The Relationship between Guns and Crime - Essay Example

The Case for Gun Control 0. Introduction The relationship between guns and crime is a highly debated topic (Altheimer 204). It is a debate that has reached the halls of the United States Congress (Krouse 2012). Public debate on the issue exacerbated especially because of the shootings in Tucson, AZ on 8 January 2011 (Krouse 2012). 2.0. Arguments Raised by Anti-Gun Control Advocates Perhaps, one of the most powerful arguments against firearms control is the article by Kates and Mauser in 2007. According to Kates and Mauser, the studies that they have reviewed failed to show that there is a correlation between the number of guns and crime (693). Further, neither did the studies that they have reviewed show that guns are associated with suicide rates (693). They emphasized that there is no evidence that more guns mean more number of deaths and the fewer guns imply less deaths (Kates and Mauser 693). Kates and Mauser argued that people do not kill just because they have more guns nor people commit suicides just because there are more guns (693). The authors cited several examples to illustrate why more guns do not led to more crimes or more suicides. For example, the authors pointed out that “in the 1960s and early 1970s, the gunless Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America” (651). Moreover, “while American murder rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder rates increased so drastically that by the early 1990s, the Russian rates was three times higher than the United States” (Kates and Mauser 651). The authors also cited the example of Luxembourg and Germany (Kates and Mauser 651). In Luxembourg,”where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002” (Kates and Mauser 651). Citing the work of another author, Kates and Mauser emphasized that there is no consistent correlation between gun ownership levels and violence across time in the United States, US cities, nations, and population sub-groups. Kates and Mauser also reported that the review of the United States National Academy of Science in 2004 “failed to review any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents” based on “253 journals, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research” (654). Nevertheless, despite the supposedly impressive volume of materials that were interpreted to have failed to indicate a positive correlation between gun availability and crime, it does not follow that the logical policy to make is not to control the use of guns. Even if we assume that the studies cited by Kates and Mauser are valid, it continues not make sense not to control the supply of guns, knowing the risks involved in guns. For instance, it seems very commonsensical to argue even without research that we really have to control the availability of guns and all weapons among juveniles. We now look into the arguments for gun control. 3.0. Arguments for Gun Control The merit of gun control is supported by the latest research. Most important, Altheimer reported that although that many studies have been done, “most of the research has found a significant association between gun availability and violence.” Altheimer enumerated that the studies that indicate a significant association between gun availability and violence include the research of Ludwig in 1998, Maltz and Targoniski in 2002, Martin and Legault in 2005, Rubin and Dezbakhsh in 2003, and Zimring and Hawkins in 1997 (Altheimer 204). The Altheimer study of 2010 “was the first to examine the relationship between gun availability and crime in a cross-national sample of cities” (Altheimer 217). The study used LIML or limited information likelihood regression, a type of two-stage least square regression or 2SLS (213). LIML involves “two successive applications of maximum likelihood regression analysis” (Altheimer 214). The regression used an instrumental variable “gun availability” as predicted by variables deemed exogenous or given (214). To ensure that the regression models used for the study were valid, diagnostics were employed on the regression statistics used (Altheimer 214). In particular, the LIML regression models used for the study were tested for “multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity, outliners, normally distributed errors, and non-linearity” and were deemed to have adequately passed the test (Altheimer 214). In other words, the LIML regression model used was tested for possible conditions that may invalidate the results and was deemed to have passed the applicable tests or regression diagnostics. The LIML regression was applied on 39 cities covering Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and countries on other continents (Altheimer 220-221). The sample of cities in Altheimer’s 2010 study includes cities from developing, as well as developed countries. