Gun Control: An Issue in Perspective
by Tyler Peckham


The topic of gun control is something that has been hotly debated in the United States for much of recent history. It is not surprising that an issue like gun control, which touches on such hot topics as personal safety, individual rights, and even the meaning of the United States Constitution, sparks such a heated debate. Philadelphia has also its own struggles with gun control, and has recently been prevented from enforcing two gun laws by a court order.

The laws were suspended by Judge Jane Greenspan and were the result of a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The laws would have made it so consumers could only buy one hand gun a month as well as a ban on semi-automatic weapons holding more than ten rounds.

Nationally, and especially here in Philadelphia, many argue that gun control is necessary to reduce the murder rates. According to the Children’s Defense Fund, in 2004 there were more pre-schoolers killed by hand guns than police in the line of duty in America. And in 2005 over 3,000 children were killed by firearms nationally. Here in

Philadelphia there were 406 homicides last year – over one per day – and although not all of them were committed with firearms, many, including Mayor Michael Nutter, would like to see stricter gun-control laws with the hopes of reducing this number.

Although the debate on gun-control is complex and storied, it often finds itself boiled down to a simple question: do guns kill people, or do people kill people? At first glance the answer is probably yes to both, but the answer is slightly more complex. Those that are opposed to gun-control, most notably the NRA and its more than 4 million members nationally, argue that gun control does not reduce the amount of homicides. They argue that the reason for murders is the people that commit them and not the weapon they use, and the best way to stop them is through better law enforcement. They see gun control as unnecessary and also an infringement on the second amendment of the United States Constitution, The Right to Bear Arms. In a recent editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer by University of Maryland Professor John R. Lott said that, “there is no evidence that state [gun] bans have mattered.”

On the other side of the argument is the view that if guns were made unavailable to people than they would be less likely to commit murder. Guns, and especially hand guns, make it possible to shoot people at a distance and with little effort. It is hard to imagine their being as many homicides if only close range weapons were available. Compounding this is the amount of innocent bystanders injured or killed during shootings- again something that almost only happens when firearms are used.

Any ban on firearms however, no matter how comprehensive, would face serious challenges if enacted. Even if constitutional barriers were somehow bypassed, it would not be able to stop the underground market for weapons. The War on Drugs, for example, has been waged since the 1980’s but has not been able to end the huge amounts of drugs still smuggled in, bought, and sold on American soil.

Perhaps the best solution is a combination of both. It is perhaps for the best that the sale of guns is kept legitimate, so that it is transparent enough to be regulated by law. At the same time, the sale of assault weapons or the sale of multiple hand guns is probably not appropriate for an urban setting like Philadelphia. Any future action requires a balance of two different points of view. Those in favor of gun control should realize that many law-abiding citizens use guns for recreation and sport; equally, those same gun aficionados cannot be blind to the violent crimes of criminals that use firearms. With the numbers of people- and especially children- killed by guns each year, we should be open to all solutions to make our city and its most precious resource safer.