Effects of Gun Control Measures in the United States

Words: 1756
Topic: Politics & Government
Updated:

[toc title=”Contents”]

  1. Introduction
  2. Gun control reduces capacity of self-defense by innocent people
  3. Gun control increases capacity of criminals to posses Guns
  4. Gun control increases the rate of crime
  5. Conclusion
  6. Works Cited

[/toc]

Introduction

Considerable research indicates that consistent gun control measures do not prevent criminals from possessing firearms. Rather, these laws offer the criminals an advantage over the law-abiding citizens, thereby increasing crime.

LaRosa indicates that one of the effects of gun control is that the violent and harmful people acquire arms whereas the system disarms peaceful and law-abiding citizens. Laws enacted for controlling guns access by criminals end up keeping guns away from most people who could make use of the guns by defending themselves without necessarily having to injure (25).

Proponents of gun control should realize that the likelihood that a gun will cause injury or death does not depend on the general possession but on the person holding the gun. Most gun control advocates think that dealing with the children who have guns, unhinged adults and disturbed citizens would help to deter crime. However, the solution to the problem lies with efficient maintenance of the legislators in restrain illegitimate purchasing of arms (Borade, 3).

Gun control reduces capacity of self-defense by innocent people

The centralized government policies make it difficult for the common citizen in crime driven neighborhoods to purchase a gun while the criminals continue to purchase the guns unlawfully. Most people deem that if the government permits the law- abiding citizens to own guns, the crime rate can reduce.

The crime rate reduces since the citizens will be well equipped and they will be able to overcome the situations where they may come face to face with the criminals. Therefore, gun control decreases the capacity of self-defense by the innocent people (Borade, 4).

In the United States, private citizens permitted to own guns murder 2000 to 3000 criminals per year. In a year, they injure about 9,000 to 17,000 criminals. Those citizens safeguarding themselves, their family members and their properties have a higher probability of shooting a criminal than the police officers do.

This shows that if the citizens have the right to own guns, they can safeguard themselves better than the police can and this will help in reducing the crime rate. The criminals will be afraid of committing crime since the people they interact with and live with might kill them (Henderson, 3).

The criminals are more anxious in an encounter with an armed citizen than they are with a police officer. In most cases, the police seem to be polite and would hesitate to shoot them. This will not apply to the armed citizens since they have no time to talk with the criminal but they will only shoot in attempt of safeguarding himself and their family members (Offshore legal associates, 9).

This means that Gun control deprives the law-abiding citizens the opportunity for self defense. In addition, Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens protect them while when in the hands of criminals they cause trouble and insecurity.

Overall, citizens are more triumphant gun users than the police are. When a police officer fires his firearm, the probability is that he will shoot an innocent person rather than shooting the criminal. This does not apply to the side of the citizens since they will shoot the criminal without hesitation. In addition, civilians use their guns successfully against criminals.

For instance, if a burglary victim does not protect himself, the burglary will be successful 88 percent of the time and the victim will incur injury 25 percent of the time. However, if the victim has a gun, the robbery success rate reduces to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate deceases to 17 percent. In short, this means that almost all Americans who use guns do so sensibly and successfully (Kopel, 35).

In one case of 1991, Texas State spokesperson, Dr. Suzanna Gratia left a lawfully owned firearm in her car in obedience with a local safety regulation constraining carrying of a gun in certain public places. Suzanna helplessly observed the murder of her parents along with 21 others in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. This shows that it is vital for the citizens to own guns and move with them freely.

For instance, if Suzanna had access to her gun, she would have attempted to prevent the mass murder from occurring (Bach, 16). This indicates that the rate of crime would decrease if only the citizens possess guns. Additionally, in the United States the law implementation and the criminal justice system has not showed the aptitude to offer adequate security to citizens (Krouse, 11).

Private firearms ownership assures personal safety when the police are unavailable and collective firearms ownership by a population is an indemnity policy against government domination and extreme abuses of power (Bach, 25).

Since no known type of gun control can keep guns out of criminal hands, gun control laws leave the weak and defenseless at the mercy of armed criminals eager to take advantage of their predicament (Gorman, 11). Research indicates that when law-abiding citizens own guns legally, the rate of crime reduces but the rate increases when criminals own guns illegally.

Gun control increases capacity of criminals to posses Guns

While most law-abiding citizens would probably comply and take part in some kind of buy-back program as well as abstain from buying handguns via unlawful sources, the criminals and would-be criminals would not. Over time, the bad people would get acess to more guns and have an advantage over the good people. This means that gun control increases the capability of criminals to get acess to guns and the criminal rate will increase (Graham, 3).

