Gun Control Policies in the US - Essay Example

? Gun Control Introduction Gun violence is a serious problem that affects thousands of families every year. Firearms violence is one of the country's biggest social problems and threatens to destroy American society. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that total of 11,600 homicides were committed with firearms, claiming 68% of all homicides (Kleck, 2009: p. 1). In addition, about 100,000 to 150,000 people a year suffer non-fatal gunshot injuries (Kleck, 2009: p. 1). It is the responsibility of the governments to reduce firearms violence by developing gun control programs that make it more difficult for people to acquire and use guns. Federal, state, and local governments and law enforcement agencies need to better understand the gun violence problem so their limited resources can be effectively employed. This paper argue that gun control policies can significantly influence the number of deaths and injuries from firearms Gun Control Gun control is the government enacting some type of legislation to restrict availability of firearms or ammunition. The majority of governments that have implemented gun control legislation have focused on firearms ownership restrictions and background checks in attempt to reduce firearms violence. The common objective is to reduce a criminal's access to firearms in the hope that violent crime will be reduced. Currently, large urban areas of the United States are attempting to deal with a host of issues related to firearms violence. Governments have used different types of laws and enforcement techniques in an attempt to eliminate or reduce firearms violence. The large numbers of homicides that occur in these areas have resulted in public pressure to effectively deal with the problem. Jurisdictions have attempted to lower the amount of firearms violence by enacting a number of laws on a whole range of issues related to firearms. Many jurisdictions have enacted legislation limiting who can purchase, own, and carry a firearm. Gun control policies have the potential of decreasing the likelihood of attacks occurring and lead attackers to substitute less lethal weapons for guns (Gurer 1; Wells & Homey, 265-296). Cook (1981: p. 63-79) studied gun availability's effect on violent crime and found that a reduction in gun availability reduced the homicide rate and there was some change in the robbery rate. Why Gun Control in Necessary? Firearm injuries and deaths have reached an epidemic level in the United States. No other industrialized country in the world has comparable rates of mortality, morbidity, or financial costs incurred from firearm ownership and use (Fingerhut and Klein, 3290-3295). Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury death in the United States, and since 1972 have killed on average more than 30,000 people each year (Marwick, 1). More than 80 Americans die every single day as a result of firearms (Egendorf 74). While trends for the leading cause of injury death, motor vehicles, have been declining, deaths from firearms have increased. In some regions of the country, firearm deaths far exceed motor vehicle fatalities (Hoyert, Kochanek, Murphy 1). A study by Cohen & Steiner (p. 1-8) ranked firearms as the 11th leading cause of death in the United States. Unlike motor vehicles, firearms are much less regulated. Firearms are not subject to any manufacturing standards or government oversight. For example, in many states, the purchase of guns does not require any licensing, education on how to use them, regulations for storage, or limitations on design or manufacturing (Egendorf 74). In 1998, five out of six handguns made in United States lacked basic magazine safeties to prevent the firearm from firing when the clip is removed or load indicators that would indicate when a bullet is in the gun (Vernick et al., 427-440). Gun manufacturers are producing more and more guns. About 4.5 million new firearms, including two million handguns are sold each year in the United States (Lott 19). Gun manufacturer's have also dramatically increased the lethality of their product, and reduced the cost of firearms making them more affordable and disposable. For example, as semiautomatic pistols with increased caliber and ammunition capacity emerged as the weapons of choice for criminals, increases have been observed the mean number of wounds per person injured and the average caliber of bullets recovered from gun shot victims (Egendorf 44). The gun manufacturer Smith and Wesson introduced a 50 caliber handgun that is advertised as being capable of killing any animal on earth (www.smithandwesson.com). Thus, the quest to have larger and more powerful firearms appears to spark the development of a weapon that provides more killing power than necessary. Considering the substantial impact that firearms have on our public health there is a dire need for increased prevention efforts. Legislative officials, law enforcement, and community members must come together to demand a solution to the cause of so many unnecessary deaths for