One of the most emotionally intense and controversial issues in American society involves gun control, or the determination of whether or not citizens should have virtually unlimited access to weapons that they can acquire for personal use. Members of both the gun lobby and anti-gun lobby center their debate on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The gun lobby views the wording of the Second Amendment to include personal ownership of guns, while the anti-gun lobby views its wording as obsolete and pertaining only to a state’s right to maintain a well-armed militia. Even legal opinion on the issue is mixed: “Legal scholars disagree on whether the Second Amendment merely permits states to maintain defense forces or also allows individuals to arm themselves” (Andrews, 2002, 9).
No matter which side one adopts, there are pros and cons to gun control. The anti-gun lobby views gun control as necessary to reduce crime and homicide. There are an estimated 200 million firearms owned by private citizens in the US, including 67 million handguns manufactured with no purpose other than wounding or killing human beings. There is little doubt that a direct association between crime and violence and gun possession or use can be identified. In an average year more than 24,000 Americans are killed with handguns in homicides, suicides, and accidents (Malcolm, 2002, 23).
Those in favor of gun control also view it to be favorable because of varying murder rates between the US and other countries that ban handguns or have many but fewer murders. Documentary filmmaker Roger Moore has recently produced a film called Bowling for Columbine. In the film he asks the question: “How can Canada have 7 million guns yet a fraction of our murder rate?” (Hallett, 2002, 56). He cannot answer the question at the end of the film, but he suggests it could be something peculiar in the American psyche. If so, advo
...