about gun control

Gun Regulation: A Contentious Issue

Gun regulation has been one of the most contentious issues in today's world. In specific, the debate has progressed from a social to a legal and political concern (Jacobs, 2002). Rising crime rates and gun-related shootings exacerbate an increasingly contentious problem. Gun reform supporters believe that gun restrictions should be enforced due to the growing number of school shootings, although critics argue that weapons should not be controlled. Both supporters and critics have convincing arguments to justify their respective points of view. However, it is clear that as long as weapons are made and used, this controversy will continue. Therefore, concerning the quality of modern life, the gun control debate is an integral conversation that needs to action. In this regard, the following essay seeks to discuss and provide proof and analysis that highlight the fact that gun control policies do not reduce the rate of crime in the United States. Specifically, the paper will discuss factors that refute the notion that guns control reduces crime.

Literature Review

Gun controls do not lessen crime levels. In particular, contrary to the common notion that low gun ownership results into low crime levels, the converse is actually true. In fact, Regions with high levels of gun ownership generally have low rates of crime (McClurg, Kopel, & Denning, 2002). It is evident in the countries that have reduced and low rates of gun ownership. Countries such as United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany have stringent gun control regulations. The result is a country with the lowest gun-related incidences in the world (Lott, 2010). However, the question still lingers; do gun regulations and laws reduce the rate of crime in a country? To effectively answer this compelling question, we shall take a look at Jamaica. Jamaica is one of the countries globally that has strictest gun control laws. However, contrary to public opinion, Jamaica has one of the highest murder and crime rates in the world. Despite having Draconian gun laws in Jamaica, the crime rate is seemingly unaffected by the gun laws. Research reveals that gun control does not necessarily translate into reduced crime rates in any given country. Jamaica is a good example of a country that has stringent gun regulations, but the results on the crime and murder rates are completely different. Therefore, it is clear that gun control does not lessen crime.

Criminals and Gun Control

Criminals will always use guns regardless of the strictness of gun control. In particular, it would be inarguable to indicate that criminals do not adhere to stipulated regulations related to use of guns. Thus, it would be irrefutable to indicate that gun control laws are simply ineffective having adverse impacts on crime rates. In fact, rather than lessening gun crime, they upsurge cases of mass shooting and other gun related crimes. No matter how strict gun control will be, the fact is it will not deter criminals from possessing firearms. Regardless of whether there will be more law restricting gun usage, criminals will always find a way to possess so that they can commit the crime. Therefore, gun control will not be solution of reducing ever-prevalent mass shooting and other gun related crime in the country.

Firearms as a Cause of Deaths

The other argument indicating opposing gun control is the fact that firearms are not the leading cause of deaths. The proponents of gun control laws argue that firearms contribute a lot to the number of deaths. However, on the contrary, this is not the case. Whereas there are certain isolated cases of domestic terrorism whereby the assailant kills a lot of people using a firearm, this contributes to less than one percent of the total number of deaths in the United States. Specifically speaking, there are roughly about seventy million privately owned firearms all across the United States. Most of these firearms are used for hunting, target practice, and property protection (Jacobs, 2002). Essentially, homicides reported in a year are mostly as a result of other forms of weapon, and less than one percent involve the misuse of firearms. Therefore, using the above statistics, it only seems fair to state that people are not shot nor killed by the other ninety-nine percent of guns. In fact, issues such as illnesses and accidents attributed to the high rate of deaths. Gun ownership is a basic security contingency.

