The Real Story of Gun Control

Deceptions, Myths, and Political Self-Interest:
The Real Story of Gun Control

         Colin Fuerguson, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Egan Holmes; easily

recognizable names that evoke images of senseless violence and sickening tragedy. Almost daily they are used by

opportunistic politicians who point to them in our shock and fear as the burning necessity for increased gun legislation. It

does not seem to matter much that these were and are people with deep-seated psychological issues. Adam Lanza was

by all accounts a troubled, lonely young man, Seung-Hui Cho had a history of odd behavior and “stood out as a near-

silent loner who wrote gruesome poems, stories and plays. He sometimes referred to himself as ‘Question Mark’"(

bio.com) and in the case of Harris and Klebold , “they saved money from after-school jobs, took Advanced Placement

classes, assembled a small arsenal and fooled everyone — friends, parents, teachers, psychologists, cops and judges”

(Toppo, par. 10). It also does not seem to matter that people with serious mental illness are “involved in only about

4 percent of violent crimes and are 11 or more times as likely than the general population to be the victims of violent

crime” (Goode and Healy, par 3).

         But while the political axes of our politicians on the surface appear to be ground in favor of the “public good”, few

of them are; they are ground at the wheel of self-serving extremism and political expediency. Every statistic, every

tragedy is manipulated for maximum effect and political gain. As Jack Hunter stated very eloquently in his article in the

Charleston City Paper, “It is during times of national tragedy that we must guard our liberties most, precisely because

public fear has always been the perfect cover for politicians looking to advance their own agendas through increased

government power” (par. 5). And those politicians are hard at work doing just that.

         In an article from the New York Post by John Lott, Senator Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying “’48 percent of

gun sales are made without a background check’ and that background checks have ‘blocked 1.7 million prohibited

individuals from buying a gun.’ Both stats are just false” (par.5). This figure is a bigger exaggeration of the false

number of 40 percent that the president and others on that side of the issue use. In fact, that figure “comes from a 1994

telephone survey (of only 251 interviews) conducted by the sociologist Philip Cook” (Weisser, par.2). The

Department of Justice then came up with 40 percent based on their interpretation of those interviews. Not only is this

figure 20 years old, it was never accurate to begin with, and this number is used constantly.

         Exaggerated claims and outright lies on both sides of the issue make the task of understanding gun violence and

how to prevent it even harder. Take, for instance, the recent debate on the now defunct gun control bill that took place

just after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre stated of president Obama, “He wants to put

every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in

a massive federal registry” (Kiely, par. 2). However, according to FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer

advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics, the reality was much

different, “It’s simply not accurate to suggest that Obama’s plan for universal background checks would result in

a “massive federal registry” — which is currently barred by law” (par. 3). The bill in question would have made it even

harder for the government to create a national gun registry and includes up to a 15 year prison sentence for any

government official who makes the attempt.

         Even the debate about the second amendment itself is fodder for biased interpretation, despite the very

convincing arguments on both sides. “In its 2002 decision Silveira v. Lockyer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court

with a historically liberal leaning reputation, provided a very detailed, extensive, and well researched examination of the

record surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment. This truly fascinating argument could easily sway one that

the intent and spirit of the passage refers to collective rather than an individual right. However, In June of 2008 in The

District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the individual rights rationale, with Justice Scalia, a

conservative leaning Justice, also providing a fascinating detailed, extensive, well-researched, and convincing

argument. Currently the individual rights mandate is the law of the land, but it might not necessarily stay that way.

Eventually the make up of the court will change, and that interpretation could possibly be overturned.

         Granted, no one who is serious about the issue wants to see the government strip anyone of their individual

rights and take their personal property, or even force “parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one —

standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas

gift” (Kiely, par. 2). The use of scare tactics and exaggerated claims makes fools of us all and serve only to cloud an

already cloudy issue. Despite the dubious statistics, lies, exaggerations, and misrepresentations on both sides of the

debate, the fact of the matter is that gun control has been around for a long time. Surprisingly, according to Adam

Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the most well-known advocacy group for the

right to keep and bear arms, has “a history of supporting gun control legislation such as the National Firearms act of

1934 and The Gun Control Act of 1968” (pars. 7, 10).

         It is, of course, inconceivable that anyone in their right mind would want to let anyone just walk into a gun shop

and purchase a gun; however, claims like “48 percent of gun sales are made without a background check” (qtd. in Lott

par. 5), or “Congress has not yet closed the ‘gun show loophole’. Sales at gun shows are completely unregulated in

most states and most purchases require no background checks” (Benjamin 74) are not even remotely accurate,

especially when based on faulty data. They do not even reflect the reality of current gun laws as they stand.

         In 1994 the Brady Bill, ironically sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer, was passed and which, for the most,

part addresses nearly every concern politicians on Capitol Hill are constantly complaining about. In fact, according to

Emily Miller of the Washington Times in her 4 part series dispelling gun myths, “The ‘gun-show loophole’ is an

exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice

Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show” (par. 9

) and, “The vast majority of vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of

sale” (par. 10). Not only does the Brady Bill provide the requirement for background checks via the FBI’s National

Instant Criminal Background Check System, but it also prohibits people from owning a firearm who have been:

         Adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; convicted in any court of a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of or addicted to

any controlled substance; has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; is subject to a

court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate

partner, or; has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act, section 922g).

         It makes one wonder, just what is everyone arguing about? “Crazy” people are not legally allowed to own guns,

felons are not legally allowed to own guns, and no one can just walk into a gun store or go to a gun show and purchase

a gun without a background check You cannot even have been dishonorably discharged from the armed services. It has

been federal law for almost twenty years. Instead of honest, rational, reasoned discussion that addresses the actual

causes of gun violence like say, poverty, or unemployment, or intolerance, or injustice, politicians take advantage of the

crisis of the hour and attempt to divert our attention away from real issues. They all seem to become ersatz Blazing

Saddles Governor William J. LePetomaine banging on his desk exclaiming, “We gotta protect our phony baloney jobs

gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Were it

not so true it would be funny.

         Einstein is reported to have said,” Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different

results.” It is unlikely more laws, regulations, and government tinkering will do anything but allow the situation to

continue as it is or get worse. How are more debate, hand wringing, distortions and lies going to help anyone solve what

is obviously a very serious problem—violence in America? As can clearly be seen there are already laws in place; and

yet in the long run those laws did not stop Klebold and Harris, they did not stop Adam Lanza, they did not stop James

Holmes, or any of the other “poster boys”. The extremists on both sides in Congress seem to be just as insane, if not

more so. The fault, unfortunately, rests with us. We have put ourselves in this position. We elected those

malfeasant, self-serving political hacks that run rampant through our government. We have allowed them to lie and

put their own self-interests before ours.

         Government has become a side-show carnival attraction where career politicians perform acts of trickery and

deceit. Too many treat politics like it is a spectator sport where one side or the other scores points at the expense of the

welfare of the nation. Perhaps if more people paid attention, got engaged, and thought about what was really going on,

the next time a tragedy occurs it will not be so easily manipulated. Instead of allowing them to stand grim-faced next to

the families of the victims and cry pseudo tears of sorrow we will hold them accountable for their shameless attempts at

grandstanding for the sake of political capital. It is no accident the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and

nearly every amendment to the Bill of Rights has one phrase ubiquitously placed throughout—‘the people’. And it will

only be when enough of the people get fed up and take positive action themselves that there will be any chance of real

hope and change.

Works Cited

Benjamin, Mark. “Terrorists Procure Guns in America.” Gun Violence: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Margaret Haerens.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. 67-75. Print.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Public Law 103-159. H.R. 1025 - 103rd Congress Library of Congress, 5 Jan.
1993. Web. 23 July 2013.

Goode, Erica and Jack Healy. “Focus on Mental Health Laws to Curb Violence Is Unfair, Some Say.” New York Times 1 Feb. 2013: A13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 30 June 2013.

Hunter, Jack. "From Gun Control to the Patriot Act, Conservatives and Liberals Can Never Be Too Extreme in Defending Our Rights." Charleston City Paper. Charleston City Paper, 23 Jan. 2013. Web. 23 July 2013.

Kiely, Eugene. "NRA Misfires on Federal Gun Registry." FactCheckorg. FactCheck.org, 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 23 July 2013.

Lott, John. "The Truth on Background Checks." New York Post. New York Post, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 20 July 2013.
"Seung-Hui Cho Biography." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 22 July 2013.
Toppo, Greg. "10 Years Later, the Real Story behind Columbine." USA Today. USA Today, 13 Apr. 2009. Web. 22 July 2013.

Weisser, Mike. "Where Do the Numbers Come From in the Gun Control Debate?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 July 2013. Web. 23 July 2013.

Winkler, Adam. "When the NRA Promoted Gun Control." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 June 2013.