Analysis Of The Article More Guns, Less Crime

One of the biggest arguments against gun control is that it does not prevent criminals from committing violent crimes, such as murder. Based on information gathered by Argesti and Smith, this A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) study showed that when a handgun ban was put in effect in Washington D.C. “the murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law” (Argesti and Smith). Another report from the FBI showed that when Florida and Texas implemented a right-to-carry law, their murder rates dropped by 30 and 36 percent (qtd. in Argesti and Smith). It is blatantly obvious that areas with high crime will continue to have the same level of crime, even after the implementation of stricter gun control laws.

Say your worst fear comes into play; a robber has declared war onto your home. Someone has invaded your safe place to steal your belongings and hurt your family. What would you do? Would you want to be vulnerable and defenseless, or would you want to have a weapon to protect yourself? I for one, would like to possess a gun to protect myself. The Bill of Rights is the basic rights we are granted as American citizens. I disagree with the article “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” for a multitude of reasons. This article claims that the answer to stopping heinous crimes in America is to ban guns or at least have serious restrictions and regulations on them. On the contrary, I believe banning guns leaves citizens defenseless while presenting criminals with a greater field of opportunity.

“Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the legal use of guns” (pg.125). Author James Q. Wilson, a professor of management and public policy at the University of California in Los Angeles writes the article “Just Take Away Their Guns” to provide the American public with evidence of why taking away their guns will have little effect on crime in the United States. “Just Take Away Their Guns” was published into the New York Times Magazine in March, 1994. Professor Wilson, author of many books such as “Thinking about Crime,” “Bureaucracy,” “The Moral Sense,” and “Moral Judgment” uses statistics to advocate for perspective on gun control. The article not only addresses the use of guns but also provides a lot of textual evidence to support the author’s claims related to legal restraints on lawful purchases of guns. Firearms present in the homes of American citizens, while potentially dangerous, provide these citizens with a sense of security.

Looking at the nightly news, many would believe violent crimes are at an all-time high. There is no longer just one on one violent crimes or gang violent crimes. There are court shootings, school shootings, church shootings, theater shootings, mall shootings, workplace shootings, and others. Most one on one crime is committed with an illegal gun; whereas most mass shootings are done with handguns that are purchased legally. Although, violent crimes reported on the nightly news is hard to hear or see. It has become very common to encounter this information on a daily basis. The numbers seem to be overwhelming; statistics share violent crimes are at an all-time low. While the numbers of crimes are decreasing, gun ownership

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

Each year homicide and assault-related injuries result in an estimated $16 billion in combined medical and work loss (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/education-gun-violence-presidential-debate-2012_n_1974740.html). Gun violence may be broadly defined as a category of violence and crime committed with use of a firearm, it may or may not include actions ruled as self defense, actions for law enforcement. Gun violence is prevalent in African American Communities, although some might believe that it is not a racial issue ( CNN New’s stated “America’s Gun problem is not a race problem).

still manage to obtain substantially low murder rates, some even lower than developed nations where guns exist in smaller quantities. An example of this includes Luxembourg, where handguns are banned, yet still murder exists in rates that are around 10 times higher than that of Norway or Germany, where handguns are both legal and easily accessible (Kates, et al., 2006).

In the article, “Change your gun laws, America” by Fareed Zakaria, he gives his opinion on why the gun laws in America should be changed. He uses many examples to represent his own opinion and how gun laws should be changed in order to prevent more deaths. When looking at America’s high gun homicide rates compared to the small amount of mentally disturbed people, Zakaria believes that the large amount of guns possessed throughout America is the actual reason for these high rates, “We don’t have 50 times as many mentally disturbed people as Germany does- but we do have many more guns.” Zakaria argues that with this many guns being possessed, we as citizens just sit around waiting for another mass shooting to happen. Zakaria supports his argument by using many resources and statistical information. He uses June 2008, the day the Supreme court made a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, to represent how “an individual[s] right to gun ownership has made common-sense regulation of guns much harder.” He also uses valid statistics, such as the website shootingtracker.com, to support his argument and represent how 150,000 Americans have been killed since 9/11 due to guns. Homicide rates from different countries are also used to represent how the United States has higher levels of violence rather than other dangerous countries. However, while making this argument, Zakaria also states many invalid claims and makes many assumptions.

In an article written in Forbes magazine it shows the myths and true statistics that the gun control lobbyist wouldn’t like you to know. This article and the stats show that the national violent crime rates that had climbed for 30 years from the early 1960s to 1990, fell drastically in 1993 with the increase of citizens purchasing fire arms. In December 2010 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that murder and other violent crimes rates fell again significantly by 6.4%. a study done

They make a very good point about how the United States compares to other countries, England and Japan. The authors write that England and Japan, who, “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)” (Ballaro and Finley). They then talk about, The United States, which has very little gun restrictions, “Has a rate of 3.42 gun murders per 100,000 people-100 times greater than England or Japan” (citation). This helps bolster their claim, that gun control is the greatest tool available to fight gun violence (Ballaro and Finley), because it uses facts to prove that in countries with tight gun control regulations, there are less gun killings.

America has always prided itself on being the land of the free. Our national Constitution and Bill of Rights have ensured that the people of America maintain their basic rights. Nevertheless, many of the rights guaranteed in these historic documents are often the subject of heated debate. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination, the First Amendment’s protection of speech and petitioning activity, all of these issues have been subject to contentious arguments in courts of law and the courts of public opinion. Of late, however, the most lengthy, argumentative and noisy debates have focused on gun control. Some people think that

As far as overall gun violence is concerned, according to the FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, the overall violent crime rate in the US decreased about 7%. Robbery alone declined by 11%, the lowest since 1969. In addition, murder dropped by 7%, the lowest since 1967. More significantly, despite the fact the number of firearms and handguns owned by individual Americans continued to increase from 1997-1998, the FBI also reported the rate of firearms used to commit murder and robberies decreased in 1998. (1998 Uniform Crime Reports). These facts conclusively prove that firearms owned by peaceable citizens do not lead to increased murder or violent crime rates. In fact, they demonstrate that armed citizens lead to reduced rates of violent crime. When the gun is in the hands of a well-rounded person, it is no more of a weapon than your every day curling iron.

The United States’ homicide rate (5.9 deaths per 100,000 people as of 2005) is higher when compared to other countries: Sweden with 1.3, Canada with 1.5, and Australia with 1.3. To go along with these rates, America has a higher gun ownership with 39% when compared to Canada with 29.1%, Australia with 19.4% and Sweden with 15.1%. Many argue that these statistics prove the effectiveness of gun control. Fewer amount of guns equals less crime.

Further, despite the fact that gun ownership in the U.S. increased enormously during the 1990’s, there was a consistent, dramatic reduction of criminal violence. In fact, homicide and violent crime have plunged over the last 15 years. Considering that 18 of 25 countries surveyed had an increase of violent crime, America’s large decline is impressive. Moreover, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, and Denmark also have a high rate of private gun ownership, and the murder rates in these countries are as low as or lower than developed nations with less gun ownership (Kates & Mauser, 2007).

Gun laws are a subject many people feel strongly about, and as with any subject people feel strongly about there are no shortage of data and statistics that seem to support either side. I decided to look into any correlation I could find between gun laws and deaths in the US. Just like with political parties and deficit spending I didn't really have any expectations, but would probably guess that there wasn't much correlation.