Firearm Control Laws Save Lives

July 23, 2009 “Fire arm control laws save lives” From: A. Naweed Aryan To: John C. Sigler, president of NRA, (National Rifle Association) Cc: Christina E. Gains

FIREARM CONTROL LAWS SAVE LIVES At 6:45 a.m. on April 16, 2007 Seung-Hui Cho, a 22 year old senior English major at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and state University, entered the West Ambler Johnston Hall, a co-ed residence hall that housed 894 students. He went directly to the room that Emily J. Hilscher, aged 19 shared with another student and shot her and a male resident assistant, Ryan C. Clark to death. After killing his victims Cho went back to his dormitory room while police and emergency medical service units were responding to the shooting in the dorm next door. About two hours later Cho entered to the site of a second massacre. He entered the Norris Hall, which houses the Engineering Science and Mechanics program, and chained the three main entrance doors shut with the chains and locks that he carried in his backpack. Then he went to the second floor and in a series of attacks to the classrooms killed 25 students, 5 instructors and wounded many more before shooting himself in the head. (Wikipedia) Accidents similar to this happen every year across the country. However this is only one example of crimes committed by guns and there are many other types of crimes committed by gun. Each year about 35000 people are killed by guns across the United States, a death rate which is much higher than any other country in the world (Zimring). According to a survey, “Attacks involving a gun are five times more likely to result in a death than are similar attacks made with a knife” (Zimring). However, the attackers tend to use guns and

1

firearms in their attacks because using guns are easier and more effective than using other weapons. Another survey result shows that guns are used in more than half of the murders in the United States (Zimring). One of the main reasons behind these horrible crimes is the fact that it is very easy for ordinary people to obtain and carry firearms. According to the federal laws, the general public can have access to certain kinds of guns as long as they are defined as law-abiding gun owners. Currently the gun-control law differs from state to state. That is because some states have added additional gun-control laws on top of the federal law. A recent study shows that marketplace for illegal gun is strongest in the states where weaker gun-control laws exist. The report found the origin of most guns used in crimes in the states where gun-control law is lax comparing to the states with strong gun ownership regulations. The results of this report shows that the more strict gun control laws, the more difficult it is for criminals to have access to certain kinds of firearms and as a result the less crimes in the country. Therefore gun-control laws should be strictly followed and mandated in the states so we have fewer crimes in the country. You, as the president of NRA (National Rifle Association) may oppose the gun-control laws and argue that restricting the access of public to the certain kinds of firearms will not suppress the access of criminals to these types of weapons and as a result make the public vulnerable to the attacks by the criminals. It is clear that NRA also values the safety of the public. According to NRA, facilitating the access of the public to certain kinds of firearms will result in their safety and security. But according to the reliable reports that exist, it is certain that lax gun control laws will allow the access of the criminals to certain kinds of dangerous firearms and put the public security in question. Moreover, in most cases the victims are attacked with

2

surprise by the criminals and they virtually do not get the chance to defend themselves by the firearms in their possessions. Your organization also opposes the notion that semi-automatic firearms should also be banned. As you know since 1934 the federal government has severely restricted the sale and ownership of the guns that are most likely to be misused (Zimring). These guns include machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Obviously these weapons are very high risk firearms and ordinarily there is no need for the public to have access to these kinds of guns. These gun are designed to be concealed easily (such as sawed-off shotguns) or act as an assault weapon. An assault gun is designed in such a way that it is capable of firing multiple bullets in a second such as machine guns (Zimring). Obviously no one uses a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun as a mean of defending himself or hunting so they are only suitable for the users who have the idea of attack in mind. Therefore, the NRA which values the safety of the public should also back the laws that ban distribution and ownership of these types of guns. NRA as an organization that is concerned about the safety of the public should also be in favor of the idea that ownership of semi-automatic guns and hand guns by ordinary people should be banned. The reason is that semi-automatic guns are also capable of firing large number of rounds in a short time. Unlike the automatic guns these guns require separate pulls of trigger to fire each round but, like automatic guns, they are capable of firing many rounds in a limited time. The ownership of hand guns such as revolvers and pistols by the public should also be restricted because these types of firearms can be concealed easily. If these types of guns are available to the public they may find their ways in the hand of mentally ill people, unreliable people or criminals and may be used to endanger the safety of the individuals.

3

You also argue that gun-control laws create inconveniences among law-abiding gun buyer and owners. Even if this is true, everyone agrees that public safety is more important comparing to the inconveniences caused to the law-abiding gun buyers and owners. Hundreds of crimes that happen each year in the United States are committed by individuals who legally own different kinds of guns and we encounter every now and then the news about these crimes. This shows that, by granting the permit of carrying guns for people, their way of using the firearms can not be guaranteed. NRA interprets the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as a broad individual right to gun ownership. The Second Amendment reads, “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” (Lieberman). Although there are different interpretations of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it can be clearly understood that the Second Amendment does not approve that felons and criminals have right to “bear Arms”. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an outright ban by the federal government on home possession of an operable firearm violates the Second Amendment, but it is clear that the federal government has not banned the possession of any kinds of firearms by the public but has merely imposed restrictions on types of firearms that can be potentially misused by certain individuals. Also the term “A well regulated Militia” in the Second Amendment may mean that “the right to bear arms” is only preserved to the regular militia and not essentially to the general public without restrictions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled out that the Second Amendment does not suppress the federal government and states of imposing certain regulations and restrictions on firearm ownership. These restrictions include prohibiting ownership of firearms by felons and prohibition of certain types of firearms by the

4

public. According to this information, the NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment is very weak and can not be accepted.

Conclusion: NRA, as an organization that is concerned about the safety of the public, should acknowledge the restrictions imposed by the federal government and certain States on the marketing and ownership of certain firearms. Gun-control laws should be strictly followed and in the United States and ownership of certain kinds of potentially high risk firearms should be banned, because strictly followed gun-control laws reduces the number of crimes. According to the reliable reports, strict laws make it very difficult for the criminals to access high risk firearms and as a result lower the rate of murders in the country. Because the only purpose of NRA of supporting the idea of lax guncontrol laws is ease of public to access firearms and thus protecting themselves, NRA should not oppose the far more effective strategy of strict gun-control to protect the lives of individuals.

Works Cited: Menino, T., and W. Lapierre. "SHOULD THE U.S. HAVE TOUGHER GUNCONTROL LAWS? " New York Times Upfront 6 Apr. 2009: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 22 Jul. 2009. Vieira, E.. "GUN RIGHTS ON TRIAL. " The New American 1 Sep. 2008: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 22 Jul. 2009. Lieberman, Jethro. A. “Bill of Right.” , Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.2008. 23 July. 2009

5

Zimring, Franklin. E.“Gun Control.” , Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.2008. 23 July. 2009 “Virginia Tech Massacre.” Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. 23 July. 2009

6