Unit 3: Gun Control Complete

Trey Nicholas
Dr. Gill-Mayberry
ENG 2105
27 October 2020
Trey Nicholas: Best Rewrite (Grade this version only)
“The best writing is rewriting:” Best Rewrite 14 Draft(s); 10 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert, WC Tyler Walker, WC Maria Acero); 2 Teacher conference(s)

(Provocative Title) Restrictive Gun Laws: A Futile Approach to Gun Violence

(Hook) Provoked by gun control in United States (US) society, Lance Stell, associate of Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics and author of “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?”, argues, “[s]trict gun control institutionalizes the natural predatory advantages of larger, stronger, violence-prone persons or gangs of such persons” (45). (Bridge) Stell suggests enforcing new legislation to combat the tragic shootings will be futile in promoting the security of US society. (Divided Stasis/Thesis Sentence) (Opponent’s Claim Informed by Three Scholarly Sources) Although proponents of gun control claim gun violence will be curbed by stricter gun regulations, (Rhetor’s Main Claim Informed by Nine Scholarly Sources) strict gun control measures will inadvertently provoke an unsafe environment for all US citizens because (Reason/Support 1) increasing gun scarcity does not affect homicide and suicide rates, (Reason/Support 2) restricting the Second Amendment will not affect criminal-use of firearms, and (Reason/Support 3) incorporating restrictive gun laws do not consider the well-being of mentally ill US citizens.

(Narration) On May 4, 1992, the Los Angeles riots precipitated the debate on whether the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, should be restricted in US society. This six-day riot, consisting of “malice and a wish to loot,” alarms Jeremy Putley, author of “The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution,” who blames the violence on the Second Amendment (71). Today, many American legislators target the Second Amendment since the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 even though “[they] have regularly introduced bills on firearms in successive sessions of the US Congress and also in state legislators'' (Singh 290). Opponents of gun control believe implementing constitutional revisions is needless in reducing gun violence in US society. Opponents also believe improving institutional reforms is the proper response to the anarchy present in US society. As Stell contends, “[a]n ethically legitimate state must recognize and respect equally the fundamental, individual right to bodily integrity, which includes a fundamental, serious right to self-defense” (44). Contrastively, proponents of gun control believe advocating for tighter restrictions on the Second Amendment will generate greater security in US society. What critical proponents do not understand is restricting the Second Amendment will endanger US citizens.

(Confirmation) With many US citizens having to protect themselves from the violence caused by the Los Angeles riots in 1992, strict gun regulations will deprive citizens of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness against the unending violence. According to Singh’s provocative essay, “Gun Control in America,” firearm regulation “...is not about firearms as such, but about freedom from, and against, the state” (1). We need to reject firearm regulation and embrace the God given rights we have as Americans to be safe. Just as Stell understood the dangers of violent-prone Americans, the path to a safer US society needs to be one with legal access to firearms to stem the tide of violence.

