Gun Control: Is It Better to Make More Stringent Laws or Ban Them All Together - Assignment Example

?Gun Control: Argumentative essay Gun Control: Argumentative Essay submitted) Gun Control: AnArgumentative Essay Introduction In 1984, Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian political and spiritual leader was shot dead by a Hindu fanatic. Brandon Lee, Hollywood actor and son of Bruce Lee died because of malfunctioned prop gun during their shooting. In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Recent events of gun shooting included a massacre at Columbine High school, Omaha’s Westwood’s Mall, and Virginia Tech University. These incidents horrified not only the family of the victims but a majority of the Americans. In 2000 alone, about 52,447 people died deliberately of gunshot wounds in the United States (Wikipedia, 2011). The country rank first of the world’s 36 richest nation to have gun related deaths. Such incidences and information alerted the politicians, experts and law makers to revive the gun ban in an effort to prevent similar cases to happen and to reduce prevalence of robbery, drug dealings and other forms of crime. The proposal however, was not welcome by everyone. Majority pointed that gun ban is a violation of the second amendment and is not a solution to the problem because guns do not kill but people who has guns do. Law makers should create a tougher gun control laws and its implementation be strictly observed for individuals and manufacturers to be more responsible. Discussion Some sectors of the society claim that gun ban reduces homicide. To them, they believe that countries banning guns have lower rate of crimes like homicide. Premeditated crimes would be limited to an extent. Their challenge proves to be true. A study in 1991 found out that a District of Columbia showed a twenty five percent (25%) drop in their homicide cases owing to the implementation of the gun ban. In the same year, Baltimore also showed a positive result with also a decline however the rate of percentage was not revealed. This is in contrast with Columbia’s neighboring States like Marlyland and Virginia with no gun ban showing no decline in their homicide cases (Schwartz, 2008). The study further mentioned that suicide rates by fire arms likewise have declined by twenty three percent (23%) in Columbia just the same. Another important finding was that of the 1999 study that shows that there was a reduction of violent juvenile crime involving minors of 10 to 17 years old from 1994 to 1998 after the implementation of the Brady law and assault weapon ban (La Rosa, 2002). The above affirmation was refuted by the supporters of pro- gun advocates. Pro-gun groups believe that homicide and the absence of guns are not related to the decline in the incidences of homicide. They pointed out the situation of some parts of Europe whose citizens are allowed to own a gun yet have lesser rate of homicide cases. Switzerland who issues a firearm to every law abiding male citizen for the purpose of mandatory militia obligation remains to have a low rate of homicide. The same applies to Austria, Belgium, and Germany with low homicide rates and yet allowed to own a gun. They further pointed out that Western Europe’s low rate of homicide has existed long before gun ban has been adopted (Kates, 2010). The finding above corroborates with the idea of Mauser (2001) where he argued that if gun ban decreases the prevalence of homicide is true, rural regions in the United States and Canada where firearms are observed to be plenty should have the highest rate of homicide. In fact, Mauser noted that urban regions where fewer firearms are found have the same low rate of homicide cases with that of the rural areas where guns are bountiful. Mauser further added that individuals who are most armed with guns are hunters who are not a threat to the society and that they only use their guns for hunting purposes and has nothing to do with homicide. La Rosa in his article (2002) also provided information that even in countries with strict gun control laws has incidences of shootings. He gave England as an example with the strictest gun control laws of all developed countries where their Sunday express dated June 1999 reported frightening shooting incidence in the major city of Great Britain. Such incidence only proves that gun control does not directly influence the decrease in homicide or shootings of any form but it is only a part of preventive measures the government provides. Another argument of the anti gun group points to the notion that owning a gun encourages crime such as robbery, drug dealing, and also suicide incidences. Situations mentioned above should not have happened if guns were not available to execute the crime. Some proponents of anti gun law presented their observation which reveals that when there is disagreement or conflict either within the family or with a group, a person tends to resort to their firearm to be able to win or get even from the disagreement. The presence of the firearm makes it very easy for the owners to use it to their opponents as their shield without knowing they had already committed murder or frustrated murder. The anti gun advocates further mentioned that such presence of gun might go to the hands of abnormal people like the psychopath and drug addicts and might