Banning Handguns: Bringing Safety Back To Society

Banning Handguns: Bringing Safety Back To Society

Turn on any news channel on the radio or television at any given time and you will most likely hear a story about someone who has been injured or killed by a handgun. This is not a new problem, but one that has been around for centuries. Today's society likes to place blame for violence on outside influences such as the media, video games, and moral values rather than addressing the issue head on. But when it comes to handgun violence, what is the issue? Why are handguns such a danger to society? Who has handguns and why? What purpose do handguns serve the general public? These are all valid questions but the main concern is how to stop handgun violence. Over the years, so called strict gun control laws have been put into effect on the state level, letting individual states decide exactly how much to, or not to, regulate handguns. Some reduction in violence has been seen from the gun control efforts but not by a significant amount. The only way to put a stop to handgun related violence is to ban handguns altogether from non law or government enforcement entities. This will significantly reduce the amount of handgun related injuries and deaths in the United States resulting in a safer society. Some believe that this would infringe upon the freedoms that they are afforded by the ever controversial second amendment to the United States Constitution.

"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", (Second Amendment, 1996). Those words have been the subject of a heated debate for over two hundred years. Gun advocates have argued that banning handguns is an infringement upon our rights as put forth in the Constitution of the United States; but is it really? Is it necessary for citizens of the United States to have and carry handguns as, "being necessary to the security of a free State", absolutely not. During the eighteenth century when the Constitution was ratified, the newly formed United States needed to ensure its security by giving the citizens the right to carry firearms while the Armed Forces, as we know them today, were being created. Once the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard were created and became self-sufficient, the need for a, "well regulated Militia" separate from these forces became unnecessary. But as is human nature, we resist and fear change; therefore, the second amendment was never abolished or even amended. Is it really necessary for people to have the right to carry a handgun, and if so, for what purpose?

When this issue is brought forth, some argue that they should be able to defend themselves by the use of a handgun just as law and government enforcement are permitted. In 2004, over 14,000 firearms homicides occurred in the United States with over fifty percent resulting directly from handguns. The shocking reality to these statistics is that only 511 of the 7,265 handgun homicides in 2004 were justified by law and only 139 justifiable homicides were carried out by private citizens (Murder Victims by Weapon, 2004). Looking at these statistics, it is clear that access to handguns by the general public has done more harm than good. According to the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, only 8.5% of all respondents carried a handgun for personal protection and when asked how carrying a handgun made them feel, only 60% responded, "safer" (Haerens, 2005). I believe that this in itself is proof enough that it is unnecessary to permit anyone other than law enforcement to carry handguns. The vast majority of people do not carry handguns as any 'well regulated Militia' would be expected to do so the claim that Second Amendment rights would be violated is a non-issue. It has been shown that reducing the availability of handguns to the public reduces the amount of handgun violence incidents.

On November 30, 1993, the "Brady Bill" was signed by President Bill Clinton requiring a five-day waiting period and background check for all handgun purchases made through a licensed dealer. This was a small battle in a large war toward curbing handgun violence. Eight years after this remarkable bill was signed into law, gun related deaths had dropped by almost thirty percent (Prevent Gun Violence, 2006). This law however does not cover purchases through private dealers, gun show vendors or private citizens where many handguns are bought and sold each day. Many states are adopting stricter gun laws but as of yet there are no real federal guidelines which have to be adhered to. This means that states are able to decide whether or not to require training before being permitted to purchase a handgun, whether or not minors are permitted to purchase handguns and ammunition, whether or not a background check is necessary when purchasing a handgun; along with a host of other questions that arise in reference to safety, tracking, and seemingly common sense laws of handgun purchases. Unfortunately, not all states have adopted these ideas as is apparent in the statistics.

Between 2000 and 2001, a total of 13 students (elementary school to high school) in New Jersey brought some sort of firearm into school and were expelled for the violation. New Jersey is known to have one of the strictest set of handgun and firearms laws in the United States receiving a grade of "A minus" for gun violence prevention. In contrast, 204 students from the same grade level group in Texas were expelled for the same violation. Texas received a grade of "D minus". In all fairness, the population of Texas in 2000 was more than double of New Jersey so to really bring the point home, let us look at Ohio. With only three million more residents than New Jersey in 2000, a total of 1,211 students from Ohio, including 522 in elementary school, brought firearms into school and were expelled. New Jersey had 13 (Haerens, 2005). Ohio also received a grade of "D minus" for gun violence prevention (State Report Card, 2005). Obviously, nothing was learned from April 20, 1999 when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold decided to murder 13 people, injuring an additional 23 before cowardly killing themselves (Haerens, 2005).

When people think of handgun violence, many have visions of the masked gunman running out of a bank; or maybe they see the dark alley where the unsuspecting passer-by suddenly has a handgun poking them in the ribs with an unknown assailant breathing down their neck; or quite possibly the rogue Police Officer who believes that the only true justice is street justice. What many people do not fully understand is that handgun violence can occur anywhere, at any time to anyone regardless of age, ethnicity, religion or financial status. According