Gun Control and Crime Rates - Essay Example

Running head: Gun Control and Crime Rates Gun Control and Crime Rates Name Course Tutor Date Introduction The rate of crimes related to firearms in the US has risen from previous years. Possession of guns by the public has been of major concern to law enforcement agencies and some people have been advocating for gun control as a way of reducing crime. This would, in effect, reduce the number of guns owned by citizens. Advocates of this policy argue that such restrictions will reduce crimes through firearm unavailability. Opponents of the policy, however, argue that this will deny rightful owners of guns a chance to utilize this tool in other activities. As the debate rages on, it is unclear which side of the debate will carry the day. However, it is clear that guns are a major aspect in the lives of Americans. This paper explores gun control and posits that such a policy will not reduce crime. Gun Control This refers to the control in ownership of firearms by citizens. The policy is meant to ensure that there are lesser guns in the population and thus reduce the probability of crimes related with guns. Several states have implemented this policy but the strictness of the policy varies from state to state. Its effectiveness in reducing crimes is, however, still in doubt as crimes continue to occur with fewer registered guns being implicated in crimes. According to Cook and Ludwig, the country has over 200 million firearms in private hands (Cook & Ludwig, 1996). The impact of these guns has not only been to deter crime but to also commit them. Reducing Crime Gun control is meant to curb crime that occurs through firearms. However, gun control does not achieve the intended goal because guns that are registered are not used in crimes. Illegal smuggling of guns has been a norm in the country. Most of the criminals may purchase their guns through gun shows and they may not be required to provide background information. Second hand sales do not collect information about the buyer. This means that, while gun control is meant to achieve reduction in crime, guns used in crimes may not be registered. Illegal smuggling of guns, which is the avenue utilized by most criminals, is most responsible for increased crime rates. Gun control, therefore, does not control the guns in criminal hands but rather those that are in safe hands and which are used for the correct purpose. According to Valdez, California has witnessed higher crime rates despite its strict laws on gun ownership (Valdez, 2003). This goes to demonstrate that restrictions do not necessarily bring about lower crime rates. The Brady Gun Control Act This act was established in order to enforce stricter control of gun ownership. This act provides that there must be a specified waiting period upon the purchase of a firearm. This period provides the government with time to do a check on the person to prove that he has not been previously involved in malicious activity. The person can then be handed the firearm after the expiry of the period and if no issues were identified (Hatch, 1998). The Act has served to improve the gun control policy. Although the bill has helped different states implement their gun control polices, it has had no effect on control of crime. This is because the law targets the guns that are obtained through formal methods such as purchases from federal retailers. Criminals are not known to use this avenue to obtain firearms (Roth, 1994). The Act, therefore, only restricts ownership of firearms to people who intend to use the firearms for legal purposes such as to ward off crime. Gun Control outside US Gun control outside the United States has been stricter and has achieved more success in the US. The strictness of the policy in these countries has resulted in reduced crimes in the countries. Despite this success, several shootings have occurred in such countries. Canada, for example, has witnessed shootings in school. Finland and Sweden have also witnessed such shootings (Heitmeyer, Haupt, Malthaner, & Kirschner, 2010). This shows that even with strict gun control, firearm crimes are still likely to happen. Control of ownership does not, therefore, contribute to the reduction of crime in the US or any other country. Although some countries have recorded a decrease in crime involving firearms, it should be noted that such decreases do not mean complete elimination of such problems. Strict rules on elimination of illegal guns may obtain better results than controlling ownership by the local people. Such countries have employed measures that reduce the availability of illegal guns. Registered Owners and Criminals Registered gun owners are unlikely to commit crimes with their firearms. Criminals are, however, more likely to commit crimes using their illegal firearms since the possibility of being arrested is almost zero. Crime rates for unregistered guns are higher than those of registered guns, a fact which affirms why the Brady Act does not reduce crime. Registered gun users tend to use their guns for personal protection and increase a sense of security. However, criminals obtain guns, from illegal sources, for illegal activity. In other cases, guns may be obtained from licensed retailers but illegally (Wintemute & Braga, 2011). This article does not report registered guns being used in crime. This could mean that registered guns are not involved in criminal activities. Weil (1997) also contends that one way of reducing crime would be to cut the flow of illegal firearms in the country (Weil, 1997). This infers that illegal firearms are mostly responsible for the crimes in the country. An estimated 3,100 deaths occur from registered guns (Kopel, 1993). This is mostly in self defense and can be justified anywhere. However, the