Gun Control as an Ineffective Way to Control Crime

Homicide has been categorized among the leading non-medical causes of death in the United States. Each day, an average of thirteen kids ranging from the age of ten to nineteen years gets killed by gunfire, while the highest percentage of such children get injured in the crossfire. For instance, in the African-American communities, it is a common occurrence for young men to die due to murder, specifically with the use of guns. The situation has thus forced most people in the United States into believing that the only way of reducing or even eliminating the increasing crime rate of all states is through establishing multiple gun control policies. Through the use of data analysis and common observation, several individuals have refuted this claim, in which they believe that guns have nothing to do with the increase in the crime rate. However, supporters of gun control measures urge the government to eliminate gun producers, sellers, and also owners to the extent that no American citizens can carry or even hold guns.

On the other hand, the National Rifle Association (NRA), which is the non-gun control community, counterattacks the stance following its reinforcement by the Second Amendment. It holds that every citizen has the right to “bear arms. “Although guns are the most used firearms to commit crimes, gun control laws will have less or no effect on the crime rate issue. In part due to media violence, social outburst, and poor general knowledge, gun circulation has become rampant, hence eliminating them all remains to be a big problem.

Gun Control Debate

The issue of gun control traces back to the establishment of the National Rifle Association. The subject is reinforced by the politicians, thus receiving a lot of attention not only from Americans but also from the rest world. At first, the primary objectives of the NRA were to induce training to Union soldiers via marksmanship design and at the same time, cause competent rifle techniques. Now, the group has heavily lobbied against gun control and has put up their case that more guns make the country safer. Subsequently, there are multiple gun control laws as well as regulations that the NRA keeps on battling. Meanwhile, the supporters of gun rights, as well as gun control, confronted each other, with each having evidence to support its claims. The Democratic government took the first line in support of the policies while the Republicans called for the government to respect the gun rights. In such case, both the Democrats and the Republicans would struggle to conform within the government. The primary objective of the pro-gun support is to lessen the already established laws and at the same time, repeal the attempts of installing the new ones.

The Gun Control Effects on Crime and Murder

The major issue that weakens gun control is that of its impact on crime as well as murder. Both those who are against gun control and its supporters have valid points, but, only the government can discern and respond with immediate effect. Due to the disparities that exist between the Republicans and the Democrats following the issue of gun control, the party that wins remains on the favor of its claimant. If the Democrats take control, there is potential that they would establish multiple gun control policies. Just as well, if the Republicans were to gain control of the country, they may uphold the Second Amendment on the issue of gun rights and also cancel all the already established gun control regulations.

The debate over gun control has always reached a stalemate position; individuals who support gun rights and are opposing the laws regulating guns believe that gun control measures do not decrease crimes but rather they make them rise at an uncontrollable rate. Meanwhile, considering the relationship between gun control and the increase of crimes, people’s claims as well as arguments cannot determine if either of the side deserves the support. However, through evaluating the available past statistics, it is possible to understand which side of the argument fits society better. “Therefore, to measure and examine the quantifiable consequences of gun control on murder and crime, two challenges are bound to come up”.

First of all, gun control, in an overall term, is regarding the specific regulations and laws enforced by the legislature limiting firearms and safety measures such as trigger locks or security components applied to guns and firearms. It is essential to realize how the interaction of how the multiple governing bodies; federal, local and state, as well as the laws, affect both murder and crime by a single and entire relationship of each enforcement and provision. Besides, laws vary not only from the federal level to the state level, but also from one state to another. Multiple rules do not necessarily give the consent for a similar reproduction empirical data across the board. Secondly, irrespective of laws offensiveness varying levels of the legislative enforce them differently. There must be a consideration of the fallacy of human aspect of law enforcement while considering the intentions of the law. Some laws will be precisely written, but enforced with less or no strictness.

The factors mentioned above have made the attempts of measuring as well as examining crime and murder, and the impact gun control imposes hard to calculate. Meanwhile, the available statistics can reveal a connection between crime and gun control, but that depends on the side of the argument that presents the data. The concentration and the focus of the particular data play a significant role to prove that gun control does not impact murder and crime or gun control reduces murder and crime. The consequences that gun control poses on crime and murder connects with only offenses that are violent in nature. In such case, there is an assumption that firearms, especially handguns, will be the most efficient weapons to commit such a crime.