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether the sample of 39 cities used was a random sample, purposive, or a convenient sample. Further, no US city was included in the sample. However, the data covered by Altheimer in 2010, was “the most far reaching comparable crime victimization data” as of 2010 (Altheimer 210). The Altheimer study of 2010 has four key findings. We report the four key findings but omit the regression statistical data and level of significance of the regression statistics to keep our discussion simple. First, Altheimer found that the sign and significance of regression coefficients they have obtained indicated that “gun availability is positively associated with all crime indicators, thereby lending support to the weapon facilitation and instrumentality hypotheses” (Altheimer 214). Secondly, Altheimer’s regression results revealed that “gun availability positively influences rates of assaults” (Altheimer 217). Altheimer interpreted the regression results to lend “support to the facilitation hypothesis” (217). Thirdly, Altheimer also found that “gun availability influences gun assault” (217). Altheimer interpreted the data and regression statistical results to mean that “increasing the lithe availability of guns increases the likelihood that a gun, as opposed to another weapon or no weapon at all, will be used in an assault” (217). Finally or fourth, “gun availability influences both robbery and gun robbery” (217). Again, Altheimer interpreted the data and regression statistical results to “lend some support to the weapon facilitation and instrumentality hypotheses” on the role between guns and robbery (217). Altheimer elaborated that “thirty-seven percent of the variation in robbery, and 35% of the variation in gun robbery was explained by the models” that used the availability of guns as one of the explanatory variables (217). The independent and dependent variables employed in Altheimer’s study in 2010 were measured in terms of rate per 100,000 population (Altheimer 220-221). Altheimer’s study in 2010 echoed a set of results similar to the study the author wrote in 2008. Altheimer’s 2010 study used the same data Altheimer used in 2008. However, Altheimer’s study in 2008 used hierarchical linear modeling instead of the LIML modeling that Altheimer used in 2010. The two key findings of the Altheimer’s study in 2008 are as follows. First of all, “individuals who live in cities with high levels of gun availability have higher odds of being the victims of gun assaults or gun robbery than individuals who live in cities with low levels of gun availability” (Altheimer, “Do Guns Matter? A Multi-level Cross National Examination of Gun Availabiity on Assault and Robbery Victimization” 9). This means that the when guns are more available in cities, there is a higher likelihood that individuals will be assaulted with guns or victimized by a robbery in which a gun is used. Second, Altheimer’s results in 2008 found “little support for the proposition that city-level gun availability interacts with individuals behavior to influence individuals odds of assault or robbery victimization” (Altheimer, “Do Guns Matter? A Multi-level Cross National Examination of Gun Availability on Assault and Robbery Victimization” 9). Overall, Altheimer’s 2008 study suggested that guns do not influence the commission of a crime but guns would likely be used in a crime if they were more available in a city. In other words, greater availability of guns increases the likelihood of violent crimes in a city. Unlike the 2010 Altheimer study in which the measurement of variables were clear, variable measurement in the 2008 study was less clear and the 2008 study did not execute regression diagnostics. Browne, US Congress Specialist, reported that the United Nations recognizes the need for gun control because when guns are not controlled, the same guns are made accessible to terrorists (1). The United Nations recognize that “reducing the level of illegal and illicit firearms moving across borders” is a “way of reducing crime, violence, and conflict” (Browne 1). The UN is even “after American’s’ Second Amendment gun rights; it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S.” (Browne 2). Simultaneously, the UN General Assembly in May 2001 “approved a gun control treaty that calls on all nations to work together ‘to prevent, combat and eradicate the illegal manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition” (Browne 2). The United States was also a signatory to the 11 November 1997 Convention against Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking of Firearms (Browne 4). Under the international convention, the United States were committed “to address the problem of transnational trafficking in firearms” although hearings have not been held after the transmission of the document to the United States Senate (Browne 4). Nevertheless, the convention remains valid even if the Convention “does not commit State Parties to enact legislations or regulations pertaining