Gun Control | EssayIvy.com

Running head: GUN CONTROL 1

Gun Control

Name

Institution

GUN CONTROL 2

Abstract

Any practical solution on criminal activities has always proved to be controversial in

terms of either cost or applicability. With this understanding, various controversies surround gun

control as a way of controlling crimes. There are those arguments that claim that gun control as a

way of controlling crimes is effective because the most availability of more guns in the hands of

civilians increases chances of people becoming criminals.In addition, gun control as a method of

controlling crimes has also proved to be effective in some countries such as Switzerland and

Finland. While this may be true, the controversy arises in the sense that some of these gun

control laws have failed to reduce or control crimes in most countries in the world such as

Germany. In spite of having one of the strictest gun control laws in the world, Chicago has

recorded substantial gunshots cases over the last years. This paper will discuss the

ineffectiveness of gun control as a mechanism for controlling crimes.

GUN CONTROL 3

Gun Control

Introduction

The contest over gun control has always been a controversial one, especially now that

there has been recorded various mass shooting incidences over the recent past. Various authors

have also considered the issue to be polarizing, which means it has an ability to divide people.

There are those people who argue that gun control is an effective way to control crime(Annear,

2013). To support their argument, they reason that controlling guns will reduce the number of

guns in circulation and gun-related crimes, which are one of the highest, would reduce.

Supporters of gun control also claim that controlling guns would also mean that the fatalities that

experienced during crimes are reduced. While some of these opinions may be true, there is also

another group of people who argue that gun control is not an effective way of controlling crimes

because gun control does not impact of a criminal in their bid to use or obtain a gun.Ultimately,

the effectiveness of gun control is heavily controversial (Annear, 2013). However, while the

ability of gun control in preventing or reducing crimes cannot be doubted, various arguments

shows that gun control is not an effective way to control crime.

Effectiveness of Gun Control in Controlling Crimes

A recent survey conducted by U.S Federal government indicated that the various

measures that have been established in controlling guns including assault weapons and bans are

ineffective (Gutowski, 2015). Essentially, a law passed in England in 1997 following a shooting

that occurred in a school also supports this survey. Following the shooting,the government

established a law that was prohibiting possession of illegal guns.While there could be other

reasons behind the effectiveness, the law has demonstrated total failures. A recent study

conducted in London indicated that ever since the law was established, gun-related crimes have

GUN CONTROL 4

more than doubled. Chicago is also another practical example that can be used to show the

ineffectiveness of gun control. Chicago is a city in the United States with one of the strictest gun

control policies and laws to the extent that even possessing a licensed gun was an issue.

However, in spite of these strict laws, the city has one of the worst records of criminal activities

in the US. A recent study article published in Huff Post indicated that as of 2012 August, more

than 5,000 people had been killed by a gun since 2001(Huff Post Crime, 2012). On the same

note, a gun had committed over 500 murders, and the number of recorded shootings was

approximately 2,400. In other words, for every 3.6 hours, there is shooting in Chicago. The list

of examples that shows the ineffectiveness of gun control is endless. The idea driven by this

point is that the strictness of the policies or laws established by a country or state to control guns

cannot be used to control crime.

Gun control has also proved to be an effective strategy for controlling crimes because

more than often, an armed citizen has arguably stopped a mass shooting or another form of gun-

related crimes. A recent example that can be used back this argument is the latest criminal

activity in Clackamas Mall and another one in Portland (Apuzzo and Goldman, 2013).The

Atlanta school shooting is also a good example of how possession of a gun has also been used to

reduce crimes. In these examples, citizens have been used to neutralize threats that are caused by

criminals. In another dimension, most people have used their gun to self-defend themselves from

a criminal who has illegally acquired their guns. It is has been proved more than enough times

that most criminals do not use licensed firearms to carry out their crimes. A couple of studies

conducted on gun controls indicate that criminals fear or take extra caution when they understand

that the victim of the attack is armed. For instance, the rate of attack on people who possess guns

is lower than that of people who do not own guns.Mainly, this study demonstrates that criminals

GUN CONTROL 5

are more scared to attack people who possess firearms.Therefore, controlling guns is like getting

guns out of the good people and leaving them to the criminals. In this light, it would be plausible

to conclude that gun control is a non-effective way of controlling crime.