(Concession/Refutation) It is, indeed, true that many US Citizens claim they want stricter gun control to prevent gun violence in US society. (Scholarly Source 1) A proponent of gun control, Michael V. McQuiller, editor-in-chief of Volume 52 of the University of San Francisco Law Review, demands, “expanded background checks for firearm purchases and mandated active shooter emergency planning, as well as additional funding for armed school resource officers who can rapidly respond to an on-campus shooter” (4). McQuiller asserts US Congress needs to implement tighter restrictions to prevent mass shootings such as Sandy Hook Elementary School. (Scholarly Source 2) Another proponent of gun control, Jacob Smith, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, argues, “[t]his disagreement over [gun control and mental illness] makes it difficult to enact legislation at the federal level to address gun violence, even though the disparity in gun deaths by state might suggest that implementing the same policies across the country would help those states that suffer disproportionately from gun violence” (1). Smith articulates rather than focusing specifically on gun control, US society needs to consider gun control and mental health services to combat the high gun fatalities. (Scholarly Source 3) More proponents of gun control, Michael Luca and colleagues, associates of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, argue, “[w]aiting periods, which create a ‘cooling off’ period among buyers, significantly reduce the incidence of gun violence” (1). Luca and colleagues assert delaying gun purchases will prevent the opportunity for US citizens to conduct an impulsive, gun-violent act. (Conclusion) In sum, proponents suggest enforcing stricter gun legislation will effectively combat firearm violence in US society. (Refutation: Rhetor’s Main Claim and Support 1) But, incorporating any form of gun regulations will destabilize the US society’s safety because stricter gun control will not affect homicide and suicide rates. (Toulmin Warrant) Stripping guns from US society will grant more power to the criminal and less power to the victim. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 1) As aforementioned, staunch opponent of gun control, Lance Stell, associate of Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, advocates for less gun regulations. In “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?”, Stell contends, “[c]ountries known for having very restrictive gun policies and for having much lower gun prevalence than the United States (for examples, Hungary, Denmark, Austria, Norway, and France) nevertheless have persistently higher suicide rates, notwithstanding that a comparatively low percentage are committed with guns” (39). Stell demonstrates the futility of restrictive gun policies by revealing unwavering statistics on suicide rates across the globe who promote gun scarcity. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 1) Another opponent of gun control, Stephen P. Halbrook, attorney at law, responds to New York’s SAFE Act, essentially claiming the SAFE Act’s predecessor in 1994 failed at “defining and restricting ‘semiautomatic assault weapons’” as “neither the federal law nor its expiration had any effect on the homicide rate, which had been falling since almost two years before the enactment of the law in September 1994 and has continued to remain low since the law expired in 2004” (790). Halbrook asserts restricting semi-automatic assault weapons will not decrease homicide rates; rather, greater gun restrictions offer US citizens less protection to defend themselves against perpetrators in US society. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 1) Another opponent of gun control, Barry Latzer, Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice and author of “The Futility of Gun Control as Crime Control,” claims, “[e]stimates for incidents of the defensive use of guns in most national surveys range from 500,000 to more than 3 million annually, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms (2008)” (289). Latzer asserts the majority of US citizens use firearms to defend themselves than for immoral use; therefore, homicide rates will expect to increase if law-abiding citizens have no legal access to firearms. (Conclusion) Simply, stricter gun control is not a legitimate approach to reduce homicide and suicide rates in US society.

(Refutation: Reason/Support 2) Restricting the Second Amendment will not affect criminal-use of firearms; instead, law-abiding US citizens will become more vulnerable to firearm attacks. (Toulmin Warrant) Denying US society’s constitutional right to bear arms will catalyze the society’s regression into a hierarchy dominated by criminals. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 2) As aforementioned, gun control opponent, Stephen P. Halbrook, attorney at law and author of “The Right to Bear Arms: For Me, but Not for Thee?”, contends, “[t]he words of the Second Amendment alone seem to be conclusive about that—a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms. These are two distinct rights: keeping arms would obviously include keeping them at home. ‘Bear’ means nothing if it means you can only carry arms in your home. It has to mean something more than that” (331). Halbrook asserts firearms must be supported outside the home for self-defense, hunting, and militia activities in US society. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 2) Another gun control opponent, Renée Lerner, research professor of law at George Washington University Law School and author of “The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People,” argues, “[o]f all the rights in the US Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms most reflects the spirit of a free people. It is the spirit of resisting oppression. That oppression can come in different forms: oppression by the government, and oppression by private thugs” (319). Lerner asserts the Second Amendment grants US citizens justified measures to strike back at violators to preserve the spirit of freedom in US society. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 2) As aforementioned, gun control opponent, Robert Singh, associate of the Department of Politics at Birkbeck, clarifies the misconception of the Second Amendment claiming, “the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organised state militia; it does not guarantee… an unrestricted individual entitlement to private ownership of guns” (291). Rather than receiving, legal gun owners earn entitlement to privately own firearms for protection in US society because the legal process of owning a gun requires extensive background checks to verify a US citizen’s morality. (Conclusion) Clearly, restricting the Second Amendment will strip US citizens from the legal means to defend themselves.

