned handguns including a .38 special that could have caused fatal harm to Ronald Reagan and James Brady rather than simply injuring them.
The Brady law’s ability to prevent crimes may be limited, so we should be cautious about its cost (49). The important question is who will be disarmed as a result. In certain situations, law-abiding citizens may urgently need a firearm, as seen in the 1992 L.A. riots when residents couldn’t rely on the police for protection and were unable to arm themselves due to California’s waiting period that extended beyond the riots (49). Instead of reducing deaths, the federal waiting period could potentially lead to more fatalities (49). If the Brady law isn’t the answer, then what is? I believe implementing stricter sentencing terms can make gunmen more hesitant. Gun control divides citizens between those who support their constitutional right to own guns for legitimate purposes and those aiming to reduce gun prevalence (Becker 18). However, it is possible and desirable to decrease criminals’ access to firearms without infringing upon lawful gun ownership rights (18).
The source recommends discouraging the use of guns for criminal activities and intimidation, particularly in schools and other settings, as an effective means of gun control. This can be achieved by implementing stricter penalties at the state level for individuals who commit crimes using firearms. The suggested approach includes imposing mandatory jail sentences or additional time on top of existing punishments whenever guns are involved.
Using firearms during a robbery can lead to the sentence being doubled, as stated in the text. For instance, if the typical penalty for robbery is one year of imprisonment, it may be extended to two years (18).
Gun-control advocates frequently object to the use of imprisonment and other penalties as deterrents for gun-related crimes, considering them to be ineffective and unreliable (18). Nonetheless, James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrenstein’s Crime and Human Nature argue that by increasing the likelihood of arrest and conviction, serious offenses such as robbery can be effectively discouraged (18). Thus, I believe it is crucial to allocate more resources towards law enforcement and judicial systems in order to enhance rates of criminal capture and expedite convictions. This approach would send a powerful message to individuals who opt for involvement in illegal activities with firearms (18).
In order to ensure that criminals who use guns face more certain punishments, states may consider enforcing mandatory jail sentences. This approach would limit the discretion of judges, juries, and prosecutors in making decisions (18). Many states have already adopted additional penalties for crimes involving firearms. Although some federal judges have opposed mandatory sentences for federal offenses such as drug trafficking or white-collar crime, implementing state-mandated terms sends a powerful message about the repercussions of using guns to commit crimes (18).
The implementation of stricter punishment for individuals who utilize firearms to perpetrate criminal acts does not penalize those who employ guns for lawful reasons or individuals who may be vulnerable to criminal assaults. This approach towards gun control grants potential victims a greater advantage in the confrontation between wrongdoers and their targets. (18)
The text suggests that instead of just addressing the symptoms, it is important to tackle the root cause of the issue. Implementing effective gun control measures can potentially receive widespread agreement and avoid contentious debates. This approach emphasizes the need for gun registration and waiting periods, while also focusing on holding individuals accountable for using firearms for unlawful activities or intimidation. (18)
Works CitedBecker, Gary S. “Stiffer Jail Terms Will Make Gunmen More Gun-Shy.” Business Week.
28th February 1994.
Brady, James. “In step With: James Brady.” North West Florida Daily News Parade. 26 Jun.
1994.
Newton, David. Gun Control: An Issue for the Nineties. New Jersey: Enslow, 1992.
Witkin, Gordon. “A Surprising Ban on Assault Weapons.” U.S. NEWS & World Report 16 May 1994.
