Between the outrage over school shootings and the right to protect oneself, the debate over gun control has never instigated as strong emotions as it does today. At the crux of the matter lies the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which contains the ambiguous "right to bear arms" statement. Both sides of the debate are vocal, well-organized, and well-funded; the progress of their respective struggles serves as a powerful example of the strengths and weaknesses of the United States' legal system. In this article, we will present the main arguments on each side of the gun control debate. While each side's arguments can be extreme, they nonetheless show how complicated an issue it is.

1. LEARN ABOUT THE HISTORY OF GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA

In the post-revolution era, the Framers of the Constitution faced the daunting task of constructing an entire legal system. The Framers, many of whom were driven to revolution by the unwanted presence of British soldiers, envisioned a United States without a standing army, but rather one that depended upon local militias to ensure its sovereignty. In front of this backdrop, James Madison authored the now Second Amendment to the Constitution that stated:

"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."

The Second Amendment contains several ambiguous elements, including the notions of a "militia" and a "free state." In the 21st century, is there a threat to the US being a free state because its general citizenry does not have guns? And what are the limits to this "right"?

Throughout our nation's history, cases questioning the interpretation of the Second Amendment clause have been brought before courts. In adjudicating these cases, the court faced a difficult decision: should the intent of the framers be the sole criterion on which the Second Amendment is judged or, should the scope of the Amendment be adapted to fit contemporary times? Indeed, this struggle proved to be symbolic of the quandary the court faced in having to apply a static legal basis to a constantly evolving nation.

The most recent controversial legal ruling was the Brady Bill, enacted in the early 1990s. The Brady Bill mandated that anyone buying certain types of guns be forced to undergo a background check and a waiting period of 7 days. The waiting period was designed to allow buyers that bought the gun in "a state of passion" to cool off before getting their hands on the gun. However, in its ruling during the summer of 1998, the Supreme Court found that the portion of the federal Brady Bill mandating the background checks be conducted by State law enforcement is unconstitutional because the federal government lacks the authority to compel this type of State action. That being said, states could continue to conduct background checks, they simply were no longer obligated to do so.

2. LEARN THE ARGUMENTS FOR MORE STRINGENT GUN CONTROL

"All guns should contain safety features that prevent them
from being fired accidentally or by minors."

The Argument: We've all seen the tragic story on the news too many times. A small child somehow gets hold of a gun with devastating results. Equally tragic, an inexperienced or careless adult is handling a gun only to have it fire accidentally. These tragedies all cry out for the government to regulate the gun industry, forcing them to produce a safer product. Smith and Wesson recently conceded as much when it pledged to include trigger locks on all future guns that it will manufacture. Yet, its efforts are but a first step towards fingerprint-sensitive triggers that can only be fired by the intended user.

The Response: No one disputes the enormity of the tragedy when a child misuses a gun. But responsibility for preventing such disaster lies not with the government but with the family. Too often, the Federal Government attempts to resolve problems that it is too clumsy and slow to counteract. We need to encourage families to educate their children, to teach their children about morals, and to instill in them a recognition of the consequences for their actions. A policy of mandatory trigger locks ignores this reality while raising the price of guns for honest Americans who are capable of using the weapon responsibly.

"The Government has the right to regulate gun purchases
to keep them out of the wrong hands."

The Argument: Every year, thousands of criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes. Shouldn't the government be given the right to stop such purchases? Policies such as background checks and mandatory waiting periods deter criminals while negligibly limiting the rest of us. Clearly, the societal gains from these measures are well worth their cost.

The Response: One of the basic rights in this country is the freedom to purchase and consume without government intervention. If a woman suddenly feels unsafe in her home, why should she have to wait a week before receiving a gun? If a father wants to take his son hunting on the spur of the moment, what right does the federal government have to stand in his way? A gun registry is the government's attempt to render honest citizens helpless.

"Gun users should have to register their weapons with the Government,
making them more accountable for their actions."

The Argument: Guns are not an everyday purchase like eggs or umbrellas; they are uniquely powerful tools that can devastate lives. Organized society is supposed to protect its citizens from this potential for violence. To advance this cause, the government should monitor and record those who purchase weapons, as well as any distinctive features of the weapons themselves. The only ones threatened by this policy are criminals, as it would be a tremendous aid to law enforcement. Governor George Pataki of New York recently outlined a plan for his state in which all guns purchased would first be fired and a record made of their distinctive shell mark. Pataki is a Republican, and his proposal demonstrates that figures across the political spectrum understand the benefits of a mandated gun registry.