(Refutation: Reason/Support 3) Incorporating restrictive gun regulations fail to consider those who are susceptible to conducting firearm violence in US society: the mentally ill. (Toulmin Warrant) Disregarding mentally ill US citizens paint a negative stereotype for the mentally ill when they simply need treatment to achieve stability. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 3) Gun restricting opponents, Carolyn Wolf and Jamie Rosen, associates of Abrams Fensterman and authors of “Missing the Mark: Gun Control Is Not the Cure for What Ails the US Mental Health System,” argue, “[r]ecent gun control legislation aimed at removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill in order to reduce violence is misguided. In fact, this only contributes to the mistaken belief that there is a direct link between mental illness and violence” (851). Rather than futile gun control measures, establishing community programs and increasing awareness of mental health issues in US society allow for early detection and intervention for mentally ill US citizens. Furthermore, the social stigma associated with the mentally ill in US society needs to be reassessed to understand and help the mentally ill who are susceptible to gun violence. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 3) Another gun restricting opponent, Jeffrey Taxman, associate of International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies and author of “Gun Violence in America – A Tri‐Vector Model,” claims, “[a] good, stable, attachment to a primary caregiver not only attenuates internal anxiety but also allows for the appropriate [development]... of both empathy and correct discernment of reasoning and intent in self and others” (1). Having a stable attachment to their caregiver, US citizens can effectively develop cognitively, socially, and culturally to avoid regressing into a primitive state where they will cause destruction via gun violence in US society. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 3) Another gun restricting opponent, James Lindgren, associate of Northwestern University School of Law and author of “Forward: The Past and Future of Guns,” argues, “[t]here is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms” (710). Lindgren asserts the measures currently in place to deter young US citizens from gun violence is minimal; rather, counseling services must be amended to help US citizens understand the impact gun violence has on US society so citizens will become ethical, law-abiding individuals. (Conclusion) Ultimately, focusing more on the mentally ill US citizens is a greater alternative to reducing gun violence in US society rather than constructing gun regulations.

(Summation: Argue that your stance on the issue is best for US society) Retaining the right to bear arms is best for US society because firearms will prevent mass shootings, robberies, and intrusions in US society, thereby promoting safety for US citizens during events such as the Los Angeles riots in 1992. During the riots, small business owners were able to protect themselves and their integrity against looters because the Second Amendment authorizes the US right to bear arms. Withdrawing the legal access to firearms during the riots would have resulted in law-abiding, small business owners being exploited devastatingly by looters because they would have no effective means to protect and preserve their foundation. We now see the right to bear arms must be cherished and respected to embrace our freedom from not only the state, but from nefarious US citizens as well. America’s Founding Fathers manifested the right to bear arms deliberately to preserve freedom. We cannot regress and diminish the strength of US society by unauthorizing US citizens from legally possessing firearms. Instead, we must progress and learn to respect the power of firearms.

Works Cited

Halbrook, Stephen P. “New York's Not so ‘SAFE’ Act: The Second Amendment in an

Alice-In-Wonderland World Where Words Have No Meaning.” EBSCOhost, Albany Law Review, 1 Apr. 2015,

https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=401e6a83-1f36-4a5e-a533-bad5a471761f%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.

Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right to Bear Arms: For Me, but Not for Thee?” EBSCOhost,

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1 Apr. 2020, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=14&sid=401e6a83-1f36-

4a5e-a533-bad5a471761f%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.

Latzer, Barry. “The Futility of Gun Control as Crime Control.” EBSCOhost, Academic

Questions, 1 June 2019, https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=625f9f4c-23e1-47f0-a0fc-

37130fb04aef%40pdc-v-sessmgr02.

Lerner, Renée. “The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People.” EBSCOhost, Harvard

Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1 Apr. 2020, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=15fa9bb0-e470-481b-

8b77-b4707c8d060a%40sdc-v-sessmgr03.

Lindgren, James. “Forward: The Past and Future of Guns.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Criminal

Law & Criminology, 1 Oct. 2015, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=5024350f-2a7a-485d-865d-

0e3268a0a60a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.

Luca, Michael et al. “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths.” Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, CPP Library, Oct. 2017, https://www-pnas-org.proxy.library.cpp.edu/content/114/46/12162.

McQuiller, Michael V. “Enough is Enough: Congressional Solutions to Curb Gun Violence in

America’s K-12 Schools.” DePaul Journal for Social Justice, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, 2019, pp. 1-21. https://via.library.depaul.edu/jsj/vol12/iss1/2/.

Putley, Jeremy. “The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution.” EBSCOhost, Political

Quarterly, 1 Jan. 1997, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=15fa9bb0-e470-481b-8b77-

b4707c8d060a%40sdc-v-sessmgr03.

Singh, Robert. “Gun Control in America.” EBSCOhost, Political Quarterly, July 1998,

https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&sid=012d04e2-bc28-4633-b564-9361bae09a04@pdc-v-sessmgr02.

Smith, Jacob. “Explaining Gun Deaths: Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Policymaking in the

American States.” Wiley Online Library, PSJ , Feb. 2020, https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/doi/full/10.1111/psj.12242.

Stell, Lance. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the

Solution.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Mar. 2004, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=5&sid=0cf752b5-9b25-4a25-bb24-ae71897a5b51@sessionmgr4006.

