The Effects Of Stricter Gun Control On The United States

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.

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

In a speech regarding the Charleston, South Carolina shooting in June of 2015, President Obama stated, “More than 11,000 people were killed by gun violence in 2013 alone.” After the Sandy Hook shooting, in Newtown, Connecticut with a death toll of 26, Congress has still failed to pass these regulations which 90% of Americans wish to have. While tightening the gun control may not guarantee the complete absence of mass shootings or gun violence and crime, it has definately been shown to significantly reduce these rates. America is in need of tighter gun control laws because current regulations do not deter violence and crime, and the interpretation of the constitutional right has since been misconstrued.

One of the main topics of debate is whether or not gun laws actually correspond with lower murder rates. “The average annual gun death rate ranged from almost 3 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 18 per 100,000 in Louisiana. Hawaii had 16 gun laws, and along with New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts was among states with the most laws and fewest deaths. States with the fewest laws and most deaths included Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma.” (CBSnews.com). These statistics can lead one to believe that more gun laws equate to lower death rates. What these numbers prove is that some gun regulations help lower death rates. However, what gun control activists would have you believe that a full on gun ban would lower these numbers more. This is not the case as evident in the following, “During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower” (James D.

Eighty-nine people depart from this earth due to gun violence in the US every day. From school children, to victims of domestic violence, to people going about their daily lives, this status quo is unacceptable. On Tuesday January 5th, 2016 President Obama announced that he would send proposals on reducing gun violence in America to Congress. His spokesman, Jay Carney, mentioned that this is “a complex problem that will require a complex solution.” The ability to own a gun is considered by some a birthright of Americans. However, with crime rates involving handguns rising each day it has become quite clear. Handgun laws must become stricter in order to reduce homicide and crime. The question is, “which solution in most effective in decreasing gun violence?” Gun control is a major conflict that is constantly reoccurring and the US is seemingly divided over it.

1). The researchers then ranked all 50 states from 0 to 28 based on their score (ProCon para. 2). “The higher the score, the more restrictive the gun laws in that state,” stated the researchers (ProCon para. 2). “This study is a very important addition to our understanding of the connection between gun control and gun violence,” said John Roman, a PhD, senior fellow. “In addition to the general relationship between gun safety laws firearm deaths, also suggests that increasing the number of gun safety laws increases the reductions in firearm related deaths. So the benefits just get bigger with more laws” (ProCon para. 3).

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.

Stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of handgun deaths and injuries in the United States per year. There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 58% were suicides, 38% were homicides, 2% were unintentional deaths. 67% of all homicides were committed with guns, and 52% of all suicides were committed with guns. According to a March 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a predicted 60%, background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a predicted 81%, and gun ID requirements could reduce deaths by a predicted 83%. All these statistics could be lowered if the United States had more gun control.

Isenstein writing for the National Journal proposes that there is a distinct correlation between states with strict gun laws and gun violence. “The states that im¬pose the most re¬stric¬tions on gun users also have the low¬est rates of gun-re¬lated deaths, while states with few¬er reg¬u¬la¬tions typ¬ic-ally have a much high¬er death rate from guns.” (Isenstein) The charts that are presented in the article support the claim, but again bring up the question about the variables used to define death rates from guns. Annotations to the article imply that some outside influence caused a revision to update some charts to only display gun-related homicides and exclude suicides and accidental deaths. Sullum critiques the study and points out a different perspective from the same data. He underscores that the rankings can be drastically altered by focusing on homicides and not including suicides. Wyoming is ranked for having a high suicide rate but a low homicide rate whereas the District of Columbia has a low suicide rate but high homicide rate. (Sullum) The National Journal shows that the six states with the lowest rates of gun-related deaths in 2013 also have relatively strict gun policies when considering the laws for purchasing and carrying handguns. Additionally, these states do not have a ‘stand your ground’ law. (Isenstein) Sullum contends that these states alone have a correlation between gun deaths and strict gun control laws. His example of a contradiction is New

I read the article “The Association Between State Laws Regulating Handgun Ownership and Statewide Suicide Rates”. I have found that in 2010, suicide by a hand gun was ranked tenth in the U.S. for cause of death. The data supported that states with stricter laws on having a hand gun had less suicide rates then the other states who didn’t have strict laws on owning a hand gun. The data also gave an overall ideal that the states with stricter gun laws had more attempts of suicide (Anestis, 2015). This article was written with the intent to influence voters to pass new laws on gun control to prevent as many suicides as possible.

Advocates of gun control seem to strongly believe that by adding restrictions on firearms, the amount of crimes committed with guns will decrease. Statistics, however, have shown otherwise. Let us look at Chicago for an example. A ban on handguns became effective in Chicago in 1982. In 2010, the ban was lifted due to the Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional. Statistics on deaths caused by handguns were recorded before, during, and after the handgun ban took place. These recordings have shown that the deaths caused by handguns was significantly higher during the period that they were banned than the years before when they were not banned. From 1965 to 1982, about forty-eight percent of all murders were committed with a handgun in Chicago. During the twenty-eight years the handgun ban was enacted, approximately fifty-nine percent of all murders were committed with handguns (gun control, 2016).

Gun control opponents argue that the Second Amendment is not only meant to provide citizens a means of protection from burglars or other forms of harm. They believe it also ensures that people cannot be taken over by a domestic or foreign military (Flamehorse 1). Having too many gun control laws could create an unbalanced level of power between the government and the members of society. Less restrictions and laws keeps the balance in check and prevents governments from having military power over the people . In addition, most citizens believe gun laws will make our nation safer by reducing the number of guns in the population as well as the types of guns allowed for ownership. However, laws are not followed by those that commit crimes. For example, the city of Chicago prohibited the sale of guns in the city limits effective in 2010. In 2010 there were 432 murders, and in 2012 there were 500. Chicago was recently named by the FBI as the nation’s murder capital (Flamehorse 1). This would indicate more laws do not necessarily result in a decrease in crime. The gun control topic is also a factor in the political world. The two major parties in the United States do not agree on gun control rights or laws. Therefore, large sums of money are spent on advertising and lobbyists in order to make their agenda known to voters. In 2011, $4,212,996 was spent by gun rights groups and $240,000 was spent by gun control groups (Sanburn 2).

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.

The passed mass shooting in Las Vegas was a bitter pill for the American society and the world to swallow. With 59 killed people and more than 500 people injured, Las Vegas massacre became the deadliest mass shooting in the modern history of the United States (Held). Generally, mass shooting has been defined as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed (Borchers). Not only this incident but others significant ones that took place in the recent years have caused concerns about whether the existing regulatory gun laws still work. Gun control is the series of policies and laws that coordinate the use, modification, possession, sale and manufacture of firearms by civilians (Columbia University and Lagasse) . Current gun laws allow American citizens to get firearms very easily. For the most part, this legislation has been pointed out by society as the main reason for these deathly incidents to occur.

Gun control does not help prevent homicides. A relatively small amount of people are killed by guns more are killed by traffic accidents, heart disease, and even influenza (CDC). From 1980 to 2009 a ban on assault rifles did not affect the homicide rate at a state level in the United States. "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent," was commented by Phd author, John R. Lott, Jr., in his book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. In fact, Mexico, one of the strictest countries on gun control, has a rate of 9.97 gun related homicides per 100,000 people