Bacck and Kwon’s (2005) article entitled The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage: A

Boilard, Steve D. "Gun Control." THE ENCYCLOPEDIA of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, edited by George T. Kurian and Jeffrey D. Schultz, vol. 3, Sharpe Reference, 1997, pp. 128-129.

FBI statistics accumulated on a countrywide level show that in states that have strict gun control laws, there are higher crime rates. If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime! For instance, New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977. In opposition, states with liberal gun carry laws have much lower crime rates. In Florida the homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 percent below the national average after the state changed its concealed carry law in 1987. In 1987, Florida’s murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 compared with the national rate of 8.2. By 1992, the national rate had risen to 9.3 per 100,000 while Florida’s had dropped to 9, and in 1993, it continued to drop another .3 to 8.7 per 100,000. Between 1987 and 1992, rape increased nationally by 14.4 percent. But in Florida, it increased only 2.9 percent and in 1993 rape in Florida decreased .2 percent. Florida issued 204,108 concealed carry licenses during the first six and half years

With the popular culture providing positive images of guns, the United States has a gun prevalence that is very rare in the modern world. While many people appreciate the “gun culture”, guns are heavily involved in violence in the United States. According to U.S. Department of Justice, since 1960, more than 750,000 Americans have died under firearms, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries. The figure 1 provides a comprehensive survey of U.S. violent crimes for the period from 1993 to 2011.This figure illustrates that from 1993 to 2011, about 60% to 70% of homicides were associated with a firearm. Over the same period, between 6% and 9% of all nonfatal violence, with about 20% to 30% of robberies and 22% to 32% of aggravated assaults involving a firearm.

We had to admit it is true somehow, too many mass shooting happened, the data from FBI uniform crime reports shows that more than half of total numbers of murder victims by weapon form 2008 to 2012 were caused by firearms, especially by guns1. This is one of the main reason why is there so many pro-gun control activist. They firmly believe that gun control would worked very well because it worked at other countries. But I have example contradict that opinion, one of example is Britain, in Britain, it seems impossible for citizens to get a firearm easily. So does it mean gun control successes? We need some statistic to prove this, according to the statistics of murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans, “After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate2.” This data definitely overthrows what the gun control activist expected, particularly the murder rate are even higher than before gun banned. In the table of the Harvard study report, the data clearly shows that Finland have highest ownership in the country listed, but there is only 0.87% of murder rate with guns3. This proved once again that guns are just

Statistical analysis about states in the U.S. proves the correlation between strict gun control policies and deaths related to firearms to the least extent. According to an article published by Richard Florida on CityLab, a research shows that states with stricter gun control have fewer gun-related fatalities. The study in the article was conducted by researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health. Researchers measured “legislative strength” of gun control policies in each state using data from Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Specifically, the elements that the researchers include when accounting for “legislative strength” are:

Using this definition, a 2016 study published in the journal Violence and Victims reported that 292 mass shooting incidents took place worldwide between 1966 and 2012; nearly one-third of these were in the United States.”(DiLascio, 2017). The statistics are the answer to whether or not limiting firearms in The United States will help in the overall goal of limiting firearm violence. Other Countries such as England and Japan have more regulations on firearms and it limits the firearm related murders in those Countries. “Have some of the tightest gun control measures in the world, also feature some of the world’s lowest gun homicide rates (per 100,000 people, 0.04 killings and 0.03, respectively).The United States, by contrast, has a rate of 3.42 gun murders per 100,000 people-100 times greater than England or Japan” (Ballaro, 2016). Over the years gun crime has decreased a lot. “ Although gun crime declined steadily throughout the 1990s and early 2000s-thanks in part, perhaps, to the assault weapons ban still in force at the time-it increased sharply in 2005 and has been on a steady rise since. In 2008, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group of 300 US mayors, found that homicides from handguns were highest in states with the most lenient gun laws” (Ballaro,

Current Gun Control regulations do not deter violence and crime. It has been shown that places that have relaxed their gun control laws have a higher crime and death rate. Data proves that homicide rates “[...] among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states”(Bailey). This is evidence that there is a correlation between gun control and death rates. It is also proven with statistical evidence that places with the least amount of gun control have the most violence. Statistics show that “‘none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

Frates, Chris. “The Gun Debate Isn’t Over Yet.” National Journal (2013): Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

In the African American community, 83 percent of homicides are due to gun violence. In black communities gun violence is commonly misunderstood as gang affiliation, which is false. Studies show over 50 percent of gun crimes committed were not related to a felony, but were due to some disagreement. The gun epidemic in predominantly black communities aren’t just disagreements, but race wars, police brutality, gang related, and even no reason at all.

