The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Gun Control

As stated in The United States Constitution, Bill of Rights - Amendment II:

"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."

So much argument and discussion, smoke and mirrors, and misleading statements have been applied to this statement. My observation is that we need to compare this amendment to the First Amendment:

United States Constitution, Bill of Rights - Amendment I:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment has often been described as the right to free expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. This is an encapsulation based on a broad interpretation of the meaning of the amendment. A broad interpretation of all the amendments to the Constitution is the appropriate way to ensure the freedoms and liberties we all enjoy. It has been the standard way we have interpreted the Bill of Rights that we have employed throughout our history.

As such, we must employ a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. Even if we do not employ a broad interpretation, the Second Amendment can be interpreted literally. The Second Amendment, gun rights, is stated in two parts; the reason for the amendment and the right to be guaranteed. Some who have advocated gun control have interpreted this amendment to only apply to people who are in the militia. This is a misreading of the amendment. The right of the people very explicitly says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it is not to be infringed.

Therefore, it is my opinion that any gun regulation or control must be constrained by the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It may be proper to limit firearms for those people who have committed violent criminal acts or who are mentally ill. However, this limitation needs to be narrowly interpreted, or you run the risks of violating the Natural and Constitutional Rights of law-abiding people. We should also be reminded that there are many gun laws in effect and that these laws rarely prevent criminal acts or malfeasance by individuals. The truism is that gun laws often constrained lawful citizens and rarely constrain unlawful citizens. Therefore, my observation of gun laws is that it must be limited by the right of the people to keep and bear arms. My other objection to gun laws is that they are not very practical.

As of 2020, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States is approximately 400 million: approximately 190 million handguns, 120 million rifles, and 90 million shotguns. While many people have multiple firearms, this still leaves a great percentage of the population that has firearms in America. Thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household. Adults living in gun households include those with a gun in their home or anywhere on their property. It must also be remembered that most gun owners often have at least a dozen rounds of ammunition per weapon, many having many dozens of rounds. This would mean that there are approximately 7 to 10 billion rounds of ammunition in the hands of Americans. This data from a variety of sources, including the BATFE, Congressional Research Service, NRA, and others, all tend to confirm or reinforce these numbers.

Given the sheer number of firearms and ammunition in the United States, it is almost an impossible task to implement significant gun laws that would in any way restrict the ability of unlawful persons to obtain firearms and ammunition. Even confiscation of all firearms and ammunition would be an impossible task, as people who are unlawful would hide and hoard firearms and ammunition. This would lead to a situation in which the lawful people would be unarmed, but the unlawful people would be armed.

So, what is to be done about gun violence? We must first review a few facts about gun ownership in the United States. Approximately 19,000 people were killed in shootings and firearm-related incidents in 2020. This total includes victims of homicides and unintentional deaths but does not include gun suicides. It is estimated that firearms are used 2 to 2.5 million times annually for self-defense. It has also been estimated that approximately 500,000 deaths or serious bodily harm have been stopped by the intended victim displaying or brandishing a firearm for self-defense purposes. This means that firearms are 26 times more likely to save a life and/or prevent serious bodily harm than to take a life. Those that are willing to restrict guns are therefore willing to accept the 500,000 potential deaths or serious bodily harm in order to potentially save the lives of 19,000 people. This, for me, shows that the harm of gun control far exceeds the benefits of gun control. These statistics should be compared to the rate of motor vehicle deaths, which is substantially larger at 42,000 deaths a year. Tobacco is still the #1 killer in the United States, causing an average of 440,000 deaths a year.

As Archie Bunker once said to his daughter Gloria (in the TV show "All in the Family") when given that number of gun deaths:

"Would it make you feel any better little girl, if they was all pushed outa windows?"

Some gun control proponents have suggested that we confiscate all guns and make the United States a gun-free zone. This would require we repeal the Second Amendment and compensate gun owners for the confiscation of their firearms. It is highly unlikely that we would repeal the Second Amendment and is highly impractical, and it would be highly expensive (approximately 600 to 900 billion dollars) to recompense gun owners for the confiscation of all guns and ammunition in the United States. Even if we were to successfully confiscate 99% of the firearms and ammunition in the United States, this would still leave approximately four million firearms and several hundred million rounds of ammunition. Practically all of these firearms and ammunition would be in the hands of unlawful persons, as the confiscation would only affect the law-abiding citizens. This would make us intentionally less safe, as it would have that number of firearms and ammunition in the hands of people who would do us harm.