use it to victimize others especially women and children who are vulnerable victims. Illegal activity is also instigated when firearms are allowed to be issued or made available to those who want to possess one. The study of Cook and company (2009) indicated that illicit firearm trade is being carried out by criminal gangs in the Northern part of America. Although, explanation of the direct relation of illicit firearm trade to homicide is not found elsewhere, it is obvious that it plays a major role in the commission of crime in Mexico which is known for its many illegal activities. Activities like drug dealing could not be carried out without the presence of firearms. Thus, criminal gangs are always on the lookout for firearms to purchase. In the same article above, it mentioned that if the major suppliers are out of business, involved criminal gangs resort to other sources that are still in their illegal firearm transaction. This only proves that without gun control, possession of firearms whether it was acquired legally or illegally continues to proliferate making it easy for criminals to access and continue their illicit activities. This is because it seems firearms have become a fashion accessory to them. Advocates of pro-gun refute the idea in explaining that it is not the owning of guns that makes robbery possible but it is the people who commit such action. They further added that a gun is just a tool that does not rob nor kill unless there is someone to poke and pull the trigger. A person who does so has really the intention to rob or kill others. Examples of those who have such intentions are people who are professional criminals. People usually involved are those who specialize in burglaries, safecracking, hijacking and hired killers. Others are mentally ill people illustrated in the case of New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy. Her husband was killed and her son was wounded in 1993 by an unstable gun man who opened fire when they were inside the Long island commuter train (Toeplitz, 2011). This is far from the claim that having guns encouraged such commission of the crime. It is caused by the intention of the individual who executes the action and that he should be held liable and not the gun. Resorting to firearms when outraged is an individual matter. This idea points to the behavior of the gun owners. Thus, it has nothing to do with owning a gun. Owners who are in their sound judgment will not just open fire for the sake of shooting but use it rationally. On the other hand, individuals who turn to their firearm every time they are outraged or provoked are displaying deviant behavior. In this regard, social control is needed (Schaefer, 2006) in the form of strict gun laws but not the total gun banning. Owning a firearm does not mean the owner is going to stage a robbery, commit suicide, or deal with illegal drugs. In reality, it could be used as a self defense. It is interesting to note that gun is use to protect oneself from would be perpetrators. A case of Evelyn Logan would prove that gun indeed is an important instrument to fight crime. During her long drive through rural Texas in 1960’s, she pulled over to rest and to use the public bathroom when she was grabbed and dragged towards the nearby woods. At first she screamed for help but nothing happened. She then reached for her 22 handgun from her purse and fired it to her assailants. Although, considered traumatic she survived the situation with her gun. She even became an advocate for defensive firearms after her experience (Jurado, 2004). What Evelyn demonstrated is an example of defensive gun use. According to researches, would be victims receive fewer injuries from their perpetrators when they use firearm compared to those who uses other means or does not resist at all. Crimes are found to be in its lowest completion rate when victims are armed with a gun. Robbery victims who do not resist are injured 25% of the time and would reach 88% completion rate while those with guns have lower percentage (DGU, 2003). Another situation is the case of Peter who was killed because he does not have any gun to fight back the intruders in his home. The two examples denote that without firearm the individual may and could fall as victims in certain circumstances. Without firearm undermines the ability of the person to defend herself or himself in times the situation calls for it. This is supported by the article of Lott (n.d) where he indicated that concealed handguns would benefit women who are most of the time victims of rapists, murderers and thieves. Lott further mentioned that when a woman carries a concealed gun, it would reduce the murder rate for about three to four times. This might be attributed to the fact that women are braver to fight back when armed. Thus, firearm serves as an equalizer between the weaker victim and the stronger predator. In addition, criminals will have a second thought to victimize people who are equipped with a firearm. As to the case of suicide, the World Health Organization (WHO) ascertained that prevalence of suicide is not directly related with the presence of firearms (encyclopedia, 2003). Comparison of suicide rate among many countries relating to the presence of firearm and gun control shows information that those countries with stringent gun control such as Canada, Western