More Gun Ownership for Citizenry Safety

More gun ownership ultimately results in more citizenry safety. However, this is only achievable in situations whereby there is a responsible and effective framework for acquiring firearms. Whereas the gun control and regulations proponents are calling for increased laws to curtail gun ownership, the main issue lies on whether this regulation will impact the criminals (Lott, 2010). Gun control laws do not deter the criminals from acquiring their firearms. There is an extensive black market that entirely deals with unlicensed firearms. Notably, this black market is so extensive that it goes beyond the United States borders. Therefore, the criminals can acquire more developed and sophisticated weapons without the gun laws restricting them. These gun laws only affect the common citizens as they will be forced to comply with them and thus leaving them defenseless against these criminals who have access to developed forearms (Webster & Vernick, 2013). Currently, there are many gun laws in place that are meant to control the rate of gun ownership in the country. For example, for one to acquire a firearm, he or she has to undergo a rigorous framework that is meant to ensure that this particular individual is capable of handling a firearm. This framework includes having background checks on the individual. However, many criminals do not qualify and thus denied access to firearms. Nonetheless, they can still acquire firearms easily than the common citizen due to this extensive black market. Thus, having gun laws that discourage citizens from owning a gun will expose them to risk of attack and invasion from the criminals. It works further to prove that gun laws do not prevent or reduce the crime rates in any given area.

The Legality of the Debate

The legality of the whole debate entitles the citizens to the right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment to the constitution of the United States entitles the citizens to the right to bear arms. Therefore, when the proponents of gun control laws state that the United Kingdom has a higher success rate of controlling violent crime due to the strict gun laws, they forget that the United States people are very different from the UK citizens. The United States citizens are stubborn when it comes to gun laws as they believe that it is well within their constitutional rights to keep and bear firearms. The United States is a Free State, and guns at the hands of the public only work to ensure the success of this notion. Therefore, comparing the success of gun control policy in the UK with the one in the US seems wrong due to the different cultures and legal issues from both countries.

Recent Research and Statistical Proof

Recent research provides statistical proof that high level of gun ownership does not necessarily result into increased crime rates and gun-related incidences (Webster & Vernick, 2013). A city-level cross-sectional analysis was conducted on data that included every United States city having a population of over 25,000 (Webster & Vernick, 2013). The research aimed at the assessment of the nineteen major gun laws as well as gun ownership control levels. The models focused on addressing the gun ownership levels and the casualty levels. Webster & Vernick (2013) indicates that gun control laws do not essentially mean that they affect the crime rates. Evidence showed that gun levels have no net positive effects on the rate of crime in these areas. However, it highlighted that minority of these laws did seem to make an effect on the violent crime rates (Kleck, Kovandzic, & Bellows, 2016). Laws such as requiring licenses to own and possess a firearm, banning alcoholics, previous criminals, and the mentally impaired from purchasing a firearm showed a significant rate of reducing robberies and homicides. The research revealed that these minor policies do not have much effect on the reduced rates of crime and the correlation between strict gun control policies and regulations. There is a visible and evident correlation between the level of gun ownership and the rate of homicides and mass shootings in the United States (Webster & Vernick, 2013). Research conducted in Boston University School of Public Health that reached the following conclusion; one percent increment in gun ownership approximately correlated with 0.9 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate (Ackerman, 2012). In another series of comparisons between property crime in New York and property crime in London, it revealed that the access to firearms and the willingness to use it in a robbery makes crime in New York fifty-four times riskier than in London (Briss, et al., 2003). Since it is true that gun control reduces crime, the implementation and success depend entirely on the people. Taking an illustration from the United Kingdom, gun ownership was banned, and the rate of gun violence significantly dropped. Whereas this fact does not seem to apply to all countries having strict gun laws, it certainly has positive results in some. Countries such as Canada, United Kingdom, Korea, have tightly controlled firearm ownership. These countries also have decreased gun-related incidents.

Public Morality and Decreasing Crime Rates

Public morality is increasing as people are more responsible and humanity is gradually restored. Whereas the politicians have made gun laws a topic for pushing their political agendas, it is public knowledge that the modern society is experiencing a sharp decline regarding morality. The politicians rarely back up their arguments with statistical data. The aftermath of this occurrence is a disenfranchised public. However, since public order and private morality is decaying, the U.S. crime data reveals opposite statistics (Kelleher, 2004). In 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that the rate of violent crime has decreased by 4.4 percent. On the same note, the rate of property crime has also decreased by 4.1 percent (Webster & Vernick, 2013). Compared to the 1990s, these figures are steadily declining for nearly twenty years. Although the homicide figures are large, they are a significant drop as compared to twenty years ago. For example, in 2014, 328 persons were murdered in New York City, an 85 percent decline when compared to the 90s (Briss, et al., 2003). In fact, the current latest homicide figures are the lowest recorded since the collection of solid data started. Therefore, contrary to the public opinions and perspective, gun access and ownership does not lead to increased crime rates.

