Many examples and case studies exist that bolster the idea that lawful gun ownership can reduce crime. As mentioned previously, a disarmed citizenship represents a more vulnerable target to most criminals. One case study in which Florida passed a right-to-carry (concealed firearm permits) law in 1987 reveals convincing data (Agresti, James D. “Gun Control Facts.” Just Facts. June 10, 1999). After law-abiding citizens were allowed to conceal carry firearms, the crime rates drastically dropped in Florida between 1987 and 1996. A graph provided by the study indicated that the homicide rate dropped 36%, the firearm homicide rate plummeted 37%, and the handgun homicide rate fell 41%. Critics of the law argued that arming citizens with concealed weapons would simple aggravate the handgun violence problem. In response to this concern, the study revealed that out of 221,433 concealed carry licenses issued in Florida between 1987 and 1994, only 18 individuals legally carrying concealed weapons were guilty of crimes. Therefore, the presence of lawful guns in Florida drastically reduced crime. Further bolstering the idea that lawful gun possession reduces crime, the data indicates that licensed gun owners are statistically very unlikely to use their handgun for criminal purposes (18 cases out of 221,433 licensed permit holders).
Another source, the NRA, issued the following statement in their 2010 Firearm Fact Card: “Forty states have Right-to-Carry, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law. And, since 1991, the total violent crime rate has declined over 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate has declined by half to a 45-year low.” The NRA prefaced this information by stating that in recent years, legislators have been reducing the severity of gun control. Similar data in other cities and across the nation supports the reality that lawful gun owners reduce crime.
What does this mean about the relationship between guns and violence? Guns, when used responsibly by law-abiding citizens reduce crime. A basic logical deduction can be drawn from this phenomenon: upstanding citizens who carry guns act as a deterrent to those who would commit a crime against them. If a criminal suspects that a person carries a gun or possesses guns in his or her home, they will most likely be less inclined to commit a crime against that person or that household. Therefore, gun control should target criminals who possess guns illegally, not law-abiding citizens who essentially act as a deterrence to crime. As now implemented, gun control can actually encourage more crime as it disarms the American populace. Gun control creates a dangerous vulnerability. Perhaps one of the best ways to fight crime is to reduce the market for crime, reduce the easy targets that encourage criminals to rob, rape, and murder. If criminals in a city knew that most citizens possessed a firearm and would use it to protect themselves, crime rates would most likely drastically decrease. Although the intentions of gun legislation are to reduce crime, it fails do accomplish this. Revoking the current gun laws that disarm law-abiding citizens and prohibit them from purchasing handguns and enacting laws that strictly targeted the black-market and criminals who illegally possess firearms will successfully reduce crime.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Does Gun Control Really Reduce Crime?
Perhaps gun legislation does reduce gun crime, but does it reduce all factors of crime? Gun control advocates can clearly argue that by performing background checks alone, hundreds of potentially dangerous people are not able to purchase handguns. Common sense would suggest that by reducing the availability of guns and by enforcing stricter requirements for those who can purchase a handgun, the amount of criminals acquiring guns would also decrease. Perhaps gun control activists also argue that restricting a constitutional right is necessary if it means less crime and less murders. What is the use of a constitutional right if people are not safe or worse yet not alive to enjoy that right? Therefore, those wishing to regulate guns and their availability present a valid and convincing argument. But the question remains, does restricting guns really reduce crime, does it deter true criminals from committing criminal acts, and does it truly protect innocent and law-abiding citizens?
Many factors arise that question whether or not gun control really succeeds in reducing crime. Some probing question could be: do most criminally minded people purchase their guns from legal dealers or do they acquire their guns illegally from the black market? If gun control does limit a criminal’s ability to use a gun illegally, will that criminal simply find another weapon or other means to commit the same crime? Lastly but most importantly, does gun control disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to more criminal attacks because they are more likely to be unarmed under the more strict gun control? Logic alone suggests that a criminal would rather commit a criminal act against one who is unarmed as opposed to a person who is armed.