family, friends, and particularly our youth. An initial solution to the firearm problem would be to target the behavior of the firearm owner or user. However, several studies have found that implementing tougher gun control policies may be the most effective intervention to reduce firearm mortality and injury (Vernick, Webster, Hepburn, 259-263). Moreover, an overwhelming majority of Americans are in support of stricter gun control measures. Gun Control Debate According to most gun advocates, firearms are the only means of personal protection against threats to the safety or liberty of the citizenry. Ironically, these threats are typically seen as coming from either the U.S. Government or from aliens. Others maintain that guns are an invaluable tool for self-defense against criminals. Still others see a "crisis of public order" looming on the horizon against which guns will be the only means of personal protection (Egendorf 71-81). According to these views, guns are the tools with which Americans forge their freedoms, insure their liberties and maintain their independence. Those who oppose guns firmly hold that firearms provide the means by which the internal cycle of violence in America is perpetuated; to own a gun is to live violently, and one necessarily implies the other. There are two main issues frequently debated in the discussions over gun control. The opponents of gun control often argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. They also argue that firearms are widely used for protection and deterrence of criminals. The supporters of gun control laws maintain that fewer guns would lead to less violence-especially lower school violence rates, lower crime rates, and a smaller number of suicides and fatal accidents. The- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution One of the strongest arguments in the debate over gun ownership is the explanation of the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security ofa free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (The Constitution of the United States, 1787/1995). Those who advocate gun control measures uphold that the amendment does not promise unrestricted right to a private possession of firearms to all citizens. Some argue that the amendment was meant as the means to protect states from the national government (e.g., McClurg, 53-113), not to give all individuals a right to own a gun. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment has been endorsed by the American Bar Association (Kates, 353-379). Similarly, the Supreme Court indicated that the Second Amendment did not allow for unregulated citizens' rights to possess firearms (Spitzer, 19). Other researchers claim that the amendment gives full freedom to law­ abiding citizens to own firearms as a defense against intrusive government (Kates, 353-379). For example, Kates (p. 353-379) explains that the author of the Second Amendment, James Madison, believed that the right to gun ownership is in the same group of "personal liberties" as freedoms of speech, press, and religion. Kates explicates that "… the ideas of the Second Amendment as something other (or less) than a guarantee of an individual right to arms is a purely twentieth Century invention that prior generations, especially the Constitution's authors, did not contemplate" (p. 362). This attitude that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by Constitutions is routinely employed by opponents of gun control measures in America. In addition, in his model state constitution Thomas Jefferson included the right of every citizen to own a firearm. In 1796 he wrote to George Washington: "One loves to possess arms." Finally, Kates also argues that a number of contemporary criminologists recognize citizens' rights to possess firearms. He added that, contrary to what advocates of gun control laws would indicate, the opponents to gun control laws do not claim that the right to a gun is an absolute one. This right excludes criminals and other irresponsible people from gun ownership. In addition, he offers an interesting but controversial explanation for gun control sentiments. Kates insists that gun control laws are related to racism and discrimination. Disarming Blacks in the South during periods of slavery is a historical example of this practice. Kates believes that in contemporary times the governments is still interested in disarming minorities, in order to better control them. McClurg (p. 53-113) maintains that the problems with the explanation of the Second Amendment are due to a lack of sufficient professional discourse over its meaning. He states that legal commentators disagree over the interpretation of the amendment and that politicians and policy makers use casual fallacies in gun control debates instead of providing arguments based on logic and facts. He differentiated between fallacies of emotions (e.g., appeal to fear and sympathy appeal to improper sources. of authority­ identification with celebrity's views), fallacies of diversion (e.g., exaggeration of the argument, wrong analogies), and fallacies