With the crime rate commonly believed to be detrimental to the safety of society, one might assume to inflict stricter gun control laws. But, just how effective are these laws in reducing the amount of crime committed? As examined by Kleck and Patterson (2006), the rationale for gun control must first include the assumption that the availability of guns entails a significantly positive correlation on violence rates. But, Kates and Mauser (2006) studied the aggregate relationship between gun control and lower crime rate and found no evidence of this correlation.

Researchers at the University of Alabama have conducted studies trying to find links between guns and mass shootings (Michaels). There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in America today. In fact, “the total number of guns in circulation is at least 240 million” (Ballaro and Finley). Adam Lankford, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama, suggests that “America’s high rate of public mass shootings is connected with the number of guns circulating in the country” (Michaels). Implementing stricter gun laws would cause fewer people to want to purchase guns, resulting in fewer guns in circulation in the coming years. In the United States, “around 30,000 people die from gun fire each year. Around half of these are murders, a little less than half are suicides, and the rest are lethal accidents” (Ballaro and Finley). (2) Currently there are several million guns in circulation, and gun deaths in America are higher than any other developed country. (5) If the trend continues, the number of gun deaths will continue to increase. As stated in the article “10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down.” author Dave Gilson states that “People with access to more guns tend to kill more people- with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates- as much as 114% higher than states with lower gun ownership rates” (Gilson). (7) More

Even though evidence proves otherwise, many people claim the large quantity of guns in the United States are culpable for the country’s murder rates. While the United States population and number of guns have steadily gone up since 1994, the rates of all different crime types have drastically gone down (Planty). Over the last nineteen years, almost fifty million guns have been added to the US, yet firearm violence has been reduced by more than two thirds (Federal Bureau). This completely contradicts the statement that more guns equal more violence. To compare the two, solely based on these statistics, it looks as though the upsurge of guns and armed citizens has only led to less violence. Another example, that disproves this, is the Firearm Act of 1997. After a school shooting, the United Kingdom passed this act banning almost all of their guns. That year, the UK had initially recorded seven hundred and thirty-four homicides. While only steadily increasing, by the year 2002, they had a recorded one thousand and forty-one homicides (Osborne). This act did not prevent homicides at all, and as a matter of fact it only created more violence. The District of Columbia is another case in point on how the lack of guns does not mean there is any lack of violence. DC has a 3.6% gun ownership ratio of the people living there, ranking it the lowest in the Unites States. At the same time, DC has the highest gun deaths and firearm robberies in the Unites States. The District has a

A recent poll shows that America is number one for the highest gun ownership rate internationally. Per 100 residents 88.8 are gun owners. Then it goes on to show that out of the international rate for homicide America was one of the lowest coming in at 4.8 out of 100,000 and coming in number 103 for the international homicide rate. In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law that required the head of the household to have at least one firearm in the house. Since that was passed the residential burglary rate dropped by 89% in Kennesaw. These statistics show that the more homes or residents that are armed the less crime there is. “Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in

Hence we conclude that gun control is not only immoral because it infringes on the fundamental human rights of U.S. Citizens to be armed as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but also because it has shown no real substantive effect in the reduction of violent crime. Further, we re-emphasize the relative unpredictability of mass shootings and the lack of rational choice on the part of mass shooters as evidence of the inability of sanctions imposed by firearms regulations to deter such violent perpetrators from the unlawful possession of firearms. Thus we further conclude mass shootings are impossible to deter, reduce, or eliminate through further firearms regulation. Finally, we conclude based on the fact that despite the massive proliferation