The Gun Control Debate
Introduction
Gun control has remained a hot topic in the United States for the past year. This followed the Sandy Hook shooting and other similar events that have led to loss of innocent lives. In early 2013, President Barack Obama suggested an ambitious gun control system that consisted of a series of congressional actions that would reestablish a ban on assault weapons and call for universal background checks when purchasing a firearm. Obama’s attempt of tightening gun laws and ownership has received much support and opposition in equal measure. Proponents argue that tighter gun laws are the solution to the nation’s endemic gun violence and crime, since they would reduce the incidence of guns. In essence, gun laws would control the types of firearms that can be purchased and tighten qualification for gun ownership. On the other hand, opponents argue that gun ownership is their fundamental right and that when many people have guns, criminals will be detracted. Using support from scholarly literature and examples from other countries, this paper argues that gun control laws will reduce the incidence of gun violence.
Maria de Fátima Marinho,de Souza, Macinko, J., Airlane, P. A., Deborah, C. M., & Otaliba Libânio de, M. N. (2007). UPDATE: INTERNATIONAL REPORT: Reductions in firearm-related mortality and hospitalizations in Brazil after gun control. Health Affairs, 26(2), 575-84.
This article reports the findings of a research study carried out in Brazil to investigate the impact of tighter gun laws on firearm related violence. In late 2003, the country passed an anti-gun legislation, which was followed by an extensive disarmament campaign throughout the country. This meant that gun-related violence statistics after this law was passed could directly be compared with those before 2004 and the difference could be explained as the impact of the legislation. The researchers analyzed firearm related hospitalizations and deaths between 1996 and 2005. Their findings show that firearm related hospitalizations fell by 13% within a year of law enforcement while attempted suicides by guns declined by 18%. In total, they estimated that as much as 5,563 gun-related deaths were averted in 2004 alone. These results show that the gun laws significantly reduced the incidences of gun violence in the country.
When arguing for a position on such a controversial topic, it is always appropriate to use examples and objective studies. Brazil has one of the highest criminal rates in the world. Therefore, its experience with gun laws can be predictive of the US situation. This article is valuable to this argument since it examined a country that has been grappling with gun violence for a long time. In addition, it studied the impact of legislation soon after it was passed. This implies that the reduction in gun violence had much to do with the stricter gun laws. Its findings support this paper’s position that tighter gun laws, when implemented, will considerably gun violence in the country.
Matzopoulos, R. G., Thompson, M. L., & Myers, J. E., (2014). Firearm and non-firearm homicide in 5 South African cities: A retrospective population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 455-460.
This study examined the success of a South African firearm control act, which was passed in 2000, in reducing gun homicides rates across five cities between 2001 and 2005. The research entailed conducting a retrospective study of around 37,000 firearm and non-firearm homicide cases. The researchers used generalized linear models to approximate and compare time trends of the homicides. Their findings showed a statistically significant decreasing tendency in gun related homicides as from 2001. For the five years under study, homicides rates declined by an average of 13.6 percent per year. Moreover, the year-on-year decrease in non-firearm homicides was also significant, but extremely lower at 0.976%. The results also show that 4,585 lives were saved across the five cities as a result of the passing of the gun law. This shows that the firearm control act was effective in reducing gun violence in South Africa.
Similar to Brazil, South Africa has one of the highest criminal rates in the world. This can be attributed to a number of social factors such as poverty, considerable wealth inequality and racial differences. To address this situation, the government has been tightening gun laws within the country. This study is useful in this discussion since it objectively examines how gun laws have been effective in reducing gun violence in the country. If the researchers could have extended their study to all cities then the number of deaths that were saved would have been more. Any law that can cause a 13.6% per annum reduction in violence is effective. This also shows why the US should implement such a law.
Frances, A., M. D. (2012). Mass murders, madness, and gun control. Psychiatric Times, 29(9), 1-4.
In this article, Frances notes how the US has one of the worst statistics for gun deaths and mass murders in the developed world. For example, the country has averaged two episodes of mass murders each year for the past fifteen years. Unless something is done to prevent them, he argues that the nation will continue to carry this sorry record for the foreseeable future. According to him, the ubiquity of weaponry is what makes the United States such a dangerous place to live. He argues that the number of people killed depends on the number of guns and the number of rounds that can be fired at a time. This implies that if the number of guns is reduced, incidences of gun violence would reduce. Similarly, if powerful weapons are prohibited, the number of people killed during a shooting would be low. In the end, Frances says that to get in line with the rest of the developed world, the country should adopt sane gun control policies.