of proof (e.g., arguments based on ignorance). Although McClurg believes that good rhetorical discussions are needed in the public arena, he also shows that gun control issues are being addressed through faulty rhetoric and that such discussions led to inadequate and inappropriate law. Deterrent effect of gun ownership on crime rates Another important argument in this debate is whether gun ownership has an impact on crime rates. Those who advocate gun control measures argue that extensive ownership of firearms is directly related with higher violent crime rates. Therefore, limiting the access to firearms would provide a safer environment to all citizens. The pro-control position, relies heavily on the assumption that a causal link exists between the unusually high rates of homicide observed in the United States and the correspondingly high levels of private firearm ownership. Deprive potential offenders of legal access to the most efficient killing technology (firearms), we are told, and rates of homicide in the United States will subsequently drop (Ludwig and Cook, 2003; Zimring, 2000). Provisionally supportive of this view is the fact that the comparative enormity of the United States private gun-stock is undeniable (Kellerman, 1992, 1993). Current estimates of the private gun stock in the United States place the total somewhere between 230 and 250 million (Zimring, 2003).   Between 35 and 50 percent of all households are now estimated to have at least one firearm (Cook and Ludwig, 2003). That an extraordinarily high percentage of violent crimes in the United States are firearm-related is equally unquestionable. An average of 20,000 murders have been reported annually in the United States since 1970 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). During those same years, the majority of these-between 58% and 70%--have been firearm related (Kleck, 1997: 24, table 1.2). Those who oppose gun control measures argue that firearms used often for defense and deter some potential criminals from committing crimes. In the end, they claim that easy access to guns would cause decrease in crime rates. Thus, they view the aspect of security in individualistic terms rather than as a collectivistic issue. In addition, private gun ownership and relying on oneself for protection is related to the values of the American Dream and an innovative way of adaptation. Kleck (p. 35) claims that private citizens routinely use guns in self-defense. He differentiated between three types of defensive gun use: firing, killing, and wounding in self-defense; resistance that prevents completion of crime and avoids injury; and crime control through deterring certain crimes (e.g., residential burglary). Self-defense killings are defined as, justifiable homicides by civilians and are recorded via the Supplementary Homicides Reports. Kleck used this source of the data to show that in 1980 somewhere between 1.527 and 2,819 felons were legally killed by civilians in self-defense, and over 98% of defensive gun actions were warning shots (1988: p. 1-21). He indicated that civilians shoot criminals more often than police officers do (1986: p. 35-62). Moreover, Kleck claims that guns are often used as a threat against potential criminals. He looked at two surveys, from 1978 and 1981, and found that 7% and 9% of surveyed respondents respectively had used guns as a threat in the past 5 years (Kleck p. 35-62). In addition, based on the victimization surveys, Kleck showed that the crimes of robbery and assault are less likely to be completed when the potential victim has a gun. In 1988, Kleck (p. 1-21) reported that based on the National Crime Survey only 12% of individuals who resisted with guns in assaults and robberies were injured. Kleck presented evidence from the surveys of criminals and the quasi-experiments to show that gun use by private citizens deters law-breakers from committing and completing crimes. He also indicated that criminals would substitute handguns with more dangerous weapons if pistols were more restricted. According to the Wright-Rossi survey of known criminals, one third of offenders worried about gun use by potential victims (as cited in Kleck, 1986: p. 35-62). In addition, Kleck (1979: p. 882-910) researched the relationship between homicide and gun ownership rates. Based on time-series data from 1947 to 1973, he concluded that there is a reciprocal relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates. He concluded that high crime rates increase the demand for guns and in turn widespread gun ownership raises crime rates. Reduction in the number of guns is possible only when crime rates go down or people feel confident in the criminal justice system. Kleck and Mcelrath (p. 669-692) updated Kleck' s earlier research; employing, the 1979-1985 National Crime Surveys and the 1982 Supplementary Homicide Reports they examined attacks on victims, victims' injuries, and fatalities. They claim that with a higher lethality of firearms, the probability of attack is actually reduced. They argue that a gun in a criminal's hand