Gun control is also an ineffective way of controlling crime because most laws are racial

based. Most current laws have proved beyond reasonable doubts to aim poor and black

communities, and they are perceived to be comparatively dangerous than their white

counterparts. Regrettably, it would be perceived lawful fora white person be found with a gun

walking in the streets but unlawful for a black person to walk in the same street with a gun(Lott

and John2010). More surprisingly, this racially-based gun control is not a new aspect. The

modern laws started the late 1960s when thefirst gun control laws werepassed following the

militant well-knownas gun-carrying Black Panthers. It is also worth noting that before the civil

war, black people were not allowed to own, not to mention to carry guns because the white

people believed that they would rise and revolt against the whites. Essentially, this profiling can

be traced even in 1831. During this period, Blacks were not allowed to possess any firelock or

any military weapon including lead or powder. It is also during this period when all laws that

were allowing black people to posse’s weapons were repealed (Lott and John 2010). Therefore,

relating this historic law to what has been witnessed over the last years regarding possession and

acquisition of guns, there is no doubt most gun control is an ineffective way of controlling crime

because it is racially based.

In the American constitution, the Second Amendment provides the American citizens

have the right to keep and bear guns as a strategy of upholding their security. The amendment

states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the

people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”(Second Amendment, n.d). The provision

GUN CONTROL 6

means that the American citizens have a right to own and be in procession of firearms privately.

Nevertheless, many people consider this rule as a controversial since many people use this

freedom to perpetrate criminal acts(Wodarz & Natalia, 2013). Fundamentally, critics believe that

this law could only be applicable in the eighteenth century when the United States was under the

British colony. According to the collective rights theory, citizens should not be granted the

individual rights to keep or be in possession of guns. Therefore, the state, federal and local

government should retain the power and authority to regulate firearms without involving a

human right. While proponents of gun control feel this is the best solution for control criminal

activities, it is clear it is a violation of the constitution.

Furthermore, critics of gun control believe that this is an ineffective way of reducing

crimes is because criminals do not use legally acquired guns. In most cases, firearm regulations

focus on gun permits and making background checks on the buyers. Primarily, criminals obtain

their weapons via straw purchases, whereby a person who can legally acquire a firearm sells is

used to obtain it for a person who is allowed to get one(Leake, 2017). Street gang dealers obtain

guns from straw purchases or stealing from people who have acquired them legally.

Consequently, this firearms resold to criminals along the streets. According to recent research by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 79 percent of prison convicts guilty of gun-related offenses have

acquired their guns via illegal sources(Cooper & Erica, 2011). Moreover, studies show that only

about 3 and 11 percent of criminals who have purchased their weapons from a store or a show.

From various investigations, criminals do not go through background checks and hence do not

acquire their guns legally. Therefore, legal restrictions on firearms are considered worthless in

stopping criminal activities from happening(Winkler, 2015). Critics argue that gun control will

only encourage a black market for weapons that are already doing well in the United States.

GUN CONTROL 7

While the laws target the criminals with gun control policies, they quickly get around those rules.

In the short-term, gun control reduces the crime rate, but the long-term trends indicate otherwise.

Despite the fact that gun control is meant to prevent criminals from accessing illegal weapons,

firearm restriction will amount to an ineffective solution to the society violence(Bandler, 2016).

For instance, if individual wishes to kill another person, using another type of weapon does not

prevent them from carrying out the criminal act. Even if criminals do not access guns in the

United States, they shift to other firearms such bombs and trucks. Therefore, gun control is an

ineffective measure of controlling crime in the United States.

