Gun control. Some people think this is a conspiracy by the government, or a violation ofour Second Admendment rights, and others, like myself, believe it is a necessity. Before I get into the politics and the statistics, I would like to make a personal appeal.

Is there really a need for guns on the streets beyond those who use it in their professions (police, private detectives, professional hunters, etc.)? Beyond that. Is there really a need to allow the use of AK-47s and other assualt weapons? Hunting can't be the reason. Do we really need guns? What do guns do? They kill. I've heard the arguement that people kill, not guns. But how many people wouldn't kill if they didn't have an easy, and quite fatal, weapon to use like guns? It may take a person to pull a trigger, but unlike a knife, it is much easier to use in order to commit a crime. So, ulitmately, the logic that it isn't guns that kill people, but rather people who kill people, is flawed.

My main problem with having gun on the streets is the sheer number of deaths caused by firearms. Now, I have heard over and again, that guns are necessary for self-protection. Please. Try again. This argument begins with the assumption that murders (especially) and other crimes are committed primarly by strangers. Just like rape years ago. In actually, 80% of murders are committed by someone the person knew. If guns were against the law, it would most likely cut down on the murder rate. Besides which, if guns were outlawed, that would give prosecutors and police one more thing to charge criminals with--possession of an illegal weapon. Granted, a lot of weapons on the street are illegal, but not all, especially when you consider the high rate of "acquaintance" crimes.

Now, going along with this argument, let us look at some out-and-out statistics. 68% of all murders committed are done with the use of a firearm. This would mean, considering the number of murders committed by someone you know, that approximately 54% (more or less) of people killed by someone they knew were killed with a firearm. Now, let us look at the protections argument again, in 1994 there were only 230 (firearm) justifiable homicides. Whereas, there were 16,305 murders by firearm (non-justifiable) and 15, 857 robbery victims shot. Do the benefits (protection) outweigh the costs (firearm deaths and injuries)? In my opinion, no.

However, and I will do this carefully, the issue that is spouted most often is the Second Admendment, the right to bear arms. What most people don't mention is that, in reality, individuals do not have the right to bear arms. Rather, state militias have the right to bear arms. In 1939, the US Supreme Court defined this more clearly by stating that weapons were limited to those that bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. It further went on to define the militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State." The key word to be aware of is regulated. This does not mean that Tom, Dick and Harry can go out and call themselves a militia in order to have the right to bear arms. In 1980, the Court once again emphasized that individual persons do not have the right to bear arms and their rights are not trenched upon with changes in law. What this all means, if you have not followed, is that there is no consititutional right for individuals to carry firearms. Therefore, the argument that gun control infringes on our Constitutional right is wrong. The Court has proved this time and again.

My main concern is in overall safety. I want to feel safe on the streets as much as the next person. Our system of protection has not worked yet. I have heard that, yes, concealed weapons laws have helped protect the streets. After all, since they went into effect crime has gone down. Crime may have gone down but that argument is statistically and otherwise flawed. They assume with correlation there is cause-and- effect. Not true. In fact, other factors have happened. Namely, there has been an increase in the number of police on the streets. Couldn't this also effect random crime? I haven't seen the specific statistics, but I wonder if any rate of homicide has gone up or remained steady while another type has gone down. Without knowing this information, it is especially hard to generalize. All I do know, is that guns kill. Murder rates are high enough, as well as suicide. While I know that many people who intend to die by suicide will find a way, not having a gun will surely slow them down and maybe give them enough time to rethink.

Maybe, just maybe, we all need to reconsider whether or not individuals should have the right to guns if it is not a requirement to their profession, especially when we consider the usefulness of handguns and assault weapons.