Taxman, Jeffrey. “Gun Violence in America – A Tri‐Vector Model.” Wiley Online Library,

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, June 2016, https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/doi/full/10.1002/aps.1490.

Wolf, Carolyn, and Jamie A. Rosen. “Missing the Mark: Gun Control Is Not the Cure for What

Ails the U.S. Mental Health System.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1 Oct. 2015,

https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=5024350f-2a7a-485d-865d-0e3268a0a60a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.

Editing Log:

Assignment: Aristotelian Classical Argumentative on the Topic Gun Violence in America

Principle: The headliner is still wordy. You can reduce it like “by gun control in America” (Wordy).

Original: “Provoked by the effect gun control has on America…”

Revision: “Provoked by gun control in America…”

Principle: Narration sentence 1, was the essay in response to some event? You want an event to establish the context. For example, was the date related to a dramatic mass shooting which made the person have an essay. You introduce the part then the next sentence you clarify the circumstance surrounding it.

Original: “On July 1, 1998, Robert Singh, member of the Department of Politics at Birkbeck, countered Jeremy Putley’s, ‘The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution’ in his provocative essay, ‘Gun Control in America.’”

Revision: “On July 1, 1998, Robert Singh, member of the Department of Politics at Birkbeck, countered Jeremy Putley’s, ‘The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution’ in his provocative essay, ‘Gun Control in America’ to respond to the increased level of violent crime within the decade and attempted/completed assassinations of presidents in America.”

Principle: The sentence does not clarify the context to the event. Was there a large controversy which brought the subject into the spotlight (ref)?

Original: “In Singh’s response, it is transparent to him “that Putley’s attack on the Second Amendment is misleading” (290).

Revision: “Although Putley blames these violent acts on the Second Amendment, Singh’s resolution to the increased level of violent crime called for Americans to ‘increase modest institutional reforms and public education’ (289).”

Principle: If you do not mention the name of the expert you have to put the name in the citation along with the page number (P).

Original: “...since the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (290).”

Revision: “since the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Singh 290).”

Principle: You can condense your point by not needing to have this part (wordy).

Original: “...as we deserve the right to protect ourselves from criminals and the state.”

Revision: “...as we deserve the right to protect ourselves.”

Principle: You would use “Supports of gun control believe…” The reason for this is because the narration is supposed to format the situation in the context of your topic.

Original: “The critics of Singh’s stance believe in…”

Revision: “The supporters of gun control believe in…”

Principle: You want to be specific saying “Critics of gun control believe…” Would be the format if you are con gun control.

Original: “The supporters of Singh’s stance believe…”

Revision: “Critics of gun control believe…”

Principle: You can introduce to avoid using a vague pronoun “this” by using “Today many citizens target…” (wordy).

Original: “This view remains present today with many targeting…”

Revision: “Today, many citizens target…”

Principle: Narration Sentence 3 includes ambiguous formatting when citing in MLA (awk).

Original: “Today, many American legislators target the Second Amendment even though ‘[they] have regularly introduced bills on firearms in successive sessions of the US Congress and also in state legislators’ since the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Singh 290).”

Revision: “Today, many American legislators target the Second Amendment since the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 even though ‘[they] have regularly introduced bills on firearms in successive sessions of the US Congress and also in state legislators’ (Singh 290).”

Principle: Narration Sentence 3 has disrupted coherence with citizens to state legislators (coh).

Original: “Today, many citizens…”

Revision: “Today, many American legislators…”

Principle: Last Sentence Narration, remove “as we deserve the right to protect ourselves” (Wordy).

Original: “What critics do not understand is that cancelling the Second Amendment and tightening restrictions will increase the fragility of Americans as we deserve the right to protect ourselves.”

Revision: “What supporters do not understand is restricting the Second Amendment will endanger Americans.”

Principle: First and Second sentences are not strong enough to promote the case and context of the event (Dev).

Original: “On July 1, 1998, Robert Singh, member of the Department of Politics at Birkbeck, countered Jeremy Putley’s, ‘The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution’ in Singh’s provocative essay, ‘Gun Control in America,’ to respond to the increasing level of violent crime in the 1990s. Although Putley blames these violent acts on the Second Amendment, Singh’s resolution to the increased level of violent crime calls for Americans to “increase modest institutional reforms and public education” (289).