Europe, and Japan, ironically found to have higher suicide rates than the United States known to have liberal gun control and the highest number of weapons. The data considerably exhibits that even during the introduction of over one million guns in the United States between the period in the early 1970’s to mid 1990’s, the suicide rate remains to be constant. Although most suicide incidences is caused by guns, such only served as their common instrument but it is not the sole cause of the commission of suicide. The claim of owning guns being a motivation for robbery is misleading. This is because gun owners are screened before they are issued the ammunition. Most states disqualify ineligible candidates to possess firearm. If applicants cannot satisfy the requirement, they are not to be issued any firearm. Such disqualification includes convicted individuals from a crime punishable by law, a person who is unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, an illegal foreigner, an individual who is a fugitive, a citizen who is hospitalized or confined in mental institution, a person who is discharged from military service with dishonor, someone who is convicted of misdemeanor or domestic violence, and a subject of restraining orders. Such disqualifications explain that owners are screened well because they undergo background check thus, are unlikely to be motivated to carry out robbery and the like. In fact, data showing involvement of armed individual with concealed handgun in violent crimes shows insignificant figure. This is evident in Florida’s statistics where 300,000 concealed hand guns were issued from 1987 to 1945 but it is surprising to know that only five violent crimes were committed involving licensed permitted pistols during that time. It is further noted that none of those involved fatalities (Lott, n.d). Proponents of tougher gun laws still claim that without gun, the country in general would be more exposed to crimes and violence especially to the most vulnerable areas of the society. What happened in Germany is a distinct example of this. The Nazi started the anti gun laws until they extended their tactic to confiscate rounds of ammunitions and other weapons from the Jews until finally disarmed them which led to their incapacitation to fight their war during those times ( Jurado, 2006). Not only had such situation happened under the leadership of Hitler but also to other tyrannical leaders like Stalin of Russia and Mao Zedong of China. Analysts interpret this type of gun banning as a form of political control. According to Representative Ron Paul of Texas, it would be easier to handle unarmed people while armed populace has better resistance from governmental control. To the supporters of pro gun, the same thing will happen if total gun ban would be implemented. The irony of implementing such law is that law abiding citizens who use their guns for recreational, hunting, sports and self defense are also disarmed while criminals can get away from it since criminals disobey laws. If criminals are aware that the government starts to confiscate guns, they can keep their firearms and even acquire more weapons by any means. Pro gun supporters went on to conclude that gun ban is unconstitutional since it violates the second amendment which provides for the right to keep and own a firearm. The amendment as well contains that the use of such firearm is for lawful purposes such as self defense. Anti gun advocates continued to conceive that we should live our life civilly and that there is no need for firearms (Paul, 2011). It was further posit that we are not living in the 1800 where it is known for its Wild West characteristics or in the gangster era. Thus, there is no need for us to carry guns. Pro-guns believe that even if we live our life civilly, it is impossible not to experience becoming a victim of crime because there are always criminals. Some even make a living from illegal activities like the professional criminals. Such career puts our lives in danger because criminals do not select their victims. It is impossible for a society to survive without their presence as society is not perfect in itself. Apart from this, it should not be forgotten that criminals do not only include professionals and organized criminals, and thugs but it also includes friends, family members and even neighbors. In this relation, it is always advisable to have firearm in our keepings. Pro gun supporters added that not only those times criminals are present but even in today’s era. In fact, in 2000, more than 1.4 million violent crimes were reported in the United States. In 2002, Federal bureau of investigation (FBI) reports that aggravated assaults accounted for 19%, reported robberies reached 42% increase and reported murders shows 67% of which it involves firearms ( Schaefer, 2006). This might explain the increase in prisoners. Prison cells are crowded with criminals today than years ago. From 2000 to 2008, there is a 60% increase for prisoners including violent offenders alone (Wikipedia, 2011). Gun supporters supplemented that not all the time that there are policemen around to protect every individual or family especially when they live far from the main city. There are even times when they are called; they arrive late when crime is already committed. Without firearm to counter