Frances has raised vital points to answer pro-gun advocates. When such mass murders happen, most pro-gun activists point out at the mental state of the shooter and claiming that he is the exception, not the rule. However, Frances believes that this should not be the case. He writes that the elephant in the room is how it has become easy for these killers to buy or possess firearms and unlimited rounds of ammunition. The reason why these mentally ill killers go on a shooting spree is that they have access to a loaded gun. If they lacked this weaponry, they would not engage in such criminal activities, their mental state notwithstanding. Therefore, rather than haggling about the mental health of shooters, there should be stricter gun laws that will ensure that only sane and peaceful people possess guns.
Zimring, F. E. (2004). Firearms, violence, and the potential impact of firearms control. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32(1), 34-37.
This article examines the matter of gun control as a policy for violence in two dimensions. The first dimension looks at the relationship between gun use and deaths as a result of violent crime. The second dimension explored whether firearms control might reduce violent death rates. From his evidence, Zimring established that gun use increase the death rate from violence by a factor of between three and five. This implies that the more people use guns, since they own them, violent death rates will remain high. Zimring points out that virtually everyone in mainstream criminology and social science agrees to this finding, even though some are skeptical of the magnitude. However, when reviewing the extent to which specific approaches of controlling firearms might reduce violent death rates, he found that evidence for modern attempts is much weaker than the evidence that gun use causes death. Consequently, he concludes that gun control is a conceivably life-saving tool, but only if guns used in attack can be reduced.
While it is true that guns are used in less than 5% of all crimes, they account for more than 70% of all deaths arising from crime. This implies that they are the biggest contributors of all violent deaths. This perhaps explains this article’s findings that reduced gun use reduces violent death rates by a factor of up to five. This supports the position that controlling gun use will reduce gun related violence. The second dimension justifies why gun ownership should be restricted. Many lives would be saved as long as people that would use them to attack others are restricted from accessing them.
Kwon, I. G., & Baack, D. W. (2005). The effectiveness of legislation controlling gun usage: A holistic measure of gun control legislation. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 64(2), 533-547.
In this article, Kwon and Baack note that results from previous studies investigating the effectiveness of gun control laws have been mixed. They believe that this is because the researchers use individual laws as the main variables. Conversely, their study utilized a comprehensive and holistic measure of state gun control legislations to examine their overall effectiveness. They used a multivariate linear regression model to analyze the relationship between the holistic gun control measure and gun deaths per 100,000 residents of each state. Their findings show that an all inclusive gun control law indeed reduces the numbers of gun related deaths by between one to six per 100,000 individuals, especially in those states that have the strictest gun laws. This study supports the position that tighter gun laws can significantly reduce gun violence throughout the United States.
The gun control debate has persisted for such a long time since results from independent experiments differ incredibly. Thus, Kwon and Baack may be correct when they write that these differences arise from the divergent methodologies. With these differences in mind, they developed a more comprehensive measure that would examine the legislations in their aggregate forms. Therefore, their methodology may be considered more accurate than the many other similar studies. In addition, they compared states with lax gun laws to those with stricter gun laws. Since this is a US problem, using statistics from states was a fitting approach. This makes their findings more plausible. The experiences of individual states can predict how the entire country would fare if these laws would be implemented. As already discussed, studies carried out in Brazil and South Africa showed that tighter gun laws reduced gun violence cases in those countries. This present research shows that stricter gun laws in some US states reduced gun violence in those states. Therefore, it can be concluded that, in general, stricter gun laws will lead to a reduction in gun violence.
Dahlberg, L. L., Ikeda, R. M., & Kresnow, M. J. (2004). Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 160(10), 929-936.
This study investigated whether having a gun at home increases the possibility of violent death in the household. The researchers surveyed individuals who keep guns at their homes before studying the US mortality data. Their findings show that persons with guns were at an increased risk of dying from homicide in their homes when compared to those without guns. Furthermore, they were also at an increased risk of dying from a gun homicide. The results also show that the risk of dying from suicide at home was greater for men who keep guns at home than those without guns. People who keep guns are more likely to die from suicide carried out by a firearm than any other method. These findings were consistent irrespective of the type of gun, mode of storage, and number of guns.
The home is supposed to be one of the friendliest places for all of us. However, this is not always the case. Ordinarily, we have differences with our siblings from time to time. Parents also have disagreements every now and then. In most cases, these small disagreements get resolved since the bond family members have for each other is always strong. When lethal weapons are not involved, these disagreements end peacefully or with negligible injuries. However, when one person has a gun, emotions might run high such that he/she may resort to shooting the other. Regrettably, this study has found that homes with guns have become a death trap. Presently, apart from fearing criminals, we should start fearing our family members as long as a gun is kept somewhere in the house. This ought not to be the case since our homes should be our comfort zones. To reverse this, the country needs to restrict gun ownership.