Sociological Factors in Crime

We might even need to address the issue of violent crime on psychological issues. Researchers and psychologists might argue that crime is a complex sociological phenomenon (Jacobs, 2002). Various factors lead to crime. The most evident ones include poverty, wealth disparity between the rich and the poor in the society, availability of jobs, and the socio-economic conditions of that region. The availability and ease of access to guns come after the above factors. Therefore instead of advocating for gun control laws, the government and the proponents should instead support schemes that seek to eradicate poverty, provide quality education, job opportunities, amongst others social conditions. This way, crime will be reduced since there are various avenues to make a living instead of crime.

Alternative Steps for Curbing Gun Violence

However, instead of implementing gun control laws that will decrease the rate of gun ownership, special attention should be paid to steps that would help to curb gun violence. The stakeholders in the firearms industry that include gun owners, vendors, manufacturers, legislators, and law enforcement should implement the following steps that will help curb gun violence without interfering with the Second Amendment. The first step is microstamping. This is a case whereby each gun has its unique signature mark that is transferable to every bullet upon firing (Ackerman, 2012). Therefore, after firing, the shell casing bears the unique signature on the casing that criminals usually leave at the scene of the crime due to pressure. Another step is the magazine limitation. A magazine in this context refers to the casing in which some bullets are stored in case of firing and reloads. Therefore, limiting magazines to a number like ten would be the way to go to prevent mass shootings (Ackerman, 2012). Furthermore, every time the shooter pauses for a reload allows the victim to escape.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it admissible to indicate that gun controls laws and regulations are not entirely bad. As proof shows, gun controls do not reduce the number of deaths or crime rates in a given region. This essay has highlighted the reasons that support the argument that gun control reduces crime levels. It is important to note that the right to bear arms in embedded in the United States Constitution and therefore citizens are allowed access to firearms. Furthermore, citizenry safety is assured when gun ownership levels are high. With the statistical research and proof conducted, evidence shows that high gun ownership does not result into increased crime. In addition, the leading causes of deaths in the country include accidents and ailments. Special attention should be accorded to these factors instead of the gun control debate. Therefore, the government should spend more time educating the public on gun safety measures and reducing other sources of deaths such as accidents and fatal diseases. In addition, the government should devise ways that ensure criminals are unable to access a firearm. Furthermore, gun violence is reduced when people's responsibility on gun usage increases. Only then will the gun related incidents reduce. In addition, the government should implement policies that will encourage people to be more responsible when dealing with firearms. Actions such as microstamping, and limiting magazines will discourage the illegal use of firearms. Therefore, in summary, this essay has shown that gun control policies lead to the citizen oppression, expose citizens to criminal attacks, infringe Second Amendment Rights, and do not help in averting crime rates.

References

Ackerman, S. (2012, December 17). 5 Steps That Will Curb Gun Violence (And 5 Ways They Will Fail). Retrieved from Wired Magazine: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/gun-control/

Briss, P., Tuma, F., Snyder, S., Moscicki, E. K., Liberman, A., Fullilove, M. T., . . . Hahn, R. A. (2003). First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws. Atlanta: USA Department of Health and Human Services.

Jacobs, J. B. (2002). Can gun control work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelleher, M. J. (2004). Social problems in a free society: Myths, absurdities, and realities. Lanham, MD [u.a.: Univ. Press of America.

Kleck, G., Kovandzic, T., & Bellows, J. (2016). Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime? Criminal Justice Review.

Lott, J. R. (2010). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Webster, D. W., & Vernick, J. S. (2013). Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.