What exactly are the gun laws in the USA?

Following the recent shootings in San Bernardino, USA where 14 people were killed by a radicalised couple, I realised that I was not really aware of the gun laws in the country. Surely not just anyone can own a gun and carry it with them all the time? Also, why has no change be proposed to them as the number of shootings seems to be rising so quickly?

Essentially, any American citizen over the age of 18 is allowed to buy a shotgun or rifle and once they are over 21, they can also buy and carry a handgun. Some people cannot own a gun, these include: convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses, drug addicts and army veterans who left under dishonourable conditions. However, there is a notorious way for the above-mentioned to still get hold of a gun, this is known as the ‘gun show loophole’. The buyers of a gun are not checked at a gun show and so anyone of the right age can buy a gun here. Similarly, many mentally-ill people who really should not be able to own a gun are not registered in this way by a court and so most are still able to get their hands on one.

Individual states’ policies vary hugely though. For example, the states of the District of Columbia and Florida ban all carrying of guns in public, whether open or concealed. They are among only five states to do so. But Oregon allows these for all who own a gun, so long as they have a permit.

This ‘right’ to own a gun comes from the Second Amendment of the US Constitution of 1791. This stated that: "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." Americans take this to mean that every individual has the right to own, carry and use a gun.

Whilst gun lobbyists claim that stricter gun laws would only make the population less safe as only criminals would be armed and there would be no method for self-defence, there is a clear relationship between ownership of guns and gun-related violence. In the US, 117,000 Americans are shot every year and 33,000 of them die from their injuries (that’s 101.13 per million of the population). 270 million guns are owned by US civilians. In contrast, in Britain in 2012, there were 640 gun-related murders – only 10.43 deaths per million of the population – due to there being only 1.8 million legal guns in Britain. This clearly shows that the greater the number of guns in a country, the greater the number of murders by shooting.

Contrary to what I expected, as the number of mass shootings in America has risen, the public’s support for stricter gun laws has declined. A survey taken every year where the same question is asked – do you favour or oppose stricter gun control laws? – found that in 1989, 65% of Americans favoured the stricter laws, but this year the public was evenly divided. Herein lies the reason why imposing more gun laws is not a priority for the government and is rarely addressed in presidential campaigns, it is simply such a divisive issue and one which will gain a party few votes. Additionally, pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America (GOA) are extremely influential and wealthy, so politicians fear that arguing against these groups will lose them support.

In 2013, Obama proposed to Congress that all buyers of a firearm should require a background check (including by private sellers, which were exempt). This was strongly rejected. It is believed, on the other hand, that even if this law had been approved, that nothing would have changed. Due to the system where it is up to states themselves to decide their gun laws, a change in national law would not have had much of an impact on the gun laws of individual states.

This surprises me, as it seems clear that increasing control on guns would be a very easy way to reduce gun crime – including mass murders. It is more difficult to carry out the killings themselves and a petty dispute would not lead to death.

AE

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' But they tend to find it a bit easier with a gun in their hand...

 

      Alright.  I know, I know, that you were probably being lulled into a false sense of security- there have been two articles in a row which is probably some sort of record. But alas, the short-lived golden age is over. Because I’m back, crazier than ever. Basically, I decided that I could either sit around being tired and basically drowning in a sea of teenage hormones, or I could pick myself up, stop feeling sorry for myself, and inconvenience you lovely people. Lucky, lucky you.
 Anyways, amigos (noted that 'amigos' makes it sound like we're in a badly made Mexican film) it may come as a surprise but I have a gripe. I am using the word 'gripe' because I feel that it makes my unreasonable anger towards something that doesn't concern me seem slightly more trivial and slightly less... psychotic. In fact, if I call myself 'passionate', it doesn't sound quite as bad... does it?
 Now, I speak as a Briton so I don't really have a grasp on culture across the ponds, although I have, of course, watched more than my fair share of badly made American sitcoms - if it hasn’t got Sandra Bullock in it, I’m not watching it. So maybe I’m being a bit dense (it wouldn't be the first time). And I understand that with the government, it's not as cut and dry as we'd all like it to be. But for god's sake, how many children have to die before something is done?
  The brightest of you may have realised that I’m speaking about America’s gun laws. It is taking an incredible amount of self control to not just facesmash the keyboard in anger, so you should count yourself lucky that I'm actually going to the effort to form some sort of coherent sentence - it's more than I do in most lessons. But I’m going to level with you - Columbine, Virgina Tech, Dendermonde Nursery - all of these done by young people with relatively easy access to guns, and all of these causing unbelievable trauma and upset to everyone involved. These events are horrendous, and that is the only work for it. Reading about them makes me feel sick to the stomach, because the idea of a teenager getting to the point where they are prepared to kill innocent people... it just doesn’t quite sit right with me.
 And I understand that the government can’t change the number of mentally ill teenagers - god knows the U.K probably has roughly the same amount of teens who would be willing to commit atrocities. But the U.K, thank goodness, doesn't have high-school/university shootings in the same way that America does. And I hate to be that girl who states the obvious, but the only startling different between the two countries is the gun laws.
 Again, maybe I’m being simple, because I always tend to be - but surely it's a lot harder to shoot somebody if you don’t have a gun? I don’t know, maybe I’m being traditional. But if you tighten your regulations, then maybe the number of shootings will decrease. Maybe the simple act of receiving education won't have danger attached to it any more.
 So yes, the gun itself doesn’t kill people. The person holding the trigger kills people. But maybe if you take the trigger away, it will be harder to kill people.
 Okay you lovely lot, the growling in my stomach has got to such a volume that I can't even hear the odd few thoughts flutter through my brain, and so I must leave you. 

