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.