Excerpt from: The History of the Right to Bear Arms
Gun Control, 2009
Arguments for and against Gun Control
One of the key issues in the debate over gun control is whether placing greater restrictions on
gun ownership will make society safer. Many opponents of gun control feel that access to guns
makes it possible for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves and deter crime. Estimates
vary widely as to the number of times handguns are used in self-defense each year. The U.S.
Department of Justice reports in Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and
Use of Firearms (May 1997, http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt) that this figure is 108,000.
A much higher figure is reported by the criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. In "Armed
Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" (Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, no. 1, 1995), Kleck and Gertz calculate that guns in
general are used in self-defense about 2.5 million times per year, and that more than 1.9 million
of those self-defense cases involve handguns. In a personal communication in July 2006, Kleck
noted that this estimate was determined using the 1993 crime rate and "because crime rates, and
thus opportunities for self-defense, have declined by about half since then, the number of
defensive gun uses has probably declined by a similar amount."
Gun rights advocates say that more violent crimes are stopped by guns than are committed with
guns. Gun control advocates argue that the defensive use of handguns does not offset the
offensive use of handguns by criminals, which accounts for thousands of deaths and hundreds of
thousands of injuries annually. Spitzer, a gun control advocate, notes that "on an individual level,
a gun in the hand of a victim can thwart or stop a crime. On an aggregate level, however, more
guns mean more gun problems, even though many citizens believe that guns make them safer."
Gun control advocates point out that guns are often used to commit suicide or are involved in
accidental shootings, especially involving children. Gun rights advocates often counter that if
guns were not available, it would not stop suicides and accidental deaths. People who use guns to
commit suicide may also commit this act in other ways, such as with poison or by driving off a
cliff. Children who are accidentally shot and killed can also die by drinking toxic chemicals in
the home or falling into a swimming pool, yet no background check or waiting period is required
for the purchase of cars, toxic household chemicals, or swimming pools. The right to keep and
bear these items is not constitutionally protected, they argue, and society might be safer without
them as well. Spitzer counters by noting that "the suicide rate among the adult population would
probably undergo a measurable reduction without guns because some would not seek other
methods, and guns are more lethal than other suicide methods." He admits that reducing the
availability of guns would have only a modest effect on gun accidents.
Spitzer also contends that gun proliferation among law-abiding citizens will start an arms race
with criminals, who will upgrade their weapons and be more willing to use them to kill. This,
Spitzer believes, will inevitably result in an increase in gun-related crimes and accidents. Indeed,
some law enforcement officers claim they are already outgunned by criminals with more
powerful weapons.
The Second Amendment Foundation counters that just because the quality of handguns, like
most consumer products, has improved is no reason to override the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, they do not believe stricter gun control measures will actually keep weapons out of
the hands of criminals. They argue that law-abiding citizens would be perilously exposed to
lawbreakers if the government interpreted the Second Amendment to control or restrict gun use.
Their access to guns through legal channels would become limited, whereas criminals would
continue to acquire weapons through illegal means.
Spitzer argues that in the interest of national security a compromise must be reached between
those who favor gun control and those who favor gun rights. He suggests that citizens should not
have access to assault weapons, that access to handguns should be limited, and that ownership of
hunting and sporting weapons should be protected.
Source Citation
"The History of the Right to Bear Arms." Gun Control: Restricting Rights or Protecting People?.
Sandra M. Alters. 2009 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2009. Information Plus Reference Series. Opposing
Viewpoints In Context. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.