The founding fathers unknowingly would cause future controversy after the 1791 passage of the Bill of Rights which ensured prevention against abuses of the national government upon civilian rights. One major source of controversy that still is debated and legislated upon in today’s society is the Second Amendment. This amendment to the Constitution 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.” The interpretation of the cited clause remains as one of the most heated and lingering debates in our American society.

            The article presented within Larry J. Siegel’s Introduction To Criminal Justice presents a narrow and construed segment of the topic of gun control by primarily referring to hand gun regulation. The case for gun control is set out by outlining the Virginia Tech tragedy of 2007, and mentioned that due to lax gun laws, the day resulted in the ruthless slaughter of 32 innocent victims.  The article then raises the question as to whether the Second Amendment truly protects the right to bear arms or not. The court case of United States v. Miller (1939) effectively stated that the only purpose where carrying or owning a military-styled gun is legal is for acting within militias.  This ruling left a gaping hole in legislation regarding handguns though. The recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)which decided that the Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to possess weapons for means of self defense, not just that of militia actions. In turn this also meant that no municipality within the United States of America can outlaw gun ownership.

              The article continues to outline several federal policies which are concerned with handgun regulation. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993 regulate the processes of gun ownership transfer and who is permitted to own a firearm. Other state laws have furthered federal regulations, but the question of how far should handguns be restricted arises.

              The ethical debate behind handguns rests with the question of whether the sale and possession of handguns should be closely controlled and restricted. Of course deadly weapons, especially firearms, should be controlled, but the extent to which they are regulated should be monitored. It seems only plausible to eradicate the possibility of the unstable, deranged, or criminal populace from ever being capable of possessing a firearm, as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act amendment did. However if the guns are over controlled, various situations can arise where those who should be enfranchised are put at disadvantages.

              Over-regulation could essentially create the same types of black markets that the current prohibition on drugs has, an approximated 40 billion dollars of unregulated sales. As the article stated, private gun sales and bartering, as well as licensed dealer corruption is incredibly hard to track and enforce. If gun regulation eventually reaches the extreme of becoming too difficult to understand the process would probably be circumvented similarly to the failed policy of alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933.

              It has also been statistically shown that in areas which seemingly “over-regulate” handguns, the crime rate tends to skyrocket. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, states which have heavily regulated handguns (California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington D.C.) have had murder rates 8% higher than the rest of the country.  Other cities have shown the same trends of upwards of gun crime. One noted example is from the Chicago Homicide Dataset, where the city of Chicago from the time it enforced a D.C. styled handgun ban in 1983 it had shown a double in the murder rate over the next decade.

              Since guns remain legal within the United States, another issue forms− how does the police effectively deter crime? There are many different strategies in order to deter gun crime, but there seems there is no panacea for the problem of crime. This leaves a culmination of preventative measures to be the best course of action to deter gun-related crime. The principle of loose gun regulation has been shown to effectively provide lower crime rates in areas compared to where handguns are strictly regulated.  Other measures such as increasing penalties for illegally possessing firearms have proven rather successful when tried. One example of its reported success is Project Exile, a project originally led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office which cut the firearm murder rate by nearly 40% in Richmond, Virginia. Alternate methods such as mandatory gun education for owners and harsher penalties for criminal ignorance of standard regulation procedures of firearms would also help reduce crime.

              Despite what is a highly debated issue, there are multiple grounds on which people who fervently support and vehemently deny gun regulation can compromise on. If our society can find this balance we should be able to reduce crime and also maintain the liberties that the founding fathers originally passed under the Bill of Rights in 1791. After all, that is the one thing that has made our society possible─ compromise.