"In order to reduce gun vilolence in the U.S., there should be stricter gun
regulation." By Don Sunberg U.S. Politics and Government Dr. M. Anderson
September 13, 1999 Violence and crime in today's society is inevitable. Human
nature is full of hatred, jealousy, and chaos. Throwing guns into the equation
adds security for some, and vulnerability for others. Gun regulation is a topic
of debate that has been going on for years and looks to be going on for many
more to come. Although, each side of the issue seems to have a possibility of
security for all, a healthy median of both sides proves to be hard to come by.
On the side of no gun regulation, advocates explain that a concealed handgun
provides safety, and that people who defend themselves (with guns) may
indirectly benefit other citizens. Cab drivers and drug dealers who carry guns
produce a benefit for cab drivers and drug dealers without guns (Lott 18). This
theory seems like it could be quite effective, but it brings questions of
whether drug dealers would even obey gun regulation laws if imposed, since they
are already braking the law by dealing drugs. One might ask why do drug dealers
need guns? The answer is quite simple, most violent acts are due to drug and
alcohol abuse (Write 313). The ability to carry a concealed weapon provides
safety to the insecure and vulnerable. Erika Schwartz (the first runner-up in
the 1997 Miss America pageant) made her decision to carry a gun after becoming a
victim of a carjacking. Other women carry a weapon due to their fear of rape.
Laurence Rockefeller's reason to pack heat is because he carries large sums of
money and feels that a gun will protect him from becoming a victim of a mugging
(Lott 23). Advocates of no gun control say that the current gun regulation of a
waiting period to help potential murders time to "cool off" is a total
waste of time. Any one who leaves the scene of an argument, drives to a gun
shop, buys a weapon, loads it with ammunition, and returns to kill the awaiting
victim can hardly be said to be acting in the heat of the moment (Sullum). Gun
regulation only prevents the innocent from having the right to protect himself
or herself. Felons and criminals will go to all costs to get a weapon to kill,
gun regulation or not. Stricter gun regulation, in theory, will get the guns off
the streets and into the hands of those deserving and qualified. Sending a
message to society that guns are not acceptable and will not be tolerated as a
viable source to end an argument, is gun regulation's main goal. A recent effort
in our nations capital, Washington D.C., to get guns off the street brought in
over 2,300 guns that were turned over as part of a successful buy-back program.
A program that has become fairly popular in America, such cities a New York and
Minneapolis are looking into a similar program as well (Thurman). In an ideal
world, there isn't any violence, guns, or worry. Unfortunately, America isn't
that world. Therefore, actions must be taken to achieve that ideal world. Gun
regulation doesn't mean absolutely any guns and safety for all, but rather it
puts guns in the hands of those qualified to use them. Looking at society today,
the problem with gun violence is out of control. Causing gun control activists
to emphasize that change must occur. Phillip Cook, and economist at Duke
University argues that if you introduce a gun into a violent encounter, it
increases the chance that someone will die (Lott 20). This outlook on gun
control favors the idea of stricter regulation. Even if someone legally
purchases a concealed weapon and three months later goes and gets in an
argument, who is to say that that person will not lose control and start
repelling rounds? This is a situation that must be addressed and recognized as
something that is extremely possible. By allowing random people to carry a
concealed weapon is placing a lot of trust into the American society. On the
idea of stricter gun control, one needs not to worry about whether gun control
actually works of whether it is needed. The important thing is the message it
sends. As the issue of gun control heats-up, advocates for both sides of the
issue must realize that no matter how many guns we buy-back or how many permits
we give out, gun violence will always be prevalent in our society until we
attack the issue from another angle. That angle is education. Peggy Noonan
writes: "There ought to be more gun control-in families that keep guns.
Parents should teach their children that guns are fearsome, that they should be
respected and feared for their power to destroy. Guns kill." Teaching
children at a young age that guns and violence isn't the answer to resolving a
disagreement should be expected from their role models. Children are our future;
we must communicate with them to ensure a bright and vibrant future for all.
Stricter gun regulation may keep felons from buying guns, but it won't keep them
from committing violent acts and stealing guns from someone else. Programs such
as gun buy-back are good. They work to get guns out of circulation, but we must
realize that that program is not the answer. The Concealed Weapons Prohibition
Act, which was introduced last year into legislation, would override the laws of
31 states that allow citizens who meet certain objective criteria-typically,
passing criminal background checks and completing a training course-to carry
hand guns. The legislation recognizes a few privileged categories including
police officers and security guards; anyone else seeking a carry permit would
have to demonstrate "compelling circumstances"(Sullum). This act would
prove useful granted how liberal the "compelling circumstances" are.
One should be in favor of the businessmen the right to be able to protect
themselves from the wrath of those seeking to large amounts of money they carry
with them. Women like the Miss America runner-up should have the right to
protect herself from rape and other crimes. As a society, America must realize
that the time is now that we must stop the madness. We must talk to the youth,
educate those seeking a carry permit, and realize that we all have the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Works Cited

BibliographyLott Jr., John R. "Will more guns mean less crime?" Consumers'
Research Magazine Dec. 1998: 18-23. Noonan, Peggy. "Looking Forward."
Good Housekeeping July 1998: 178. Sullum, Jacob. "Can't Bear It."
Reason Magazine 05 Aug. 1998. 7 Sept. 1999 http://www.reason.com/sullum/080598.html.
Thurman, James N. "As more carry hidden guns, who's safer?" The
Christian Science Monitor 01 Sept. 1999. 7 Sept. 1999 http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/09
/01/pls3.html. Write, James D., Peter H. Rossi, and Kathleen Daly. Under the
Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America. New York: Aldine Publishing
Company, 1983: 313-315.