As it has always been, Americans do not have a right history of responding to

prohibitions. For instance, during the ban on alcohol, drug addicts and dealers still looked for

ways to obtain drugs illegally. This could be the same case with gun control, as people would

again look for ways to get firearms illegally. Inherently, gun control can pose problems that are

even more significant since people will not register their guns(Flamehorse, 2013). Instead of

gun control, government officials and law enforcement agencies should look for more efficient

methods of reducing crimes in the United States. For instance, they should focus more on taking

unregistered firearms from the citizens. One of the best ways of getting hold of unregistered

guns from the streets is obtaining a warrant to inspect homes of suspicious gangster and drug

dealers. Additionally, gun dealers should work under strict regulations when selling firearms.

The current laws demand that dealers authorized to trade firearms under the Federal Firearms

License (FFL) are needed to conduct a thorough background check before selling a weapon to

anyone. Background checks are one the most effective ways to take firearms away from the

hands of criminals. The best alternative to gun control is to allow citizens to keep their

GUN CONTROL 8

constitutional right. This option will have a positive influence, and it will reduce the number of

unregistered firearms which are used to perpetrate criminal activities.

Gun control as a method of controlling crimes is rendered ineffective by a criminal law

case presented in the Russian Federation. In most cases, if a person loses their right to keep

firearms, there is the likelihood that their guns will be taken away. According to the Russian

Federation, confiscation of weapons acted as a form of punishment. In article 243 of the Russian

Federation, forfeiture of means of perpetrating a criminal activity could lead to termination of

property rights(Martynenko & Martynenko, 2011). However, confiscation of property obtained

either legally or illegally does not mean a restoration of social justice and transformation of the

offender. In other words, even if a weapon is taken away for a criminal it does not mean that

that person cannot find other means to perpetrate a crime.

Critics of gun control argue that the only thing that stops a bad person is a good person.

It is not an argument that law enforcers and sometimes the civilians use guns to keep away bad

people(Burke, 2017). Nevertheless, the question that always emerges is whether a gun can be

used for good. In other words, people tend to ask whether a gun outweighs the danger or

provides equals. While there are numerous interpretations, many people still believe that gun

keeps them safe. A recent report issued by the FBI indicates that the greatest number of

individuals killed by gun is in the midst ofargument with a criminal(Krouse, 2011). Essentially,

a report issued by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) showed that guns are used

carry out criminal activities, but in most cases, they are applied to stop a crime.

Various studies indicate that gun control in the name of reducing crimes will lead to

increased dictatorship. Among the many arguments against gun control, this case crystallizes

every notion that pro-gun multitude has said over the years. While the government is given the

GUN CONTROL 9

mandate to safeguard its citizens against enemies, it is so unfortunate that most people do not

trust it with their lives. Fundamentally, most Americans have confirmed that the not trust their

government, especially government officials who hold high positions in the state. This feeling

has existed in America since Edward Snowden revealed evidence that the government spied the

private lives of its citizen in the nation and out of American borders illegally. Pro-gun citizens

require that their guns should be safeguarded better strategies should be adapted to reduce crime

rates in the U.S.A. Critics of gun control argue that government official may adopt this strategy

to control crime rates but to make people follow what they want since they are armed.

Moreover, various studies indicate that mass shooting happens in gun-free regions.

According to Crime Research Prevention Center, most of the mass shooting that has occurred

since 1950 have happened in gun-free zones. For instance, the terror attack that occurred in

Orland and the one that killed Christina Grimmie happened in gun-free regions. There is a simple

reasoning to this: many murderers would like to kill as many people as possible, and this would

only be possible if there is less resistance which can only be gun-free zones. Research shows

that American has a population of about 320 million people while there only 628,000 police

officers. Therefore, it is impossible for police to protect all citizens hence prudent for citizens to

keep firearms. Additionally, investigations indicate that there is a definite correlation between

higher gun ownership and reduced police killings. In the United States, Sheriffs and police

sheriffs have revealed that they are against gun control since the strategy is increasing police

shooting. Gun control laws are also extended to police, which restricts them from owning private

firearms. It is imperative to acknowledge that police have many enemies and their lives always at

risks. When criminals know that police officers are restricted from owning guns, offenders will

their illegally obtained weapons to kill them.

