Research Proposal: Shooting From The Hip

"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

These words were written by Thomas Jefferson in the defense of the Shays' Rebellion in a letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787). He also wrote about the right to bear arms - that it is necessary for the citizens to protect themselves from the "tyranny of government". While a range of views may be found among proponents of gun rights, most believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns for individual self defense, hunting, and target shooting. Gun rights supporters argue that the phrase "the people" applies to all individuals rather than an organized collective, and point out that the phrase "the people" means the same individuals that are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. They also cite the fact that the Second Amendment resides in the Bill of Rights and argue that the Bill of Rights defines individual rights of the citizenry. Many proponents of gun rights also read the Second Amendment to state that because of the need of a formal military, the people have a right to "keep and bear arms" as a protection from the government. The cultural basis for gun ownership traces to the American Revolution, where colonists owned and used muskets in their quest to gain independence from British rule.

John R. Lott Jr. holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA, and his research interests include econometrics, law and economics, public choice theory, industrial organization, public finance, microeconomics, and environmental regulation. He has published over 90 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals related to his research areas, and has authored five books, including More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, and Freedomnomics. He is most well-known for his participation in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments for allowing Americans to freely own and carry guns.Dr. Lott has done extensive research into the differences involving citizens owning weapons versus not. He also takes into consideration the placement, or lack thereof, of the comma in the Second Amendment. A lot of focus has been made of this – and used extensively by members of each side of the gun control debate. The original hand-written document does indeed have the comma, and therefore should be considered to be the correct document. The problem arises when the text is interpreted by individuals. In this lies the basis for the gun control debate.

The debate on gun control versus gun rights has been waged for decades. There seems to be only two sides – either you are for gun control or you are against it. Each side is quite vocal in their support of their particular viewpoint. Protests and marches are held in order to garner support for each side’s stance on the issue. The propaganda used by both parties of the gun control debate has resulted in two warring factions. Instead of coming to some sort of compromise on the issue, the advocates of stricter laws in relation to private citizens owning guns have taken a knee-jerk reaction to any major event involving guns and violence.

Those concerned about high levels of gun violence in the United States look to restrictions on gun ownership as a way to stem the violence. Those supportive of long-standing rights to keep and bear arms point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which some interpret as specifically preventing infringement of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", independent of serving in a militia, as the means by which to stem the violence. The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads: “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 copies distributed to the States, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation: “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.”

Within the gun politics debate, gun control advocates and gun rights advocates disagree on more practical questions as well. There is an ongoing debate over the role that guns play in crime. Gun-rights groups say that a well-armed citizenry prevents crime and that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would increase the crime rate by making law-abiding citizens vulnerable to those who choose to disregard the law, while gun control organizations say that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide, and other negative outcomes.

Why is it that there cannot be some way to come to an understanding and agreement – a middle ground – on this issue? The desire for increased gun control does not solve the current issue. A national approach would be a better solution – a set of laws and regulations that can be implemented by all States, which would provide a more uniform policy. Is the true agenda of the gun control advocated to focus on realistic changes, or merely to inflame the public?

Over the course of this class I intent to further research my selected topic in order to determine whether or not there is any sort of “middle ground” on the gun control debate. My primary source shall be the Auraria Library on campus. I have listed in my bibliography the works that I will be using to determine whether or not there is an answer to my question. The rough draft for peer review of my Research Proposal is due June 18th, while the official version of this is due to be posted on my blog on June 20th, and is worth 15 points. The next step will be to organize my Research Log, which is due July 25th (worth 20 points) in order to refine my research that I have done in reading the sources cited, and to formulate my Annotated Bibliography. The Annotated Bibliography is due to be posted on my blog on July 11th, and is worth 15 points. The final step is to synthesize my research and draft my Final Paper – perhaps for peer review in class. However, the Final Paper is to be posted on my blog by August 3rd, and will be worth 40 points.

*************************************************************************************

Works To Be Reviewed and/or Cited

Bijefeld, Marjolijn. People For And Against Gun Control. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1999

Crooker, Constance Emerson. Gun Control And Gun Rights. Westport, Conn: Greenwood; Oxford: Harcourt Education, 2003

Hook, Donald D. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Bellevue, WA: Distributed by Merril Press, c1992

Lott, John. More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998

Internet: Google, CNN, NRA, OpenSecrets.org

…as well as others to be determined…