A Need for National Laws Regulating the Sale of Fire Arms in Gun Shows - Essay Example

Gun Control Gun control is a relatively recent development in the United s. Before the 1920s, there were essentially no restrictions imposed by the US governments on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. In other words, there were no restrictions on the ownership of any gun, ammunition, or, for that matter, other weapons in any circumstances. The contending perspectives on the federal role in combating gun violence expanded the public debate over firearms regulations in recent years amid the furor over the series of assassinations, the racial riots, and the series of gun-related violence. This paper will argue that there is a need for national laws regulating the sale of fire arms in gun shows, flea markets, and conventions. Gun Violence The controversy between gun control and gun rights advocates starts with the gun casualty statistics in America. Gun control proponents cite spiraling casualties as the reason for government intervention, while gun rights proponents downplay the carnage. For instance, since the 1990s, statistics compiled that each day in the United States, a person dies by gunshot every eighteen minutes, totaling nearly 30,000 deaths per year: about half of these are suicides, another 11,000 are murders, and about 1,500 are gunshot accidents. (Crooker, p. 1) The Violence Policy Center has reported the following figures on firearms deaths and injuries: Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicide, homiides and unintentional injuries. (cited in Crooker, p. 2) Critics of gun control argue that a rather large empirical literature has failed to establish a consistent, statistically significant link between gun ownership and crime. According to William Shughart, it was even reported that there is a negative relationship (i.e., that gun ownership deters crime), (p. 157) The consensus finding – no statistically significant link – seems consistent with ordinary common sense: Criminals can use guns to prey on law-abiding citizens, but if guns were legal. Law-abiding citizens can also use guns to defend themselves from the criminal elements. It is possible, Harry Wilson (2006) wrote, that all citizens benefit from those who own guns if criminals are deterred because they think a potential victim might be armed. (p. 74) Indeed, there is probably no stopping the individual who is intent upon killing another person; he can and will procure a firearm or substitute another weapon. But policies such as gun control or gun ban reduce the availability of these weapons and prevent homicides and murders. The nature of regulation can reduce the convenience, cost, ease and therefore, attraction, of purchasing a gun. This is a fact. The 2002 sniper killings in the Washington D.C. area and the series of student mass-killings in schools recently underscores the result of the widespread availability of deadly rifles and handguns. These kinds of incidences exactly justify the studies that dispel the argument that no evidence could prove a relationship between gun-control and crime. Larry Siegel (2006) chronicled a series of studies that would illustrate the case in point: Cross-national research conducted by Anthony Hoskin found that nations, including the United States, that have high levels of privately owned firearms also have the highest levels of murder. Similarly, Matthew Miller and his associates show that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were high, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide. And in recent meta-analysis, Lisa Hepburn and David Hemenway found that (a) households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, (b) there is no beneficial effect of firearm ownership, (c) both men and women are at higher risk for homicide in nations with high rates of gun ownership, and, (d) looking at cities, states, regions, and the United States as a whole, gun prevalence is related to homicide rises. (p. 49) This is not at all surprising. According to a recent Small Arms Survey, the United States has by far the largest number of publicly owned firearms in the world and is approaching the point where there is one gun for every American, about 280 million firearms. (Siegel, p. 49) Conclusion Allowing gun ownership for the reason that citizens should have the right to defend themselves is tantamount to acknowledging the failure of the US law enforcement system to create and safeguard a peaceful American society. The argument that guns should be available so that law-abiding citizens would have means at their disposal when criminals or even common individuals use it against them is absurd at best. The criminals or the would-be criminals and murderers would not have any of these tools in the first place if guns are regulated or banned. Gun-ownership and gun-related violence is a national issue that deserves a federal government attention and strict law-enforcement. The way gun ownership is being dealt with state by state – in varying degrees of enforcement - is the reason why gun regulations and statutes do not curb violence. Someone can easily buy gun over the counter in a state that is liberal on gun ownership and murder school-children in a state that regulates gun strictly. Studies show criminals are more likely to obtain their guns in the secondary market. (Wilson 2006, p. 73) A few places such Chicago or Washington D.C. actually ban guns, but a legal gun purchase is available a subway ride away, in a nearby suburb where gun dealers cater to high-powered street gangs. A study by the National Economic Research Associates found that in those states with strong gun control laws, 75% of the handguns used in crimes came from other states but in those states with weak gun control laws, two-thirds of the handguns used in crimes were purchased in that state. (Wilson 2000, p. 154) The states that make it easy to buy a gun not only endanger their own citizens but also export death to people throughout America. Gun control in the context of federal scope also addresses the issue that gun manufacture and sales are undertaken by organizations operating not by state but nationally – a broad base of arms groups with a strong political organization. I believe that that these organizations hold more sway in the state level with their respective local ideologies and region. Figures from the US Bureau of Census showed that consumers spent approximately $2.3 billion on firearms. (Shughart, p. 155) Undoubtedly, these sales are a source of tax revenues to the state governments as well as the federal government. Perhaps this is the reason why Republicans and Democrats alike would never entertain the idea of total gun ban and the passage of stricter and federal gun control laws. Policymakers should keep in mind that guns generate significant negative externalities for society, and that it is in the government’s interest to attempt to reduce these costs to society by regulation. It is obvious that gun prohibition would require a large amount of tax revenue sacrifice but it is not difficult to accept that a federal law or even ban on gun ownership would produce benefits that outweigh this disadvantage. Opponents argue that gun control in America has not really worked. But gun control has never really tried. So far, what we have is the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and its series of amendments, which essentially provide waiting periods and modest restrictions on weapons but nothing to halt the “gun in every pocket” philosophy in America. In the meantime, people can still buy guns legally and guns would now nearly outnumber the population and that scenario is certainly not for the better. References Crooker, C. (2003). Gun Control and Gun Rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. Shughart, W. (1997). Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Siegel, L. (2006). Criminology. Thomas Wadsworth. Wilson, J. (2000). How the Left Can Win Arguments and Influence People. New York: NYU Press. Wilson, H. (2006). Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms. Rowman & Liitlefield. Read More