increases the chances of a victim's fatal injury. However, they also claim that guns owned by potential victims serve as a deterrent of crime. According to these results, the overall effect of the availability of guns on the probability of victim's death can be positive, negative, or close to none-depending on the strength of attack and defense. Furthermore, Kleck and Patterson (p. 249-287) found that most gun control laws do not affect violence rates. They employed the two-stage least-square method to analyze the 1980 data for 170 American cities with population at least 100,000. They also indicated that the prevalence of guns did not have an impact on crime rates with a possible exception of suicide rates. However, research on the deterrent impact of gun control laws is inconclusive. Green (p. 63-81), for example, has found that the gun ownership by private individuals has only a small and indirect deterrent effect. He examined existing research and observed that gun crimes are more frequent in states with more lenient gun control laws and a higher rate of firearms. In 1966, a program in Orlando, Florida, trained 6,000 women in a safe use of firearms. The post training results showed a decrease in the rate of rape incidents. However, Green indicated that different interpretations of these studies are also possible (e.g., that decrease in rape incidence resulted from a larger trend of decreasing crime rates). In general, Green did not find strong, empirical support for the deterrent effect of gun ownership. A number of criminologists present important counterarguments to the research on the deterrent effect of private gun ownership on crime rates. For example, Alba and Messner (p. 391-410) found methodological and analytical flaws in Kleck's analysis of the Supplementary Homicide Reports included in his book Point Blank. They indicated that KIeck's models are not adequately specified (e.g., structural equations do not employ consistent explanatory variables) and the crime rates equation is not identified. Alba and Messner replicated multiple regression equations and found the opposite result-the relationship between handguns use and lethality of violent incidents was in fact statistically significant. Although they criticize statistical mistakes, they are even more concerned with theoretical explanations and analysis. They concluded that Kleck did not provide enough evidence to claim that the guns owned by private citizens have a deterrent effect. Relationship between gun ownership and violent crime rates Stark (p. 3-26) explored the so-called "engineering model," which assumes that death and injuries are caused by mechanical hazards such as the presence of guns. This model claims that limiting access to guns would decrease homicide rates. The "engineering model" exists in a similar form throughout the criminological literature- on the effect of guns, on crime. For example, the- "weapon effect" established by two experimental psychologists, Berkowitz and LePage, tested the Turner­ Goldsmith thesis (Turner & Goldsmith 303-315), which states that the mere presence of firearms can lead individuals who are already emotionally aroused to violence. Similar perspectives, related to the "engineering model," are the "vulnerability pattern," which explains that criminals are more likely to commit crimes when armed, and the "objective dangerousness pattern," which states that the use of guns leads to more serious injuries than the use of other weapons (Cook, 1981: p. 63-79). Kessler (p. 1-13) did not agree with the hypothesis presented above. He directly criticized two related models: the "causal model" and the "relative lethality model." The "causal model" states that ownership of firearms causes or facilitates violent crimes. The "relative lethality model" maintains that most homicides and assaults are not premeditated, but rather take place during violent arguments and disputes. Kessler argued that both models ignore that the violent crime rates are caused by political, racial, and economic situations. For example, many researchers have explained high crime rates in the South by its low socioeconomic status. To further explore the issue of relationship between gun ownership and crime rates, researchers conducted cross-sectional comparisons. For example, Stark (p. 3-26) cited two studies: one in Washington, D.C. that strictly prohibited the purchase, sale, and possession of firearms, and another one that compared homicide rates between Vancouver, where handgun distribution was very limited, and Seattle. Both studies showed reduced homicide rates. In particular, Washington, D.C. reported a dramatic reduction in homicides between intimates (but not in felony-related homicides), and Vancouver recorded significant decreases in homicide and aggravated assault rates. Also, Jung and Jason (p. 515-524) evaluated the impact of gun control laws: one in East St. Louis, Illinois, that introduced stricter penalties for individuals who were carrying guns outside of their homes, and another in Evanston, Illinois, that banned handguns in the entire city. However, researchers observed only a temporary decrease in crime rates in both cities. They hypothesized that the media and publicity could influence the initial reduction in crimes. The results of two surveys conducted by two organizations with different political orientations were nearly the same-approximately 40-50% of respondents believed that crime rates would decrease when stricter gun controls are introduced (Rossi & Wright, 311-332). Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear that gun control policies can significantly influence the number of deaths and injuries from firearms. Although the opponents of gun control laws claim that the second amendment guarantees citizens the right to own a gun, but advocates of gun control measures explain that the amendment was designed in specific historical circumstances and served a particular purpose. Furthermore, the empirical evidence of the impact of gun ownership on crime rates shows positive relationship. It has been noted by various researchers that stricter gun control laws would lead to a decrease in the crime rates in the United States. Work Cited Alba, RD. & Messner, S. F. “Point blank against itself Evidence and inference about guns, crime, and gun control.” Criminology 11, (4), 1995, 391-410. Cohen, J., Steiner, C. "Hospitalization for firearm-related injuries in the United States, 1997." American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(1), 2003, 1-8. Cook, P. "The effect of gun availability on violent crime patterns." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 455, 1981. 63-79. Cook, P. "The effects of gun availability on violent crime patterns." Annals AAPSS -155 1981 ,63-79. Egendorf, L. K. Guns and violence: Current controversies. Farmington Hills, MI: (Greenhaven Press, 2005) Fingerhut, L., and Kleinman, J. "International and interstate comparisons of homicide among young males." Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1990, 3290-3295. Green, G. S. "Citizen gun ownership and criminal deterrence: Theory, research, and policy. " Criminology 25,( 1), 1987, 63-81. Gurer, Cuneyt. "Gun Control, Legislation" Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence. 2008. SAGE Publications. Hoyer, D., Kochanek, K., Murphy, S. Final data for 1997. National Vital Statistics Reports 47(19). 1999. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/00news/finaldeath97.htm Jung, R. S., & Jason., L. A.. "Firearm violence and the effects of gun control legislation." American Journal of Community Psychology 16, (4), 1988. 515-524. Kates, D. B. "Gun control: separating reality from symbolism." Journal of Cotemporary Law 20, (2), 1994. 353-379. Kessler, R. G.. "Ideology and gun control." Quarterly Journal of Ideology 12, (2), 1988, 1-13. KIeck., G., & Mcelrath, K. "The effects of weaponry on human violence. " Social Forces 69, (3), 1991, 669-692. Kleck, Gary. "Guns and Crime." 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook. 2009. SAGE Publications. Kleck., G. "Crime control through the private use of armed force. " Social Problems 35, (1). 1988, 1-21. Kleck., G. "Policy lessons from recent gun control research. " Law and Contemporary Problems 49, (1), 1986, 35-62. Kleck., G., & Patterson, E. B. "The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. "Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9, (3), 1993, 249-287. Lott, J. R. (2003). The bias against guns: Why almost everything you heard about gun control is wrong. (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2003). Marwick, C. HELP Network Says Firearms Data Gap Makes Reducing Gun Injuries More Difficult. The Journal of American Medical Association, 1999, 1. McClurg, A. J. "The rhetoric of gun control. " The American University Law Review .f2, (I), 199253-113. Rossi, P. H., & Wright, 1. D. "Social science research and the politics of gun control." In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.) Social science and social policy (pp. 311-332). Sage Publications: 1985, Beverly Hills. Smith and Wesson, Advertisement for 50 caliber handgun. Accessed at www.smithandwesson.com, Spitzer, R. The politics of gun control. Chatham, NJ, (Chatham House Publisher, 1995). Stark, E. (1990). "Rethinking homicide. " International Journal of Health Services 20, (l) 3-26. The Constitution of the United States. 1787/1995. Bedford: Applewood Books. Turner, C; & Goldsmith. D. "Effects of toy guns and airplanes on children's antisocial free play behavior". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2, 1976, 303-315. Vernick, J., Meisel, Z., Teret, S. I didn't know the gun was loaded: An examination of two safety devices that can reduce the risk of unintentional firearm injuries. Journal of Public Health Policy, 2, 1999. 427-440. Vernick, J., Webster, D. Hepburn, L. Effects of Maryland's law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns. Injury Prevention, 5, 1999, 259-263. Wells, W., & Homey, J. Weapon effects and individual intent to do hard: Influences on the escalation of violence. Criminology, 40(2), 2002, 265-296. Read More