Besides, over fifty percent of crimes committed have employed a firearm (Saltzman., et al. 3045). Since the government imposed strict regulations as well as restrictions on the possession, carrying and purchase of handguns, the number of crimes related to firearms was said to reduce steadily by an average of ten percent each year. Such statistics have motivated most people to think that gun control can reduce the rate of offending. Besides, it is persuasive factual evidence. However, in the year 1999, Levitt reports that nearly 6.3 million violent crimes were committed. Such crimes include robbery, rape, as well as sexual assault.

Out of all the crimes, only eight percent of the crimes, totaling to 500,000 crimes involved the application of a firearm. The statistics clearly show that gun control does not directly correlate with the reduction of crimes. Regardless, with or without guns, the crime rate would still be high. Knowing this, it makes it unfair to implement gun control policies since they undermine individuals who legally own and use guns. Furthermore, Washington D.C. is an example, which shows gun control laws cannot curb the increasing number of crimes in the United States. In the year 1976, the city adopted to what many people recognized as the most restrictive gun control laws in the entire nation. Once the new policies, which undermine gun use, were established, D.C. experienced the crime increase rate of 134 percent. When gun control laws are put into place, guns become more in demand, which makes it easier for someone to illegally purchase a firearm via a black market esque venue.

The institution of concealed carry laws is also an essential facet that needs lots of attention. According to legislation, people owning legal weapons can carry them in a concealed fashion, but gun control supporters think the only ones who deserve that honor are the military personnel or law enforcers. Nevertheless, all the states that have taken the initiative of implementing these laws have recorded crime rate reduction by 8.5 percent. Assault was reduced by seven percent, while rape and robbery were reduced by five percent and three percent respectively. An example of a state that recorded the highest drop in percentage after implementing the law is Texas. Its crime rates decreased by fifty percent compared to the rest of the country. It is clear that people have not received the statistics; hence they rely on media outlets, which choose the aspect they need to present on the basis of personal interests.

Meanwhile, there are no official reasons to support the increasing number of crimes, with the exclusion of gun issues. Other than gun control, issues of violent TV shows and movies, unemployment, aggressive music and violent lyrics written by artists have been related to criminal activities. Children and teens get exposed to the environment of firearms, and after absorbing the violent behaviors from the media, many people think it could lead to problems. Gun control supporters will use such claims to support their arguments. The fact that children get hold of guns that they use to commit crimes does not justify the reason as to why a legitimate user, as well as owner of a handgun, deserves to surrender his or her weapon. Various other measures curb the issue of crimes that involves guns, but proponents of gun control policies have not enacted gun control legislation to their true desire. With that said, the accessibility and use of weapons for minors should be regulated by parents or other forms of authority.

Conclusion

From this essay It is clear that gun control policies will have no impact on the crime rate issue in the United States. First of all, eliminating all guns from society is a costly as well as a deadly approach. However, prior to making every decision, the government needs to consider the history of guns in the nation through examining the recorded statistics. It is understood that most states will remain safe if gun control policies never exist. The state of New York registered the lowest numbers of crime prior to the establishment of the gun control measures. Concentrating on guns as the primary cause of crime in the country has made authorities relax and fail to consider other possible motivators of crimes. For instance, the violent media may motivate criminal activities to an individual. It also does not guarantee that a such people will always use a gun to commit a crime. Therefore, there is the need to examine all the statistics of guns with relation to crimes before making any form of a decision.

Works Cited

1. Saltzman, L. E., Mercy, J. A., O'Carroll, P. W., Rosenberg, M. L., & Rhodes, P. H. (1992). Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(22), 3043-3047.
2. Levitt, S. D. (1999). The relationship between gun prevalence and suicide: A comparison of all 50 states. Journal of Law and Economics, 42(S1), 133-155.
3. Krouse, W. J. (2009). Gun control legislation. Congressional Research Service.
4. Lott, J. R., & Mustard, D. B. (1997). Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns. Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1-68.
5. Koper, C. S., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2006). Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: A systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(2), 227-261.
6. Kleck, G., & Patterson, E. B. (1993). The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(3), 249-288.
7. Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Hepburn, L. M. (2001). Effects of Maryland's law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns. Injury Prevention, 7(3), 207-212.
8. Pew Research Center. (2017). America's complex relationship with guns: An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/
9. Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2000). Guns in America: National survey on private ownership and use of firearms. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief.
10. Sorenson, S. B., & Wiebe, D. J. (2004). Weapons in the lives of battered women. American Journal of Public Health, 94(8), 1412-1417.