to firearms” (Browne 4). Earlier, in 2000, the Open Society Institute enumerated several irregularities in the history of the United States that highlighted the merits of gun control. First of all, twelve-year old kids and below in some states needs their parents’ to play Little League Baseball but a parent’s permission was not required to possess a gun, which is odd because a gun can kill while a basketball usually does not (Open Society Institute 1). Second, there was no limit in several states on the number of guns a person can carry which appears to be an irregularity given the dangers of a possessing a gun (Open Society Institute 1). Third, an illegal market for guans has been growing rapidly (Open Society Institute 2). Meanwhile, contrary to the view articulated by gun owners’ associations, the data reported by Krouse in 2007, 2011, and 2012 when compared to the data reported by the Open Society Institute in 2000 appear to be more consistent with view that gun control is associated with a reduction in violent crimes or crimes involving a gun. Krouse reported in 2007, 2011, and 2012 that 35% of American households own various types of guns (Krouse 2007, 3; Krouse 2011, 4; Krouse 2012, 4). In contrast, the data reported by the Open Society Institute in 2000 proved that 40% of American households own various types of guns during the year, indicating that gun ownership measured in terms of the percentage of households with guns actually decreased during the period 2000 to 2011. Associated with decrease in gun ownership, violent crime rate or the rates of crimes associated with guns have decreased, based on the data of Krouse from 2007, 2011, and 2012. The rate of murder victims per 100,000 decreased from 9.5 in 1993 to 4.8 in 2010 (Krouse 2012, 6). The rate per 100,000 of firearms-related murder and non-negligent manslaughter victim decreased from 6.6 in 1993 to 3.2 in 2010 (Krouse 2012, 6). Yet, despite an increasing population, the cases of firearms-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to only 11,493 in 2009 (Krouse 2012, 6). Firearms-related suicides dropped from 18,940 in 1993 to 18,735 in 2009 (Krouse 2012, 6). Based on the work of Krouse in 2012, there are actually more controls in US gun laws after 9/11 than before 9/11 (Krouse 2012, 51). Based on the document of the Open Society Institute in 2000, gun control prior to 9/11 was “concentrating primarily on sales by licensed gun dealers” (5). It is more plausible that gun control laws have tightened over the years because of 9/11 and, thus, we can associate the overall improvement in the violent crime levels to tighter controls on gun access. 4.0. Concluding Statement Based on the foregoing, what appears reasonable to conclude is that the case for gun control continues to rest on good merit. First of all, the latest research provides scientific and statistical evidence to the merit of the view that gun control can reduce violent crime. Further, the statistical tool employed to assess data related to the correlation between violent crime and ownership has passed the regression diagnostics thereby supporting the view that the regression statistics that have been used were valid. Second, we are signatory to the 1997 international convention calling for gun control. Although we are not legally compelled to implement the agreements in the convention, we have a moral obligation to do given that the international agreements that United States has committed to are correct in the first place. Finally, available data are more consistent with the view that with the increasing gun control during the first decade of the 21st century, the firearms-related crime has decreased, not increased. Works Cited Altheimer, Irshad. “An Exploratory Analysis of Guns and Violent Crime in a Cross-National Sample of Cities.” The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 6.2 (2010), 204-227. Print. Altheimer, Irshad. “Do Guns Matter? A Multi-level Cross-National Examination of Gun Availability on Assault and Robbery Victimization.” Western Criminology Review 9.32 (2008): 9-32. Print. Browne, Marjorie Ann. “The United Nations and Gun Control.” CRS Report for Congress. United States Congress: Congressional Research Service, 7 Apr. 2005. Print. Kates, Don and Mauser, G. “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 30.2 (2007): 649-694. Print. Krouse, William. “Gun Control Legislation.” CRS Report for Congress RL32842. United States Congress: Domestic Social Policy Division, 27 Apr. 2007. Print. Krouse, William. “Gun Control Legislation.” CRS Report for Congress RL32842 7-5700. United States Congress: Congressional Research Service, 3 Feb. 2011. Print. Krouse, William. “Gun Control Legislation.” CRS Report for Congress RL32842 7-5700. United States Congress: Congressional Research Service, 2 Mar. 2012. Print. Open Society Institute. Gun Control in the United States. New York, Open society Institute, March 2000. Print. Read More