The Response: Why aren't the police authorized to fingerprint every citizen and keep the information on file? The answer is that we Americans are rightly wary of government intruding in our private lives. Criminals would find ways to circumvent legislators' typically clumsy efforts, leaving a database filled with honest citizens who could serve as potential scapegoats. A gun registry could be the first descent down a slippery slope of invasive and misguided government monitoring. Additionally, the money involved in creating and maintaining such a system would be enormous; the funds could be better spent on other areas.

"No self-respecting sportsman shoots deer with an Uzi.
We should ban semiautomatic weapons."

The Argument: Automatic weapons have been severely restricted in this country since 1934. It is long overdue for semiautomatic weapons to join them: such guns are only useful to kill others and are potentially the most devastating. They are of no use for sport and are not intended for use other than in military engagement. Although current laws ban the manufacturing of new assault weapons, they "grandfather" all guns produced before 1994.

The Response: The government is not fit to decide what warrants adequate protection. Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens be able to arm themselves as amply as the criminals? The outlawing of assault weapons is nothing more than a first step towards a thinly veiled plan to ban all weapons in this country.

3. LEARN THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST MORE STRINGENT GUN CONTROL

"Gun laws punish honest citizens. Criminals will arm themselves anyway."

The Argument: Criminals intent on obtaining guns will find a way to circumvent legislation. (They're criminals, right? What do laws mean to them?) The only ones hurt by tighter restrictions are regular citizens who want the weapons either for sport or self-protection. In fact, further restrictions on gun purchases would leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of gun-toting criminals.

The Response: Empirical evidence from countries where guns are tightly regulated (e.g., England) strongly suggests that criminals are more hesitant to use guns when doing so makes their crimes dramatically more serious. Even if criminals are intent on acquiring guns, the cost, time, and risk involved would be far higher if there were strict gun laws on the books. Incidents such as the Columbine High School shooting demonstrate that, where guns are easily accessible, they can often fall into the hands of minors and others with tragic consequences.

"Guns protect the rights and freedoms of the individual."

The Argument: Our country began when a group of colonists rose up in arms against British rule. Guns empower the masses: they are the last line of defense for a citizenry confronted with an evil government. The regimes of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's U.S.S.R. recognized this principle and seized all weapons, precluding any effectual resistance to their tyranny. What would America do if our government turned against us? Our options would be limited if the government were given a monopoly on guns. One need only read the newspapers in New York and Los Angeles to realize that even the innocent have cause to fear the police. Communities around the country are justifiably hesitant to relinquish their weapons and be at the mercy of local law enforcement.

The Response: Most of the other advanced nations in Europe and Asia see gun restrictions as compatible with democracy. The only grand-scale armed rebellion since our nation's inception occurred when the Confederacy chose to fight the Civil War in the name of slavery; their actions are now considered antithetical to democracy everywhere except in South Carolina. Although it is true that our country was founded by armed militias, that was over two-hundred years ago and the high-tech weaponry of our modern military could easily crush a civilian uprising. The key to ensuring democracy lies in the proliferation of informed citizens not armed ones.

"If people obeyed the current laws, there would be no need
for further restrictions on gun purchases."

The Argument: Our society currently has hundreds of pages of laws that govern the sale and use of guns. Since 1993, Congress has spent 300 million dollars on a National Instant Check System (NICS) in an effort to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the wrong people. Yet, despite the expense and intrusiveness of this system, it has still been documented to be incomplete and error prone, occasionally flagging innocent citizens and frequently allowing the guilty to purchase weapons unabated. We need to sure up our existing methods before we even think about incorporating more complicated and expensive suggestions.

The Response: Regardless of how well our laws are enforced, there are significant loopholes in current gun legislation. Most notably, we lack adequate regulation of the sales of firearms at gun shows; we need a national gun registry to aid law enforcement, and we should enact laws that require all guns sold to have basic security features such as trigger locks. These failures in our current legislation literally put guns in the hands of "the wrong people" every day.

"Guns don't kill people, people do. We need to worry about values, not guns."

The Argument: People who use guns for nefarious purposes do so because they don't respect the laws and morals of this country. It is this underlying lack of respect that is ultimately to blame for our nation's crime problem. Washington lawmakers, rather than devoting time and energy to gun issues, should instead focus their efforts on turning back the erosion of values in this country. Better schools, more role models in government, and less glorification of violence in the media - these are the real solutions.

The Response: There is nothing mutually exclusive about family values and gun regulations. The world is a safer place without guns: misguided individuals clearly pose less of a threat when they are less well-armed. A government that recognizes this truth and acts accordingly is fulfilling its responsibility to preserve lives.