Effectiveness of US Private Gun Sale and Showroom Regulation in decreasing crime
In recent years, the campaign regarding gun control and showroom continues to cause immense debate throughout the United States due to the perceived impacts it has on crime prevention. With the growing rate of gun-related incidents throughout the country, calls for revisions to the country’s gun regulation especially for private use have been brought by various groups. Some groups believe that private gun control and showroom regulations should be strengthened to reduce crime. However, there are also groups stressing that increasing of regulation for private gun ownership and sales would not be enough since crime continues to increase. Experts are also divided regarding the issue as there are scholars stressing that increasing regulation on private gun ownership and sales would reduce the onset of crime while other experts argue against such notion, indicating that stronger regulation would not reduce crimes in the country.
Stronger gun control policies for private gun sale and showroom is considered by some experts and gun control advocates alike as a means to reduce the incidents of crime. Lemieux (2014) stated that in several countries worldwide like Canada, gun-related violence and crime has dropped significantly. In 2011 for instance, Canada reported a 5 to 10% reduction of homicide cases when the country enforced stronger gun control policies especially through privately owned guns (Lemieux, 2014, pp. 76-77). In the US, Orient (2013) stated that firearm fatalities have actually dropped by 66% and crime has also dropped to 39% in the 1990s due to the imposed gun control laws in the country. The stronger policies also ensured lower crime rates due to guns because of stronger enforcement of the government (Orient, 2013, pp. 79-81). Duggan (2001) added that if gun control laws still lapsed, it would only lead to increasing in homicide rates throughout the country. When the US government imposed stronger policies, gun-inflicted injuries fell drastically (Duggan, 2001, pp. 1107-1108).
On the other hand; however, there are scholars and experts indicating that stronger regulations on private gun sales and showroom does not necessarily reduce crime but rather increases it. Examples in other countries like the United Kingdom indicated that stronger gun policies did not aid in reducing crimes in the country as noted by Mauser (2003)’s study. While there were decreases in the use of certain use of firearms, the lack of pressure from the government to stop private users from selling their guns to others. There is also no clear evidence that these laws are effective because handguns remain used by criminals in the UK for the past decade with firearm crimes increasing up to 200%. Australia also shows the same inconsistency with the argument that an increase in gun sales and showroom would reduce crime as the country reported that armed robbery continues to remain high and policies do not have power stop users (Mauser, 2003, pp. 10-15). In the United States, Kates and Beard (2013) and Makarios and Pratt (2012) indicated that there are no evidence in the country that indicate that there is a drop in crimes with the enforcement of additional laws on guns. They indicated that when the National Academy of Sciences reviewed various publications detailing gun crimes, it did not indicate a specific statistic that crimes did drop (Kates & Beard, 2013, p. 1691). The studies also contradict one another when it comes to the effectiveness of such gun sale and control policies to stopping crime (Makarios & Pratt, 2012, pp. 224-225). Kates and Mauser (2007) indicated in their study that despite strong policies in the country on gun sales and control, murder rates in the US remain high in comparison to other countries (Kates & Mauser, 2007, pp. 670-672).
Fleeger, Lee, Monuteaux, Hemenway, and Mannix (2013) indicated that stronger policies on gun control and sales can be bypassed easily, allowing people to still get access to guns. They highlighted that for people who wish to purchase guns and bypass current restrictions, they may proceed through gun shows, and flea markets. Background checks are not required in these markets and transactions are not monitored in comparison to legitimate sellers (Fleegler, Lee, Monuteaux, Hemenway, & Mannix, 2013, p. 739). Hahn et al (2005) also supported this premise, indicating that secondary markets of firearms can be sold by private citizens even if they do not have a licence to do so. Private sales are also not federally regulated, allowing people to bypass checks if they will use it for questionable means (Hahn, et al., 2005, pp. 40-41).
With the growing rate of violence and crime throughout the country, the US government now finds itself in a quandary as to how such violence and crime can be reduced. On the one hand, strengthening gun regulations especially for private ownership may reduce crime rates as the government could now monitor who purchases such weaponry. On the other hand; however, stronger gun control policies are not enough to alleviate crime especially as crime can still occur with or without guns. There are also other ways for criminals to acquire guns even with strong gun control policies. Considering these complications, crime would still continue to persist in the US unless the government can create a method that would completely regulate gun sales at all fronts and prevent illegal use that is acceptable to all.
References
Duggan, M. (2001). More Guns, More Crime. Journal of Political Economy , 109 (5), 1086-
1114.
Fleegler, E., Lee, L., Monuteaux, M., Hemenway, D., & Mannix, R. (2013). Firearm Legislation
and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States. JAMA Internal Medicine , 173 (9), 732-740.
Hahn, R., Bilukha, O., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Liberman, A., Moscicki, E., et al. (2005).
Firearms Laws and the Reduction of Violence: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 28 (2S1), 40-71.
Kates, D., & Beard, A. (2013). Murder, Self-Defense, and the Right to Arms. Connecticut Law
Review , 45 (5), 1687-1707.
Kates, D., & Mauser, G. (2007). Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A
Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy , 30 (2), 650-694.
Lemieux, F. (2014). Effect of Gun Culture and Firearm Laws on Gun Violence and Mass
Shootings in the United States: A Multi-Level Quantitative Analysis. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences , 9 (1), 74-93.
Makarios, M., & Pratt, T. (2012). The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs that Attempt to
Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis. Crime and Delinquency , 58 (2), 222-244.
Mauser, G. (2003). The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia,
England and Wales. Public Policy Sources (71), 3-25.
Moorhouse, J., & Wanner, B. (2006). Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase
Gun Control? Cato Journal , 26 (1), 103-124.
Orient, J. (2013). "Gun Violence" as a Public Health Issue: A Physician's Response. Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons , 18 (3), 77-83.
