For the past several years, hundreds of people have been victims of gun violence in the U.S. The laws for having the ability to hold a gun have become very flexible depending on the state, some disregarding background checks while others allow felons to purchase firearms. Many have justified their ownership of their firearms through the Second Amendment. Although the Second Amendment states, “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.” (Giffords Law Center), I believe that the existence of the Second Amendment will always have the potential to lead to gun violence due to the possible loopholes that let firearms fall into the hands of those that could misuse them and that a potential repeal could help lower gun violence nationwide.
The Second Amendment allows people to keep and bear arms to protect against the potential rise of a tyrannical government, however in the past several years, guns have been mostly used for murder. People claim that their need to carry firearms is to have “protection” but, according to statistics “Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.” (Giffords Law Center). This statistic shows that a majority of homicides are caused by some sort of gun violence, indicating that their use if often malevolent instead of a form of self-defense. One would even argue that if there were stricter regulations of who could own a gun, then there would be no need for a person to carry a firearm for protection.
The Second Amendment not only rouses potential violence within people, but also within the surrounding communities. In the book In Our Defense it states how business owner, “… Geoffrey LaGiola had applied for a permit to open up a gun store…” if LaGiola were to have gone ahead and opened a gun store it would have been in a neighborhood that was not so safe (IOD Pg. 94). The implication being that if the store did not have a strict gun policy, many potential cases of homicide could occur due to accessibility of guns within a neighborhood that was abundant with crime (Morton Grove, Illinois). However, in 1981, some citizens of trustees of Morton Grove did try to argue that they had a right to possess a firearm. The case was brought up to the Supreme Court, and the trustees lost under the grounds that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and is only contracted to the preservation of a militia. The outcome of this case was a ban on handguns for several decades, eliminating any potential handgun violence with guns with Morton Grove origins.
127 our experts are availableright now
However, it was possible obtain other forms of firearms or handguns themselves smuggled within the county, although no known cases of this had occurred. However, in 2008, this ban was repealed due to opinion of District of Columbia v Heller, where it was declared that the states have the power to regulate firearms as they see fit. As a result, a marginal amount of handguns begun circulating with Morton Grove, but no major instances of massive gun violence has occurred since then. Although Morton Grove proved that they could have firearms within circulation without gun violence, it does not ensure that it could maintain that state forever. Given that the county is small, such instances would be rare, however many other counties and cities are too large within Illinois to maintain such a policy, such as a Chicago.
It is odd to believe that with a state with strict gun laws holds the highest amount of guns within circulation and gun violence within the nation. There is almost a case of homicide due to guns every single day despite “strict” regulations. Although Illinois does require gun owners to have permits, it does not license or regulate gun dealers, limit on the amount of guns bought in a single purchase or require background checks at gun shows. Thus, the circulation of illegal guns that originate outside of Illinois is abundant, and these are guns are often involved in the daily gun violence. Despite the usual vocal outcry of mass shootings, there is often a recurring issue with gun violence in Chicago, and there is not much being done to combat it. It is one circumstance to have “strict” gun regulations, but it is another issue to enforcing and ensuring the prevention of gun violence. In addition, the amount of gang activity that involves guns is alarming throughout the past several decades of Chicago’s history. This is partially due to the fact that the Second Amendment allows for such a large circulation of guns to begin with and the state of Illinois doing nothing to lower the amount of guns, legal and illegal in circulation at any given time.
This type of ordeal does not exist exclusively in Chicago, but there are other states that have an ever increasing issue with gun violence. Having a strict policy on the Second Amendment would only help reduce the gun violence because it would help ban guns to be carried with them at unnecessary places. “Over the following decade, the murder rate in Washington, D.C., declined, then increased, shadowing a national trend.”, says an article from America Magazine. Having a strict Second Amendment policy does not mean that it should be abolished, but it should mean that the federal government should intervene with state affairs should states fail to enforce their own regulations. Although, a Second Amendment repeal would create a massive outcry against for many Americans and members of the NRA that firmly believe that the Second Amendment was written as intended and should not be changed. Thus, there is always a clash between those that do not wish for change and those that see the Second Amendment must be flexible and practical within today’s issues and social climate, not fitting that of an era centuries ago where a potential tyrannical government loomed and militias were actually required.
The issue lies in what should be done about the Second Amendment without causing a massive backlash within the nation. I believe there should first be federal laws concerning guns should the issue continue to exponentially increase. Perhaps there should be similar gun laws for every state, where there are thorough background checks, fingerprint scans, permits, and certificates of origination coupled with engraved labels on guns to prevent the circulation of illegal guns within states. Other potential solutions could be going through a program before ownership or eligibility of purchasing a gun for insuring that the purchaser is not a liability. Perhaps a repeal is not entirely necessary, but possible amending to the amendment could be a solution.
However, that would require amending a national convention with a majority voting for such a repeal. As a result such a proposition seems unrealistic and a potential state reform of gun laws seems more plausible within the scope of the nation. In addition, it is easy to set up potential strict laws as seen with Illinois, however, enforcement is key in ensuring in keeping the peace within cities and reducing the amount of gun violence, and homicide caused by said violence. Whether or not there is a national repeal or some state repeals, a change that is enforced is welcome in the current social sphere and can only benefit the current situation before letting it get out of hand.
In conclusion, there are currently many regions in the U.S the propregate gun violence without any signs of decreasing and the Second Amendment allows for this happen. Not many politicians are moved to remedy the situation and citizens often pay with their lives daily or become unfortunate victims in potential mass shootings that could occur from illegal guns. Too many incidents have occurred to rally a push to change gun laws, but too little has actually been done. I believe that the problematic states should be addressed first, and then the nation should be addressed as a whole to ensure the safety of its citizens so that people should not have to fear for their lives as they go out and about everyday.