Hemenway, D. (2011). Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home. American journal of lifestyle medicine, 5(6), 502-511.
In this article, Hemenway reviews scientific literature that discusses the benefits and health risks of keeping a gun at home, for the firearm owners and their family. He notes that most scientific studies confirm that it is more risky than beneficial to keep a gun at home. For example, people with guns are at a higher risk of committing suicide with them. Moreover, homes with guns are more likely to experience gun accidents than those homes without guns. In the same breath, guns at home can be used for intimidation and, in some cases, killing a spouse in case of domestic conflicts. Few studies have indicated that gun ownership is of benefit to families. Hemenway also writes that there is no credible evidence that guns deter or reduce the likelihood and severity of injury during a conflict. He thus concludes that parents should not keep guns at home.
This article appears to support the findings of Dahlberg et al. (2004). Contrary to popular opinion, guns have actually made our homes unsafe. In general, they cannot deter a break in. Domestic violence has also risen to become a major issue in the United States. It is estimated that about 25 people per minute become victims of rape, physical violence or stalking orchestrated by an intimate partner. Domestic violence is also one of the leading causes of homelessness. Meanwhile, about a third of women who are victims of homicide are killed by their partners. The role of guns in these unfortunate events cannot be underestimated. Hemenway has discussed that guns are used not only for intimidating other people but also hurting and, in worst cases scenarios, killing them. In essence, guns are one the biggest contributors of domestic violence. Apart from homelessness, domestic violence leads to neglect of children. Children who try to intervene when their parents fight are also likely to be injured. Even though it is extremely risky to keep a gun at home, families still possess them since they think that they are protecting themselves. To reduce the amount of extent of domestic violence, gun ownership should be restricted.
Devi, S. (2012). Researchers call for reform of US gun control policies. The Lancet, 380(9853), 1545.
In this article, Devi laments how individuals who have previously been convicted of violent behaviors, who have a court issued restraining order for domestic violence or who have a history of substance abuse or mental illness can legally own firearms in most states. Moreover, he questions why federal gun laws permit private gun sellers to trade their firearms without establishing whether the purchasers have passed the entire criminal background check. Such loopholes have contributed significantly to the incidence of gun violence. Devi notes that in 2010 alone, 31 000 people were killed by guns. Such high gun death rates have meant that the US homicide rate is seven times more than the average of all other developed countries. Several reasons explain this unequaled homicide rate: easy access to guns with large capacity magazines, right to carry gun legislations and lax laws that permit individuals with past criminal record, the under aged, drug addicts, mentally ill persons, and perpetrators of domestic violence to own guns. In conclusion, he argues that if these laws are changed and the loopholes sealed, gun violence would reduce.
Many people have died as a result of being shot. Each year, the country loses tens of thousands of people due to gun violence. Devi has raised some important loopholes that need to be fixed if this situation is to be reversed. For instance, it does not make sense to allow someone with a violent past to have an easy access to a gun. Drug addicts cannot also be allowed to have guns since they are not normally in total control of their behaviors. The mentally ill are also incapable of controlling their actions. These are just some of the many loopholes that the current laws allow. A comprehensive law needs to be instituted that would seal such flaws so that there is relative safety in our neighborhoods.
References
Dahlberg, L. L., Ikeda, R. M., & Kresnow, M. J. (2004). Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 160(10), 929-936.
Devi, S. (2012). Researchers call for reform of US gun control policies. The Lancet, 380(9853), 1545.
Frances, A., M.D. (2012). Mass murders, madness, and gun control. Psychiatric Times, 29(9), 1-4.
Hemenway, D. (2011). Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home. American journal of lifestyle medicine, 5(6), 502-511.
Kwon, I. G., & Baack, D. W. (2005). The effectiveness of legislation controlling gun usage: A holistic measure of gun control legislation. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 64(2), 533-547.
Maria de Fátima Marinho,de Souza, Macinko, J., Airlane, P. A., Deborah, C. M., & Otaliba Libânio de, M. N. (2007). UPDATE: INTERNATIONAL REPORT: Reductions in firearm-related mortality and hospitalizations in Brazil after gun control. Health Affairs, 26(2), 575-84.
Matzopoulos, R. G., Thompson, M. L., & Myers, J. E., (2014). Firearm and non-firearm homicide in 5 South African cities: A retrospective population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 455-460.
Zimring, F. E. (2004). Firearms, violence, and the potential impact of firearms control. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32(1), 34-37.