GUN CONTROL 10

Gun control policies have also been accused to affect the privacy of patients. Following

the last years’ massive mass shooting, most people have questioned the effectiveness of gun

control laws. In 2015 alone, more than 372 mass shootings were recorded, 475 people had been

killed and 1870 others wounded by use of a gun. Anybody with a conscious mind has to be

concerned about these numbers. However, according to the co-founder and President of CCHF

(Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom) Twila Brase, gun control policies as way of controlling

crimes may come at the expense of the privacy of patients. According to Brase , the recent gun

control policy that was established to link with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability

Act (HIPAA) does not ensure the privacy of patients (Martynenko & Martynenko, 2011).

Essentially, this linking was aimed to allow reporting of gun related cases to the authorities

which is definitely against medical ethics as patients have to consent before anything is

reported to any third party(Martynenko & Martynenko, 2011). Although various institutions

such as Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom have been educating citizens to refuse to sign

HIPPA forms, but signing is appearing to be irrelevant because it does restore the protection.

Failing to sign HIPPA forms has also proved to demonstrate further confrontation between the

patient and hospital management as it make the patient violate patients’ HIPPA right.

Putting into consideration some of these risks, gun control as a way of controlling crimes would

be imprudent.

Besides, the ineffectiveness of gun control laws has also been demonstrated by the fact

that most of these laws do not prevent suicides. In most countries, suicide is treated as crime and

any attempt to commit suicide is punishable by the law. However, in spite being crimes, gun

control has failed to protect the suicide as a crime. A practical illustration can be demonstrated

by evaluating gun control in Lithuania. The late of gun ownership in Lithuania is substantially

GUN CONTROL 11

low. In fact, it is considered to be among the countries that have the lowest number of gun

owners. Precisely, for every 100 people, there are 0.7 guns (Martynenko & Martynenko, 2011).

However, as of 1999, Lithuania had the highest suicide rate among seventy one countries that

have availed its information. The same argument can also be backed up by the situation in

Japan. Just like Lithuania, Japan is also considered to among the countries with the lowest

number of gun owners (0.6 guns per 100 people). However, 18.41 gun-related suicides per

100,000 people were recorded in 1997. Essentially, these numbers ranked Japan eleventh out the

71 countries that had availed their data. The list of these countries can go on and on.The key

point is that most of this information is contrary to data from most countries that are considered

to have the largest number of gun ownership but have recorded substantially low rates of suicide-

related deaths. The United States is a practical example of such countries. Despite the fact that

the US is ranked 26 th in the list of countries with the highest number of guns, only 12.3 gun-

related suicides were recorded per 100,000 people in 2011 (Apuzzo and Goldman, 2013).

Putting into consideration some of these statistics, it would be plausible to conclude that gun

control is an ineffective strategy for controlling crime.

Rebuttal

While gun control may not be an effective strategy for controlling crimes, it has

repeatedly proved to be successful in some European countries such as Finland and Switzerland.

The effectiveness of gun control may have failed in England, Germany or even in Chicago

(Apuzzo and Goldman, 2013). However, the fact that similar controls have worked in other

countries such as Switzerland and Finland raised some questions. Gun controls as a mechanism

for controlling crime have efficiently worked in Finland and Switzerland. In these two countries,

gun owners are required to acquire licenses and also pass a background check which involves a

GUN CONTROL 12

meta-analysis and criminal history analysis among other checks that are established by the

authority. While the procedure may appear to be similar to most systems carried out in theU.S,

their procedures have beyond reasonable doubt been effective (Gutowski, 2015). For instance, in

2007, Switzerland was ranked number3 on the global list of countries that have the highest

number of gun owners with a rate of 45.7guns per 100 number of people. In others words, more

than 3, 400,000 guns are in circulation in Switzerland alone. Surprisingly, by 2009, only 24 gun

homicides and 254 gun-related suicides were recorded in the entire country. In other words, only

0.31 deaths per 100,000 numbers of people and 3.29 deaths per 100,000 numbers of people

respectively were recorded(Apuzzo and Goldman, 2013). While there could be other reasons

behind this effectiveness, it would be imprudent to overlook analysis.

