Perhaps no other issue that is discussed in the public forum today is more controversial or more emotional than the subject of gun control, even when compared to bank bailouts, nuclear proliferation, and health care reform. The reason for this elevated level of controversy can be explained by the deeply held convictions of both sides of the debate as to the ramifications of gun control itself, as well as the underlying issues of human violence, personal safety, and self-governance that fuel this heated discourse.

Proponents of strong gun control legislation draw upon the very real issue of gun-related crime that seems to be so prevalent in the modern world. Many who call for more proactive steps to remove firearms wholly from the fabric of society point to numerous studies and statistical records that reveal an upward trend of violent acts in which guns have played some role either in the commission of an illegal act or in a crime of passion. Sadly, many of these staunch supporters of gun control are so motivated because they themselves have been a victim of gun violence either directly or indirectly.

Opponents of Gun Control

Opponents of gun control also present statistical data to support their opinions. There are, in fact, equally numerous studies backed by documentary evidence that suggest the presence of legally-owned firearms have been a deterrent to crime on many occasions, often saving the lives of potential victims of predatory crime and mayhem. Ironically, the very statistics that anti-gun activists use to support their argument often form the basis, in part, of gun control opponents who propose that owners of firearms are responsible for keeping violent crime from becoming even more prevalent.

What may be more significant than the groundswell of support and emotional fervor that characterizes both sides of this debate is the resulting interest of the general public in the function of government, and how it can affect and shape the lives of its citizenry. The legislative branch, in particular, has been solicited by special interest groups and public outcry over gun control more than any other issue in the past few decades. The executive branch of the government has also been affected by this debate, which is reflected in the importance of supporting one side or the other during presidential campaigns and in calling for legislation to carry out promises made to voters in those elections.

There have been numerous bills presented to Congress just in the past twenty years, including the highly-controversial Brady Bill of 1993. This landmark legislation, signed into law by then-President William J. Clinton, was drafted in the House of Representatives and received full congressional support, likely due to the emotional outcry that resulted from the attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan in 1981 that critically wounded White House press secretary James Brady, who is the namesake of the bill. This public attempt on the life of a sitting president by an individual using a handgun was followed by an extremely vociferous push to strengthen existing gun control laws pertaining to the buying and selling of personal firearms. No previous act of gun violence against a political figure had created such an outcry, including the successful assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1963.

This gun control law served as a much-referenced precedent to subsequent legislation that changed the way many Americans came to view gun ownership. The traditional cultural aspect of the individual right to possess firearms, supported in theory and in application by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, became the overriding issue as a result of this new climate of anti-gun sentiment. The reality of private gun ownership that had been an accepted fact generally was soon called into question, setting the stage for the emotionally-charged public debate that continues to this day.

This assumed constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” has been at the center of this issue, even at the time of its inclusion in the U.S. Constitution in 1791. The belief that the wording of the Second Amendment was intended to refer to the right of the citizenry to own firearms for protection of their lives and property “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” was held by a majority of Americans for most of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, whether they owned a gun or not. Yet the upswing in opinion against gun ownership that characterized the late 1990s and early 21^st century questioned this presumption of freedom, citing the proliferation of unchecked gun sales between private individuals as being at the root of the perceived problem of rising gun violence in America.

The events of September 11, 2001 has also led to even more attention on the issue of individual privacy and its constitutional protection, and how gun control plays into the bigger issue of terrorist activities. The alleged actions of a few individuals, living within the bounds of a constitutional republic such as the United States, led to massive destruction and loss of innocent life, again raising the question of personal freedom and the need for governmental intrusion in the private affairs of citizens. Although airplanes were the weapons used on that day, the activities of the accused perpetrators that led to the events of that day (such as flight training and international travel) were undertaken in the openness of free society that is the cornerstone of the American way of life.

Currently, the issue of gun control continues to be much-debated and essentially unresolved matter. Although stricter gun laws have been enacted in recent years, the trend of gun violence continues to exist. Opponents of gun control cite this fact as proof of their conviction that “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”, while supporters of gun control contend that even more legislation is needed to completely rid society of the possibility of random and intentional gun violence by removing the tool that is used to commit such acts.