If you never read another Seamus McGregor post, read this

I found the East Coast Firearms site to be eye-opening as well as extremely distressing. As you all are now aware, I am pro gun control, and I feel very strongly on the matter. The second amendment is dated and I feel misinterpreted. The second amendment was enacted as a means of preventing tyrannical governments from gaining power, and serves as an extension of John Locke’s social contract. This contract is for the government to serve the people, and for the people to overthrow the government if the government violates the contract of mutual trust. Today, militias are not a major force in America (although the Michigan militia wields significant firepower), and there is not an effective way of people to mobilize against the government. The government possesses Abrams tanks, Stryker fighting vehicles, and F-22 Raptor aircraft that cannot be combated effectively by any massing of ordinary citizens. Realistically, if a tyrannical regime was to assume power in the United States, it probably could only be overthrown by a military coup. Forgive me, but I’m not buying into this whole “an individual qualifies as a militia” business. This sort of Rambo mentality is not subscribed to by mainstream Americans, and I find the notion that an assault weapon is sufficient to defend yourself against the world unrealistic.
Others claim that a gun is vital to their personal protection. Many individuals have firearms in their homes and have concealed carry licenses. Although pro gun control, I realize that things must be taken in gradual steps; so I shall address assault weapons as the first things that should be taken off the streets and out of the hands of citizens. Assault weapons are manufactured to kill people; and lots of them at a time. A gun that is designed for military action is certainly not a necessity if a person wishes to defend themselves against a home invasion. I believe that firearms can be gradually phased out and that the United States can follow along the lines of Great Britain’s rules regarding gun ownership.
I will briefly address the people who enjoy hunting. I have yet to meet a serious hunter who uses an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Putting that many bullets into a deer for example takes away the skill of hunting and makes cleaning the carcass difficult. I cannot think of a hunter who would argue for hunting with a MP-5 or a TEC-9.
I would also like to point out the negative effects on households that own guns. Study after study has proven that households with guns in them have higher rates of suicide and homicide than houses where no gun is present. Most concerning to me is how often it is the children of the household who accidently kill themselves or others playing with guns. Harvard research has proven that child firearm deaths are directly tied to gun availability http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html. If for no other reason, we owe it to the youth to limit gun ownership in the United States.
While I realize Andrew’s argument that there will always be a market for these high-powered weapons, we can make it much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on these weapons. The recent trend of “community guns”, a practice where a gun is used for a crime and left in a park or an alleyway for other gang members to use, is very disturbing http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2008/06/community-guns.html. Renewing the Federal Assault Weapons ban would be a good first step. As for the next steps, I will talk a little about how Chicago has been gradually cutting homicide rates the past decade.
First, there has been a series of firearm buy-back programs through the mayor’s office that have been very successful. The no-questions-asked policy encourages people to turn in their guns for a monetary reward (less than market value for gun to prevent re-purchasing) that can be used to buy food or pay the bills instead of arming themselves.
Second, community groups, such as Ceasefire, have built a grassroots of concerned citizens to stop gang shootings http://www.ceasefirechicago.org/mission_history.shtml. These community members know who the gang members are, and with the community behind them, these organizations have been very effective in dissuading criminal activity and through a wide array of conflict management and peace counseling strategies, have greatly decreased gang violence in many neighborhoods in Chicago. Ceasefire began in 2000 in the West Garfield Park neighborhood, police beat 1115. In a neighborhood notorious for gang violence http://www.chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_MAPS (north side map), shootings dropped 67% within in the first year of Ceasefire’s existence.
Last, police need to step up their presence and violent criminals need to be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. A large police presence in Chicago coupled with massive operations against gangs and the drug trade has cut significantly into the structure and business of organized crime and street gangs alike. By weakening these groups, it makes it easier to seize their weapons and make them more compliant to the law.
On a slightly different note, I was most disturbed by the statement by one of my classmates that people need high-powered weapons because African-Americans and Hispanics often perpetrate crimes against white people. Outside the obvious question of why race is relevant in that discussion at all when criminal activity correlates to socio-economic conditions, I also would like to ask that classmate to state why he fears African Americans and Hispanics and believes they wish to harm him. If we are to make race relevant, you shall see studies have proven that a vast majority of crime perpetrated against a person of one race was committed by someone of the same race http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm. While it’s easy to look at the news and pass judgment on people, remember that journalism is sensationalist and that everything must be viewed carefully and impartially. I do not want to brand what I heard as racism, so I call on that classmate to clarify his statement.