Revision: “On May 4, 1992, the debate on whether the Second Amendment should be restricted precipitated from the Los Angeles Riots of 1992. This six-day riot consisting of ‘malice and a wish to loot’ (Putley 71) alarms Jeremy Putley, author of ‘The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution,’ blaming the violence on the Second Amendment, but Robert Singh, member of the Department of Politics at Birkbeck and author of ‘Gun Violence in America,’ claims, ‘increased modest institutional reforms and public education’ (289) is the proper response to the anarchy present in America.

Principle: Sentence one is repetitive and wordy (Wordy).

Original: “On May 4, 1992, the debate on whether the Second Amendment should be restricted precipitated from the Los Angeles Riots of 1992.”

Revision: “On May 4, 1992, The Los Angeles Riots precipitated the debate on whether the Second Amendment should be restricted in America.”

Principle: Sentence two is missing commas for apositive (P)

Original: “This six-day riot consisting of “malice and a wish to loot” (Putley 71) alarms Jeremy Putley…”

Revision: “This six-day riot, consisting of “malice and a wish to loot” (Putley 71), alarms Jeremy Putley…”

Principle: Sentence two is consists of faulty agreement between verb and noun (agr)

Original: “...blaming the violence on the Second Amendment…”

Revision: “...who blames the violence on the Second Amendment…”

Principle: Concession/Refutation: Scholarly Source 2 for refutation does not specify “victims” (dev)

Original: “...rather, with more gun restrictions, victims will have less to defend themselves against perpetrators.”

Revision: “...rather, greater gun restrictions offer victims less to defend themselves against perpetrators in U.S. society.”

Principle: Refutation: Support 2 Sentence 8 is awkward and long. Make it concise (awk).

Original: “The legal process of owning a gun already requires extensive background checks to verify an American citizen’s morality, so, rather than guaranteeing, legal gun owners earn the entitlement to private ownership of firearms to protect themselves.”

Revision: “Rather than receiving, legal gun owners earn entitlement to privately own firearms for protection in U.S. society because the legal process of owning a gun requires extensive background checks to verify an American citizen’s morality.”

Principle: Summation Sentence 3 question is not effective means to deliver your point. Be more explicit and clear (ref).

Original: “Would you rather witness law-abiding, small business owners protect and preserve their foundation with firearms, or would you rather witness law-abiding, small business owners exploited devastatingly by criminals because they have no effective means to defend their property?”

Revision: “Withdrawing the legal access to firearms during the riots would have resulted in law-abiding, small business owners being exploited devastatingly by looters because they would have no effective means to protect and preserve their foundation.”

Principle: The entire Refutation/Concession must include transitional phrases before addressing each opponent/proponent (coh).

Original: ‘Renée Lerner, research professor of law at George Washington University Law School and author of ‘The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People,’ argues,...”

Revision: “Another gun control opponent, Renée Lerner, research professor of law at George Washington University Law School and author of ‘The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People,’ argues,...”

Principle: Conclusions for all Refutation should change the transition, “Given the analyzed research...” (W)

Original: “Given the analyzed research, restricting the Second Amendment will strip US citizens from the legal means to defend themselves.”

Revision: “Clearly, restricting the Second Amendment will strip US citizens from the legal means to defend themselves.”

Trey Nicholas

Dr. Gill-Mayberry

ENG 2105

15 September 2020

“The best writing is rewriting:” Best Rewrite 3 Draft(s); 2 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert; WC Tyler Walker); 1 Teacher conference(s)

Prewriting:

Step 1: Who is my audience?

My audience is those who believe gun control should be stricter, or are unsure what to believe about gun control. Those who share my perspective that gun control should be left untouched can also be my audience, but this paper is not designed to reinforce confirmation biases; rather it is designed to reinforce formerly held beliefs.

Step 2: What is my purpose?

My purpose is to convince those who think differently that I am correct in believing gun control should remain less strict.

Step 3: What is my premise?

My premise is gun control should remain less strict for several reasons, including the effects of gun scarcity, the Second Amendment, and increased citizen vulnerability. First, gun scarcity does not promote lower homicide/suicide rates. Second, the Second Amendment of The Constitution of the United States protects individual gun ownership to preserve the security of a free state. Third, citizens will become more vulnerable and susceptible to harm from gun-related attacks.

Step 4: What is my chosen quotation?

My quotation is, “[s]trict gun control institutionalizes the natural predatory advantages of larger, stronger, violence-prone persons or gangs of such persons” (45).