number of deaths caused by criminal guns is estimated at 11, 400 (Wintemute & Braga, 2011). The difference between the number of deaths occurring from registered guns and criminal guns is significant in many ways. Gun control would affect registered gun owners. Criminals who own guns would still be at large and continue to commit crimes. This means that the rate of crime dependent on criminals would not go down. Deaths by registered owners may, however, be reduced if such control were put in place. The estimated 3,100 deaths can be justified as a matter of self defense. The effect of registered gun crimes is, therefore, minimal and gun control would not reduce the number of occurring crimes. Strictness and Safety Having strict rules on gun ownership will reduce the number of guns owned by the public. With fewer guns in the public, it is expected that crimes rates would go down and society would be safer. However, this is not the case as it was noted earlier that criminals obtain guns from illegal sources. Registered guns are rarely used for criminal activities and thus it would be illogical to conclude that controlling registered guns would improve safety (Roth, 1994). On the contrary, more guns in the public will increase safety. This is because the guns will be used in self protection which increases the sense of security in a person. This means that thieves and other criminals are unlikely to attack a person wielding a firearm. The victim does not have to shoot the criminal, but rather, just display his weapon. This would scare criminals away and deter crime. The presence of many guns in private hands, therefore, enhances the security of all people. Criminals would still be able to access guns despite measures put in place to curb ownership. However, if they do not know whether a person is armed or not, they would not attack such a person. Controlling ownership will reduce the number of people with guns and reduce the probability of people having guns. This increases their vulnerability. With increased vulnerability, feelings of insecurity crop in. To protect themselves, these people might opt to buy a gun from an illegal source for protection. This compounds the problem of illegal guns in the society. Stricter gun control may, therefore, lead to unsafe communities due to increased illegal guns in the community. Self Defense and Gun Control Gun control restricts ownership of gun to people with legitimate needs for the guns. One of the major reasons why people own guns is self defense. The ownership of guns helps people fight off criminals, not necessarily by shooting them, but just by displaying their weapons. Criminals fear such sites and would not attack such people unless in serious cases. Gun control would limit the access to guns, thereby reducing the capability of a person to defend himself from criminals. Gun control would, therefore, have a negative effect to self defense as people would be unable to provide counter measures to criminals. In addition, intruders would not go into a home which may have a gun. This is because the threat is too much. With gun control, the threat for criminals is significantly reduced and this means that they can attack a person anytime without fear of immediate reprisals. Registration of guns means that people must provide their information to the federal agents who then back check the information for conformity with rules and regulations. Committing crimes using guns obtained from such agents would be incomprehensible. Registered owners, therefore, do not commit crimes using registered guns. Criminals may also obtain legitimate guns but never use them in their criminal activities due to the consequences. With these facts, it is clear that controlling ownership of gun in the public does not control crime and may, in fact, lead to increased crime in the community. Conclusion Gun control is a policy that restricts the ownership of guns in the US and other countries. In the US, this policy is reinforced by the Brady Act which proposes tough measures in the ownership of guns. Although the two acts may be seen to reduce crime in the country, their significance is negligible as they do not seem to affect the rate of crime in towns. This is due to a number of reasons such as the availability of illegal guns in the country. Criminals prefer to use such guns in crime as tracing of such guns may be impossible or tedious. In addition to this, the policy may affect crime negatively due to increased vulnerability which may lead to increased feeling of insecurity. The consequence is the acquisition of illegal firearms. This leads to more illegal guns in the country. Self defense is one of the reasons people buy guns. Gun control would restrict the role of self defense in the country and thus lead to increased crime References Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (1996). Guns in America. Washington: Police Foundation. Hatch, O. G. (1998). The Brady Handgun Prevention Act and the Community Protection Initiative: Legislative responses. Brigham Young University Law Review , 1998 (1), 103. Heitmeyer, W., Haupt, H.-G., Malthaner, S., & Kirschner, A. (2010). The Control of Violence in Modern Society: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, From School Shootings to Ethnic Violence. New York: Springer. Kopel, D. B. (1993). Hold your fire. Policy Review , 63 (58). Roth, J. A. (1994). Firearms and Violence. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt Valdez, A. (2003). Gun Control. New York: Infobase Publishing. Weil, D. (1997). Gun control laws can reduce crime. World & I , 12 (2), 300. Wintemute, G. J., & Braga, A. A. (2011). Opportunities for State-Level Action to Reduce Firearm Violence: Proceeding From the Evidence. American Journal of Public Health , 101 (9), e1-e3. Read More