the criminals is tantamount to submitting yourself willingly to be raped, robbed and be killed. Anti gun advocates maintains that guns might go to the wrong hands if they are around and it might be misused. This proposition is however not an acceptable explanation for banning gun by the pro gun groups indicating that owners are responsible enough to keep their firearm in a safe place because they know the accountability when it goes to the hands of other people especially children and delinquent individuals. Apart from this, guns are secured by the manufacturers as part of their responsibility as issuers. Manufacturers are required by the law to stamp unique imprints making it easier to trace when fired. They also install lock and other security features so that even if it is used by a teenager, it would not fire automatically. Certain States also require owners to report lost or stolen guns so that it could be traced and retrieved by authorities. Besides, firearms are always placed in a secured area of the house where children will not easily access. Anti gun advocates assume that with gun ban, fire arms would be registered. Registration may make sure that only legitimate buyers with no criminal records are able to purchase guns during gun shows. Further, they are not in favor of gun shows itself because it is unregulated and become free-for-all in which there is a possibility for disqualified buyers to avail one. This could be with the help of an intermediary who may purchase guns in behalf of the criminals or even teenagers. Such claim from the anti gun groups was repelled by the pro gun supporters explaining that registration of firearms has no direct relation with the reduction of crimes. Accordingly, statistics and researches show that registration of guns are only applicable to law abiding individuals but not to criminals. Gun show is also not a problem because it was regulated to require all participating sellers to have ample time to execute background check on the buyers. Sellers are also screened as to their credibility before they could participate in such activity. In fact, President Clinton assured that there are no loopholes in such activity (www.cato.org). This is also supported with by the Department of Justice which ascertains that there are only 2% of guns purchased by criminals during the show and all of which are bought by credible buyers. The gun show itself is not the problem but it is the legitimate buyers being used by criminals. To pro gun advocates, gun ban cost millions of money. With the destruction of firearms alone it cost large amount of cash. In Australia, 500 million dollars was wasted after individuals surrendered their personal semi automatic firearm including 22 rifles and shotguns (www.geoffmetcalf.com) as part of their program campaign for gun control. Ironically, robbery cases, assaults, and homicide were up after a year of complying with the program’s mandate. Conclusion A realistic compromise would still be the creation and implementation of stricter laws. No matter how you ban guns, there are always crimes committed every day in our society. This calls for actions to have guns not for the purpose of committing crimes but to counter them instead. Failure to foresee, plan, and act when necessary is considered irresponsible since it encourages criminals to go on victimizing easy predators. Having firearms is tantamount in proofing yourself from criminals. Being equipped with a firearm simply means we are prepared for any untoward incidences that may happen be it burglary or killing. This may also reduce attempts of criminals in their plans. However, before implementing stricter laws, the public should be educated regarding gun use, safety, and other pertinent matters relating to gun education. This would save dollars for future gun violence that would be committed by ignorant gun users and owners whether it is intentional or accidental. Sources Cited Cook, P., et al. ( 2009). The illicit firearm trade in North America. Criminology and criminal justice. vol. 9 no. 3 265-286. Defensive gun use. ( 2003). Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://library.gcu.edu:2048 on June 6,2011. Gun violence in the United States. (2011). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States on June 5, 2011. Jurado, R., (2004). Gun control victims. American Enterprise; Vol. 15 Issue 1, p44-45, 2p, Kates, D., (2010). Gun laws around the world: do they work. International/UN control issues. La Rosa, B., (2002). Can gun control reduce crime: part 1. Freedom daily. Lott, J., (n.d). More Guns Equal Less Violent Crime. Retrieved from http://www.largo.org. Retrieved on June 6, 20110. Mauser, G., (2001). Debunking the myths about gun control. PDF. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/sterlingprize/Debunking-Myths-FI.pdf. on June 5, 2011. Paul, K., (2011). Ban gun shows, assault weapons. The St. Petersburg Times. Editorial. Schaefer, R., (2006). Sociology. McGraw Hill companies. Schwartz, E., (2008). In congress, the uphill battle for gun control. Vol. 144. 41-43. 3p. Suicide, International Comparison. (2003). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law. Retrieved from http://library.gcu.edu:2048/form?qurl=http%3 on June 5, 2011. Toeplitz, S., (2011). Gun control activists slam Arizona over Giffords shooting. PMEST. Pdf. Read More