One major U.S. city in particular offers a keen perspective on whether or not gun legislation actually reduces crime. In 1976, Washington D.C. officials implemented a gun ban that nearly stripped the city of any legal firearm possession. One Adam Liptak, in a New York Times article, discussed the results of this firearm ban (Liptak, Adam. “Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship.” New York Times. June 29, 2008). In this article he quoted Supreme Court Justice Breyer as stating: “Indeed a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.” The Washington D.C. gun ban is a case study that suggests gun control. Essentially, the gun ban disarmed nearly all resident of the D.C. area. That is, the ban disarmed those who legally possessed handguns. Unfortunately, many criminals acquire firearms illegally, leaving no trace for officials to know that they have them. Even if laws ban the sale of handguns, there will always be an illegal market that supplies deadly weapons to criminals, much like the illegal drug trade and black market. Most likely, crime rates quickly rose in Washington D.C. because criminals still possessed their illegal handguns while law-abiding citizens were disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
Many factors arise that question whether or not gun control really succeeds in reducing crime. Some probing question could be: do most criminally minded people purchase their guns from legal dealers or do they acquire their guns illegally from the black market? If gun control does limit a criminal’s ability to use a gun illegally, will that criminal simply find another weapon or other means to commit the same crime? Lastly but most importantly, does gun control disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to more criminal attacks because they are more likely to be unarmed under the more strict gun control? Logic alone suggests that a criminal would rather commit a criminal act against one who is unarmed as opposed to a person who is armed.
One major U.S. city in particular offers a keen perspective on whether or not gun legislation actually reduces crime. In 1976, Washington D.C. officials implemented a gun ban that nearly stripped the city of any legal firearm possession. One Adam Liptak, in a New York Times article, discussed the results of this firearm ban (Liptak, Adam. “Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship.” New York Times. June 29, 2008). In this article he quoted Supreme Court Justice Breyer as stating: “Indeed a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.” The Washington D.C. gun ban is a case study that suggests gun control. Essentially, the gun ban disarmed nearly all resident of the D.C. area. That is, the ban disarmed those who legally possessed handguns. Unfortunately, many criminals acquire firearms illegally, leaving no trace for officials to know that they have them. Even if laws ban the sale of handguns, there will always be an illegal market that supplies deadly weapons to criminals, much like the illegal drug trade and black market. Most likely, crime rates quickly rose in Washington D.C. because criminals still possessed their illegal handguns while law-abiding citizens were disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
The Aim of Gun Control
Gun legislation in the United States represents the efforts of political officials and interest groups to restrict gun usage and availability. Their primary purpose is to reduce crime rates by regulating more strictly those who can possess a firearm and under what circumstances. The Gun Control Act of 1968 placed restrictions on how guns could be sold and distributed throughout the United States. Only licensed individuals, such as gun dealers, could distribute firearms between different states. Furthermore, the act significantly restricted who could and could not possess a firearm legally. For example, any person convicted of a crime with a jail sentence of over a year could not buy a firearm. In addition to anyone with a criminal record, illegal aliens were likewise not permitted to buy or possess a firearm. The Gun Control Act of 1968 generated much controversy amongst as many gun owners and licensed firearm dealers felt overly restricted by ATF regulations. After instances of questionable behavior of ATF officials towards licensed firearm dealers, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was revised under the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act in 1986.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This law instituted for the first time a lateral mandate to perform federal background checks for all those wishing to purchase a handgun. As with the Gun Control Act of 1968, any background check indicating a criminal past would revoke one’s ability to purchase a handgun. Between 1994 and 2008, over 300 attempts by individual’s with criminal pasts were denied being able to buy a handgun (Knox, Becca, Brady Background Checks: 15 Years of Saving Lives. Washington, DC: Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. November 30, 2008). In addition to these acts, other federal court and Supreme Court ruling have also enacted gun control. While many concerns exist that question the implications of gun control, such as it restricting constitutional rights, the most publicized aim of gun control legislation is to reduce crimes committed by using firearms. Evidence suggests that gun crime has been reduced since the laws have taken effect. However such evidence still does not tell the entire story about the tricky relationship between guns and crime.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This law instituted for the first time a lateral mandate to perform federal background checks for all those wishing to purchase a handgun. As with the Gun Control Act of 1968, any background check indicating a criminal past would revoke one’s ability to purchase a handgun. Between 1994 and 2008, over 300 attempts by individual’s with criminal pasts were denied being able to buy a handgun (Knox, Becca, Brady Background Checks: 15 Years of Saving Lives. Washington, DC: Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. November 30, 2008). In addition to these acts, other federal court and Supreme Court ruling have also enacted gun control. While many concerns exist that question the implications of gun control, such as it restricting constitutional rights, the most publicized aim of gun control legislation is to reduce crimes committed by using firearms. Evidence suggests that gun crime has been reduced since the laws have taken effect. However such evidence still does not tell the entire story about the tricky relationship between guns and crime.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Introduction to Guns and Crime in America
All over America, thousands of crimes are committed each day. These crimes range from petty misdemeanors to heinous acts that destroy and take lives. Although crime may come in many different shapes and sizes, most people can agree on one aspect of crime – crime and guns share a close relationship. Undoubtedly, a gun would be the number one choice weapon for most criminals; guns make their job easier and enable them to usually overpower any obstacle between them and their objective. If guns and crime share this close relationship, a shift in gun control or firearm availability should affect crime rates. The question is: in which direction should a shift be allocated, for more control or for more gun rights?