Gun-Free Zones are also not practicable as they rarely prevent gun violence in these zones. You may have nave you noticed that most of the mass shootings in the last few decades have occurred in Gun-Free Zones? Gun-Free Zones attract the mentally ill person who would commit mass murder and wants to murder as many people as possible, without those people having the ability to stop the mass murderer (makes you wonder how crazy they really are if they think about avoiding places where people cannot fire back). Gun-Free Zones are a perfect example of my Chip on "04/09/20 Feeling Good vs. Doing Good". Every person has the human right to protect themselves, their family, and their neighbors from being assaulted or murdered. Gun-free zones restrict this right, as well as your Constitutional right to "Keep and Bear Arms". To those people who desired gun-free zones, I would say you should rethink your position and start doing good, rather than feeling good.

It should be noted that if someone wishes to kill another person, the presence or absence of a gun is not much of a deterrence of their intent. Evil will find a way to accomplish its goals; either through a gun, a knife, a blunt object, a bomb, or any other devices that can inflict death, evil will find a way to commit murder. Gun Control is not the answer, as criminals will find a way of committing violence. As FBI statistics have reported, every year, 500,000 acts of criminal activity are thwarted by the intended victim brandishing a gun, and possibly another 2 to 2.5 million unreported criminal activity was thwarted by the intended victim brandishing a gun. Those that wish to control guns usually control the guns of lawful citizens and not the criminals. To implement gun control is to risk the lives and safety of the two to three million law-abiding citizens to possibly save the lives of a few thousand. Gun control under this circumstance is untenable and morally wrong. All law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves and their families against criminal activity.

Some gun control proponents have suggested that we have a national registry of all firearms, and perhaps ammunition, that is in the United States. Anytime someone in the United States interacts with law enforcement and is in possession of a firearm, the police would check this database, and if the firearm is not registered properly it could be confiscated. While this sounds like a solution, and in practice, it would probably be impractical. To create this registration database, and to keep it current, would be very difficult given the nature of how firearms are purchased, traded, gifted, and transferred from one lawful person to another. It would also overwhelm the justice system with appeals as to whether the confiscation was proper or not. It also raises the specter of government interference in the private affairs of a citizen.

The impact of gun control is disproportionately unfair, affecting mostly the poor and women. This is because of the environment in which they live. A middle or upper-class environment is often a safer place to live. The crime rate is less, and the police can often respond faster as there are more police per capita, and the territory they patrol is smaller, so their response time is faster. The poor are more affected because a large majority of them live in urban neighborhoods in which the rate of crime is much higher. A poor person is more likely to be the victim of a violent crime such as assault, robbery, burglary, murder, and rape. Calling the police when these crimes occur is not very effective, as it takes several minutes for the police to arrive, if they are could arrive at all. A firearm in the hands of the intended victim is a much more effective way to stop a crime before it is committed.

Let's face it; women are different. They are equal to men in their human rights and mental capabilities but are generally unequal in their physical abilities. In general, a man who assaults a woman is most likely to be successful in the assault. A properly trained woman has a better chance of fending off the assault, but in many cases, they will not be successful. A woman confronted by a man who intends to assault her is in a much better position to defend herself if she possesses a firearm.

Guns are not the problem; it is the violent nature of the people who use them. They will find another means to commit violent acts if they do not have guns. Registration or Gun Control will not help because most of the guns used to commit unlawful acts are not legally obtained or registered anyway.

The issue of mass murder is not an issue of gun control; rather, it is an issue of mental illness. Mass murder occurs throughout the world, even in countries with strict gun control laws. Mass murderers have a history of severe mental illness and/or drug problems that lead to their psychosis, which leads to them committing mass murders. No gun control law can stop a mass murderer from obtaining weapons to commit their dastardly deeds. A mass murderer will find a means to commit their murder, and if it is not a firearm, they will utilize knives, machetes, blunt objects, bombs, or any other weapon they can obtain. We need better mental illness laws and for the general public to recognize a person who is suffering from mental illness and report them so they may receive treatment before they become violent.

As Dr. Ben Carson said after the tragedy of the mass murder of the black church members of Charleston SC in June of 2015:

"I think we have to start is going to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is not guns. The heart of the matter is the heart. The heart and soul of people. You know, this young man didn't wake up yesterday and suddenly turn into a maniac. Clearly there have been things in his background, in his upbringing that led to the type of mentality that would allow him to do something like this. And one of the things that I think that we really need to start concentrating on in this country is once again instilling the right kinds of values particularly in our young people. You know, we're so busy giving away all of our values and principles for the sake of political correctness that we have people floating around out there with no solid foundation or beliefs. "

To which I say - Amen! and I would also add: