Gun Control Essay, Research Paper
One of the most controversial issues of today is the
topic of gun control. It is not only a popular debate, but
has now become one of the key reasons people vote for a
particular candidate. But is gun control the only answer to
help stop crime, or is there another solution? I believe
that if we as a society cannot even control ourselves to
become responsible for our own actions then we are lost.
Gun control isn?t the answer, instead we should concentrate
on training and controlling the people who are using these
firearms. A quote from Charlton Heston, president of the
NRA, ?We teach our children not to play with a hot stove, to
look both ways before crossing the street and to avoid the
dangers of drugs and other harmful substances. And we
should certainly teach our young children how to avoid
tragic accidents with firearms.?
With such groups as the NRA, ACLU, and the MRC many
agree that their has to be another solution. The NRA alone
has over four million people supporting them. The NRA also
supports many programs to better increase the knowledge
about firearms and the safety of the people using them. For
example they agree with the proposition to have mandatory
background checks for anyone purchasing a firearm at a gun
show. They also agree with and help to fund school
education programs for gun safety including their award
winning Eddie Eagle GunSafe Programs, which since 1988 has
been viewed by over 12 million school children in every
state in the country. But the controversy doesn?t arise in
these programs because almost everyone would agree that a
more informed and educated society isn?t a bad thing. The
problem lays within the issue of banning guns, and
registering guns.
Should all guns be registered in a national database?
The NRA says no. Another quote from Charlton Heston. ? In
every jurisdiction where registration has been imposed,
government confiscation and destruction has occurred. Yet,
that is exactly the goal of anti-gun lobbyists.? This was
taken from a debate between NRA president Charlton Heston
and Handgun Control Inc. chair Sarah Brady. Heston
continues on to say ?Sarah Brady, chair of Handgun Control
Inc., told the New York Times on August 15, 1993 that her
ultimate goal is a ?need based? licensing system, with all
guns and gun transfers registered with the federal
government. In her ideal world, an honest citizen would
have to prove to government bureaucrats his or her need to
own a firearm. Think about that for a moment. Can you
satisfy Mrs. Brady?s requirement that you need your shotgun?
Or the handgun you keep for protection in your home?? This
raises an interesting point. If this system were to pass,
how would you judge a person?s need for a firearm,
especially for protection purposes? Another possible
precaution that is being proposed by presidential candidate
Al Gore, is the fingerprinting and photographing of every
gun owner for an identification card. What criminal is
going to stand in line and give his fingerprints and
photograph away to the federal government? So how would
this help reduce gun-related crimes? Simply put, it
wouldn?t, but Al Gore is still pushing for it, much like the
systems that were already introduced to such countries as
Australia, England, and Canada. Shortly after these
countries began confiscating and destroying privately owned
guns. Now I?m not saying that I believe the federal
government is trying to overturn our country by taking away
our firearms, but it is a little suspicious when compared to
the previous history of other countries.
So what does Sarah Brady and the Handgun Control Inc.
think about national registration of firearms? ?Handgun
registration is: a way of ensuring that the police can track
any gun that is used in a crime, do a better job of proving
that a crime gun was indeed purchased by the criminal and
convict those criminals and send them to jail.? Though they
believe in handgun registration, they don?t believe in
registering rifles or shotguns since they are rarely used in
crimes. I agree that justice must be served and that any
possible way of finding these criminals and upholding the
law should be taken, but choosing between confiscation and
registration is a tough choice. I?d rather have the right
to own a gun. Also if the possibility of confiscation arose
think how much easier it would be for the federal government
to track you down and steal your firearm. Although it seems
far fetched that this could ever happen I?d rather not take
any chances.
Another huge controversy of today is between the two
possible presidential candidates Al Gore, and George W.
Bush. Both have very strong views on the topic of gun
control and it is a key element in their campaigns. Gore
believes in the federal licensing of handguns, a limit of
buying one gun per month, a ban on ?Saturday Night
Specials,? and mandatory background checks at gun shows.
Bush believes in many of the same proposals including
mandatory background checks, and trigger locks, but not the
registration of handguns, the limit of one gun per month, or
the banning of ?Saturday Night Specials.? Though both
candidates have strong beliefs on the subject the media has
found many double-standards in Bush?s possible propositions.
For example an incident occurred between Kayne Robinson, the
vice president of the NRA, and a particular comment he made
at a California NRA meeting, ?If we win, we?ll have a
president…where we?ll work out of their office.? Once the
media obtained this, it was plastered all over the evening
news and Bush?s reputation was damaged. With this arose
several other incidents where Bush?s reputation was on the
line. The question is, why is the media so abrupt to point
out Bush?s bad points? This makes you question the media?s
motives, not only Bush?s. Granted he is running for
president and his actions speak more than his words, but
everyone makes mistakes, and I would like to know that the
president does too. Gore on the other hand has done a
complete reversal compared to his actions before he was
running for president. He used to favor many pro-gun bills
and had a mostly pro-gun voting record. But unlike Bush,
the media didn?t exploit this information it merely skimmed
over it. Which brings up another key player to the
argument, the media.
The media is probably the most influential force of
today, taking up over half of what we see on TV, and in
newspapers. So how does the media play a role in the gun
debate? Well one way is by giving one-sided perspectives
when choosing what to air and what not to air. For instance
in one case in Mississippi a boy was going from classroom to
classroom shooting students. When the assistant principal
remembered that he had a gun in his car he ran out and put a
chamber in it, only to see the shooter run to his own car.
When the boy started to spin out in his car trying to leave
the scene the assistant principal ran over to him pointing
his gun and told him to get out of the car. He then
restrained him until police arrived on the scene. Out of
the ABC, CBS, and CNN news programs none of them even
mentioned the assistant principal?s heroics. Only the local
paper, and the next day on one of the evening news programs.
So the media?s power to cover whatever part of the story
they want can potentially alter the facts. Since no one
mentioned the assistant principal, everyone was led to
believe that a gun was used in a school shooting, but failed
to mention that a gun was also used to stop the boy from
fleeing. A quote from MRC chairmen Brent Bozell, ? TV news
is no objective referee. It is a partisan player that has
chosen sides, the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment side.?
This is not the first time the media has failed to mention
the use of guns to help stop a crime.
Another indiscreet way the media alters the facts is by
using figurative language in their reports. When reporters
and opinion writers do quote NRA officials they tend to use
terms like ?claims,? ?whines,? or ?would have us believe.?
This was taken from a University of Michigan researcher
comparing reporting on five groups. The NRA, the American
Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of Retired
Persons, the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, and Handgun Control Inc. In comparison to
those unfriendly terms quoted from reports about NRA
officials, terms such as ?found,? ?showed,? and
?demonstrated,? were used when quoting officials from
Handgun Control Inc. The effect Patrick (the Michigan
University researcher) says ?is to make NRA positions appear
tentative, while those of other groups come off as
undisputed facts. The other way the media has an effect is
by downgrading the NRA when a tragedy happens. If there is
an outbreak in gun-related violence, the media has a way of
linking it to the NRA. They do this by exploiting pictures
of crime scenes, weeping mothers, and memorial sessions and
then telling the NRA?s opinion on the situation. Or they
might contact the NRA and have them comment on a shooting
trying to get them to say the wrong thing. The reasoning
behind this is to show that the access of weapons can take
some of the blame for gun violence. What they don?t do is
contact other restrictive gun-control groups and ask them
to comment what might have happened if the victims would
have had access to a gun. The media should try to look at
the storys from both sides, instead of using trickery and
antics to try and fool the public.