Legislatures and judicial courts on both the federal and state level battle each day with the question of if guns either reduce or increase crime. The political playing field is filled with a general array of two opposing groups: those who advocate gun legislation and those who rally for protection of gun rights. Unfortunately, the political implications of this issue typically detract attention from whether guns truly increase or decrease crime. On average, gun rights activists cite the Second Amendment and argue that gun legislation, regardless of its affect (whether negative or positive) on crime rates, violates a person’s fundamental right to bear arms. In contrast, those who push for gun legislation claim that guns are the problem and that legislators and judges should use whatever means necessary to reduce crime by restricting gun rights. Both sides argue legitimate perspectives that have deep political and social implications. Therefore, to solve this debate a comprehensive study of both sides’ arguments and the facts regarding the issue is necessary.
The reality that crime is a problem in everyday society is a fact that can be agreed upon by both sides of the issue. The 2010 U.S. Census Report reveals that in 2007, the number of violent crimes was 1,408,000. A further breakdown of the data indicates that of those violent crimes, 17,000 were murders; 90,000 were forcible rape; 445,000 were robbery; and 856,000 were cases of aggravated assault. These statistics alone solidify that crime is a problem. Over 10,000 of the murders committed involved the use of a firearm. 4,745 of the murders committed involved a weapon other than a firearm. Therefore, over two-thirds of the murders in 2007 were committed by the use of a firearm. This data does not account for the amount of other violent and non-violent crimes, other than murder, committed that involved a firearm in 2007. Undoubtedly, if this data were provided, it would reveal an even higher usage of firearms to execute criminal acts. The fact is that crime involves the overwhelming use of guns. Guns, when in the hands of criminals, facilitate crime.
The above data illustrates a sobering reality. Crime represents a serious problem and threat to a safe society in the United States. There exists a direct correlation between guns and crime; most murders are committed by using some type of firearm. This data easily convinces many people that guns are the cause of crime. Such people declare that if there were not so many guns, there would not be so many murders. On the surface, reducing the availability of guns would seem to reduce the amount of crime. This has been the main objective of gun legislation over the past century in the United States.
Legislatures and judicial courts on both the federal and state level battle each day with the question of if guns either reduce or increase crime. The political playing field is filled with a general array of two opposing groups: those who advocate gun legislation and those who rally for protection of gun rights. Unfortunately, the political implications of this issue typically detract attention from whether guns truly increase or decrease crime. On average, gun rights activists cite the Second Amendment and argue that gun legislation, regardless of its affect (whether negative or positive) on crime rates, violates a person’s fundamental right to bear arms. In contrast, those who push for gun legislation claim that guns are the problem and that legislators and judges should use whatever means necessary to reduce crime by restricting gun rights. Both sides argue legitimate perspectives that have deep political and social implications. Therefore, to solve this debate a comprehensive study of both sides’ arguments and the facts regarding the issue is necessary.
The reality that crime is a problem in everyday society is a fact that can be agreed upon by both sides of the issue. The 2010 U.S. Census Report reveals that in 2007, the number of violent crimes was 1,408,000. A further breakdown of the data indicates that of those violent crimes, 17,000 were murders; 90,000 were forcible rape; 445,000 were robbery; and 856,000 were cases of aggravated assault. These statistics alone solidify that crime is a problem. Over 10,000 of the murders committed involved the use of a firearm. 4,745 of the murders committed involved a weapon other than a firearm. Therefore, over two-thirds of the murders in 2007 were committed by the use of a firearm. This data does not account for the amount of other violent and non-violent crimes, other than murder, committed that involved a firearm in 2007. Undoubtedly, if this data were provided, it would reveal an even higher usage of firearms to execute criminal acts. The fact is that crime involves the overwhelming use of guns. Guns, when in the hands of criminals, facilitate crime.
The above data illustrates a sobering reality. Crime represents a serious problem and threat to a safe society in the United States. There exists a direct correlation between guns and crime; most murders are committed by using some type of firearm. This data easily convinces many people that guns are the cause of crime. Such people declare that if there were not so many guns, there would not be so many murders. On the surface, reducing the availability of guns would seem to reduce the amount of crime. This has been the main objective of gun legislation over the past century in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