Conclusion

To sum up the arguments , it is imperative to acknowledge and retaliate that the debate on

gun control is always controversial. Every argument heaved whether against or for gun control

always appear to be prudent and valid. However, in such a situation, it is always important to

analyze which size outweighs the other. In this cases, the ineffectiveness of gun control as a

strategy or mechanism for controlling crimes outweighs the effectiveness. Most arguments

consider the ineffectiveness of the strategy to be more prevalent. For instance, gun controls

laws have proved to be ineffective in most countries, and for this reason, they cannot be used as

away from controlling crime.It has also been arguedthat most gun control laws have been aiming

one race, religion, or even ethnic community. For instance, most gun control laws have

historically proved to be harsh to black people. Gun control laws have also proved to infringe

various human rights including rights to possession, right to protection and rights to privacy

among others. However, while there may be some arguments that still consider that controlling

GUN CONTROL 13

guns can be an effective way of preventing or reducing crimes, it would be prudent to consider

gun control as an ineffective way of controlling crime.

GUN CONTROL 14

References

Annear, S. (2013). Harvard Publication on Gun Laws Resurfaces As Talks About Firearms

Continue.Boston Daily.

<http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-

decrease-in-violence-with-ban/>

Apuzzo, M. and Goldman, A. (2013). Aaron Alexis heard Voices: Navy yard shooter was

treatedfor mental health issues, officials say. Huff Post

Crime.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/aaron-alexis-heard-

voices_n_3940187.html>

Bundler, A. (2016, July 28). 7 Facts on gun crime that show gun control doesn'twork. Daily

Wire. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dailywire.com/news/7872/7-facts-gun-crime-show-gun-

control-doesnt-work-aaron-bandler

Burke, E. (2017, October 05). Why The Arguments Against Gun Control Are Wrong.HuffPost.

Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-the-arguments-against-gun-

control-are-wrong_us_59d6405ce4b0666ad0c3cb34

Cooper, A., & Erica, S. (2011, November 1). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980-2008.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. US Department of Justice. Retrieved from

https://www.bartleby.com/document/PKJNTHEZTJ

Flamehorse. (2013, December 13). 10 Arguments against Gun Control. List Verse. Retrieved

from https://listverse.com/2013/12/12/10-arguments-against-gun-control/

Gutowski,S. (2015).Report: Most gun control policies ineffective at preventing Gun Crime.The

Washington Free Beacon.http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-most-gun-control-

policies-ineffective-at-preventing-gun-crime/

GUN CONTROL 15

Huff Post Crime. (June 6, 2012). Chicago homicides outnumber U.S. troop killings in

Afghanistan.Huffington Post. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-

homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html>

Krouse, W. (2011). Gun control legislation. Journal of Current Issues in Crime, Law, and Law

Enforcement, 217-59.

Leake, G. (2017, October 10). Proposed gun control is ineffective in addressing violence.

TheDaily Texan.Retrieved from http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/10/09/proposed-

gun-control-is-ineffective-in-addressing-violence

Lott J.,and John R.(2010). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control

laws.University of Chicago.<http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html>

Martynenko, N., & Martynenko, E. (2011). Advantages and disadvantages of confiscating

property as a criminal law measure. Internal Security 3.1, 225-30.

Winkler, A. (2015, December 11). Why banning assault rifles won't reduce gun violence. Los

Angeles Times.Retrieved from http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-one-Winkler-

folly-of-assault-weapon-ban-20151211-story.html

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."