 E.C

Myths about the Wild West

Yesterday evening, my parents were watching a film about the Wild West. As you can probably guess, they tried to rope me into some ‘family time’, so, naturally, I decided to play on my phone in the corner of the room instead. However, the film was actually quite interesting (much to my surprise) so I ended up watching it anyway. It was so good, that it inspired me to write a history blog about it. So, here I am, ‘Google-ing’ the ‘Wild West’ after running around like a headless chicken all day at school.

After researching the Wild West, I found that there are many myths surrounding that period of history. But first, let’s start with the fact that cowboys and red indians are fighting at least five times in every single film. A lot of blood shed, right? WRONG. Thankfully, there were few clashes between settlers and red indians. I mean obviously, a few hundred people were killed from both sides, but from the way that they go around shooting everyone in those films, I thought it would be nearing the hundred thousand mark! 

Another thing that I found shocking is that cowboys don’t actually wear cowboy hats. You have no idea how disappointed I was when I found that one out! Apparently, everyone wore hats and the last thing that they would wear were our typical idea of cowboy hats. Generally, the fashionable hat among cowboys were bowler hats. I know, I know, I can’t believe it either.

Finally, you know how practically everyone who lived back then had a six-shooter (for people like me, who have no idea about weapons, this is a gun) strapped to their hip? That too is false. Gun laws were stricter then than they are now (in America) and normally, your average cowboy opted for a classic rifle or shotgun.

But anyway, despite the inaccuracies, I doubt that these facts will take away from my newfound love for films about the Wild West (it’s better than watching Twilight any day).

JG

Happy New Year

Hope everyone has had a fantastic Christmas break and a very good 2013 so far.
Below are some interesting articles to get you thinking about some issues this year.
First of all, the gun control issue in the USA is due to be a big feature of Obama's political year as he tries to persuade Republicans to pass some sort of gun control legislation.  Here is a Jonathan Freedland article from the Guardian about why it is so difficult to achieve in the USA.
Another key issue so far this year has been the public outcry about the treatement of women in India after a female student was gang-raped and murdered on a bus in Delhi.  Shocking new information is revealed daily about the problems there from female infanticide and abortion to now in this BBC article the trafficking of women that results from a shortage of women.  Feminism Society recently held a session on this worrying situation.
Lastly, this is an article about the latest film about to come out about the killing of Osama Bin Laden by Kathryn Bigelow, the first female director to win an Oscar.  Naomi Wolf criticises it for 'peddling the lie that CIA detentions led to Bin Laden's killing' and compares her with the Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl, who you might remember from GCSE History.  A nice combination of History and Politics!  Now the US Senate Intelligence Committee has asked to see the information that the film producers received about the use of torture, BBC article attached.  Please comment if you see the film and tell us what you think (it is classified as a 15 certificated film remember).

Political rhetoric?

The recent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that left 6 dead and Giffords fighting for her life with a bullet through her head has led to a debate as to whether it is political rhetoric that has led to this tragedy. Certainly Sarah Palin's map of 'targets' has been highly publicised although now many conservatives are defending themselves by accusing Democrats of exploiting the event to attack them. Make up your own mind with a range of opinions here on the BBC and Mark Mardell's blog and a range of articles on CNN including Rush Limbaugh's defence.

Chicago and Arizona

Chicago City Council in a 45-0 vote approved a new gun ordinance after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city's 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. At the end of June the Supreme Court ruling overturned the city's previous handgun ban. Although it was expected, the decision confirms the conservative view of the court on gun issues. Two years ago a similar decision was taken regarding Washington DC's gun laws despite this interfering with states' rights. Chicago has particular reason for concern on the issue as last month 164 people were murdered in the city, mainly by a gun. Here is the CNN report.
Meanwhile on another contentious issue... the US Government is taking Arizona to court to try to stop its controversial laws on illegal immigration. It is believed that its powers to stop and ask for identification will lead to racial profiling on a large scale as there is a large Hispanic community in the state. Mark Mardell sums it up well.
What is your view on these issues? Liberal Europeans misunderstanding America's priorities or American exceptionalism of the worst kind?

Guns and shopping

A fascinating, if rather disturbing, blog by Mark Mardell today - look at the blog section on the right of this article. A group of American citizens are trying to make their point about being allowed to carry guns with them by doing just that in visible holsters while shopping...
A related article here from the Economist this week highlights a Supreme Court case that will be illustrative of the Court's view of the Second Amendment but a difficult one for conservatives - guns or states' rights?

Key cases before the US Supreme Court

Some fantastic cases to be considered by the Supreme Court this year - from guns to crosses to dog-fighting, terrorism and human rights, it's all there! Have a look at the BBC's compilation of cases here and CNN's view of the Second Amendment case and see what you think. No wonder Sonia Sotomayor looks so pleased to be on the Supreme Court!

Guns in national parks?

An interesting story for those needing proof of the power of the NRA... see here.