Gun control pushes the law-abiding citizens through paperwork studs but it does not necessarily influence the criminals. There are lower chances of criminals sticking on the gun control legislation.

Criminal delinquents will get acess to weapons outside the scope of the law making the majority of legislated gun control purchasers to be law- abiding citizens. Non criminals will get acess to the proper permits, licenses and gun security training while the root cause of the problem remain unchanged (Thompson, 4).

Even if the American gunstock completely disappears, re-supply for criminals would be easy. This means that even if America stops importing guns, the crime rate will still be high since criminals will have their own ways of acquiring guns.

Additionally, if importation of small handguns were in the same physical volume as marijuana, 20 million of handguns would gain acess to the country per year. Moreover, criminals can create a zip gun from tubing, tape, pin, whittle wood, and rubber bands (Kopel, 17).

Krouse adds that it can be challenging to keep weapons away from hardcore criminals since they would eventually acquire them. Even under centralized laws and enforcement, it would still be difficult to control the criminals from accessing guns.

A stricter centralized firearm regulatory system would only generate difficulties for law-abiding citizens, bring growing irritation and growth of proscribes by gun regulators, and possibly intimidate citizens’ civil rights or security (10). This means that gun control would disarm innocent citizens while criminals continue to obtain guns illegally.

In the United States, there are between 100 and 140 million guns in the hands of people where a third of them are handguns. The ratio of people who take part in handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400 and that of handgun murders to handguns is 1:3,600.

Since the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is high, the criminal supply would continue with hardly any disruption. Even if 90 percent of American handguns vanished, there would still be 40 left for every handgun criminal. Therefore, gun control will only increase the rate at which offenders possess guns (Kopel, 16).

Gun control increases the rate of crime

The states that have enacted hidden carry measures have noticed that their crime rate has reduced and goes on at rates in most cases faster than the national average.

For instance, Florida was one of the states that practiced hidden carry measures. Before their enactment of hidden carry laws in the late 1980s, the crime rate in Florida was beyond the national average. However, following the enactment of the hidden carry law, crime rate started to decrease and still decreases even nowadays (Blanks, 4).

On the other hand, states and cities that impose strict gun control measures experience increase in rates of crime. For instance within two years, the New Jersey murder rate increased 46% and their robberies almost became dual after enacting gun control measures. In 1976, Washington DC passed a gun control law and the murder rate increased to 134%.

The law was so stringent that it prohibited people from owning guns in their homes. New York City has very restraining gun laws but armed robberies occur in the City at a higher rate (Henderson, 2). These cities have 20% of the murders in the USA yet they only occupy 6% of the USA population. This means that gun control leads to higher crime rates rather that deterring crime (Offshore legal associates, 8).

Even with gun laws and high support from gun control groups, crime rates have persistently been on the rise. The issue of persistent high crime is especially disturbing when comparing the crime rates in gun control areas to the crime rates in areas that have not gone via the gun control route.

In nearly all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control measures and highest gun ownership happens to have the lowest crime rates. On the other hand, the crime rate is much higher across the state line where gun possession is almost absent. This means that the gun control measures will only increase the nations crime rate (Blanks, 3).

Gun control is an unsuccessful tool in combating crime and is counterproductive to that end since it leaves people susceptible to criminals. Gun control measures have done nothing to prevent crime, save lives or make the streets safer. People who use aggression are not likely to feel restrained by gun-control laws (LaRosa, 23).

Conclusion

The consistent gun control measures in the United States do not prevent crime but rather they increase crime rates. This is because criminals continually have an advantage over their law-abiding counterparts since they illegally own guns.

The laws deprive the law-abiding citizens of their protection measure while the criminals extend their offensive works. Citizens who purchase guns legally are more likely to refrain from committing crime compared to those who illegally obtain guns. This means that gun control does not prevent criminals from possessing guns but rather dispossesses law-abiding citizens their only safety measure against such criminals.

Works Cited

Bach, Scott L. Guns save Lives. 2011.

Blanks, Jeremy. Guns versus Crime. 2010.

Borade, Gaynor. Pros and Cons of Gun Control. 2011.

Gorman, Linda. Criminal Advantage. 1999.

Graham, Jack. Gun Control Is Not the Answer. 2007.

Henderson, Lyn. Gun Control Does Not Reduce Crime. 2009.

Kopel, David B. Trust the People: The Case against Gun Control. 1988.

Krouse, William. Gun Control. 2002.

LaRosa, Benedict D. Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? 2002.

Offshore legal associates. USA Gun Control. 2011.

Thompson, Angela. Gun Control Pros and Cons. 2011.