Every day hundreds of innocent Americans are killed by illegal firearms and weapons. For the past couple decades, the debate about gun rights has raged from the north to the south, from the east to the west. Politicians and activists want more strict controls on them. Gun rights advocates believe that it's part of our country's history to own a weapon and protect yourself.
The issue of firearms takes a high-profile position in United States culture and politics. Incidents of gun violence in "gun free school zones," such as the of 2007 have ignited debate involving gun politics in the US . Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of take place each year in the United States.
The American public strongly opposes bans on gun ownership, while strongly supporting limits on handguns.
There is a sharp divide between gun-rights proponents and gun-control proponents. This leads to intense political debate over the effectiveness of firearm regulation.
Congress continues to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. Various federal laws have been enacted since 1934 to promote such regulation.
Gun control advocates argue that they curb access by criminals, juveniles, and other "high-risk" individuals. They contend that only federal measures can successfully reduce the availability of guns. Some seek broad policy changes such as near-prohibition of non-police handgun ownership or the registration of all firearm owners or firearms. They assert that there is no constitutional barrier to such measures and no significant social costs. Others advocate less comprehensive policies that they maintain would not impede ownership and legitimate firearm transfers.
Opposition to federal controls is strong. Gun control opponents deny that federal policies keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk persons; rather, they argue, controls often create burdens for law-abiding citizens and infringe upon constitutional rights provided by the Second Amendment. Some argue further that widespread gun ownership is one of the best deterrents to crime as well as to potential tyranny, whether by gangs or by government. They may also criticize the notion of enhancing federal, as opposed to state, police powers.
The two most significant federal statutes controlling firearms in the civilian population are the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The 1934 Act established strict registration requirements and a transfer tax on machine guns and short-barreled long guns. The 1968 Act prohibits mail-order sales and the interstate sales of firearms, prohibits transfers to minors, limits access to "new" assault weapons, and sets forth penalties and licensing requirements for manufacturers, importers, and dealers.
Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999. Firearm fatalities from all causes and for all age groups decreased by 22%. For juveniles, they de-creased by 40%, from 1993 to 1998.
The 106 th Congress considered several measures to regulate firearms. They included 1) requiring background checks at gun shows, 2) requiring firearm safety locks, and 3) increasing controls on assault weapons and handguns. None, however, were enacted. Several dozen gun control-related proposals have been introduced in the 107 th Congress. One measure has been approved by committee: this bill (H. R. 4757) would require that a greater number of federal and state records that are pertinent to determining firearms transfer and possession eligibility be made accessible through the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS). NICS performance emerged as an issue during consideration of proposals that would require background checks for firearm transfers by nonlicensed persons at gun shows. Such proposals were considered in the 106 th Congress but have not been reconsidered in the 107 th Congress to date. A discharge petition on another measure was narrowly defeated by the House: this bill (H. R. 218) would exempt certain qualified current and former law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting concealed carry of firearms.
What we think!
Pro- Through the years, legislative proposals to restrict the availability of firearms to the public have raised the following questions: What restrictions on firearms are permissible under the Constitution? Does gun control constitute crime control? Can the nation's rates of homicide, robbery, and assault be reduced by the stricter regulation of firearm commerce or ownership? Would restrictions stop attacks on public figures or thwart deranged persons and terrorists? Would household, street corner, and schoolyard disputes be less lethal if firearms were more difficult and expensive to acquire? Would more restrictive gun control policies have the unintended effect of impairing citizens' means of self-defense?
In recent years, proponents of gun control legislation have often held that only federal laws can be effective in the United States. Otherwise, they say, states with few restrictions will continue to be sources of guns that flow illegally into restrictive states. They believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "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," (1) is obsolete; or (2) is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or (3) does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements. They ask why a private citizen needs any firearm that is not designed primarily for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes.
Technological Fixes Thus far
Besides the identification and qualification requirements on guns, there hasn't been much in the way of preventing unauthorized use of weapons by minors and criminals. Other than locks called a "safety" there hasn't been much other improvement on the weapons themseleves.
Smart Guns: A new fix?
A "personalized" or "smart" gun will not fire unless it is being used by an authorized individual. Such guns have the potential to reduce the negative externalities of gun ownership while preserving the benefits. Ongoing efforts to develop practical "smart" designs make it timely to consider regulations that would favor or mandate them in the market for new guns. The likely consequences would depend on the design details, in particular the costs of transferring the "key" to firing such guns. With an "ideal" design, transferring the key would require special equipment that could be monitored by appropriate authorities. The result would be to block thefts and other transfers of such guns in the secondary market and, in the long run, reduce access by individuals who are proscribed from possessing a gun. Personalized guns, therefore, could make existing firearms regulations more effective and reduce the social costs associated with gun misuse. Though personalized guns have advantages relative to standard guns in a wide variety of situations, some of the potential benefits of personalized guns could be captured through alternative policy measures.
Other Sources:
1.) The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618, with subsequent amendments including the Firearm Owners Protection Act
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
3.) "A look inside America's gun culture.". Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
No comments:
Post a Comment