Bob Barr, a retired, renowned prosecutor, reflected that there has never been a gun control issue except for a cultural control one. In the present, there exist gun control laws of varying nature. Those that aim at reducing gun accessibility, while the other kind intends on making guns expensinve. However, those lobbying for stricter gun control laws feel that the laws are not sufficient while those supporting reduced control feel that there exist a need for abolishing the laws. In retrospective, people are more bent on tallying the statistics of those killed by guns. However, they tend to ignore statistics of lives kept from harm because of gun possession. In addition, individuals tend to ignore the fact that disarming law abiding citizens does not necessarily entail a reduction in the level of crime. To this end, this paper aims to argue that outlawing of guns does not necessarily drive the crime rate down. In addition, the paper will look into some of the arguments advanced by people in support of gun control.
In this perspective, the issue of gun control is one of a controversial nature to the extent that leaders tend to shy away from discussing it. A discussion only arises when an individual engages in a mass shooting; using a semiautomatic weapon. Statistically, American citizens have more guns than those of any country in the world. However, various individuals have raised farfetched outcries regarding gun regulation. The individuals argue that stricter gun controls can prevent the level of crime in the world. However, the individuals’ assumption of guns being a direct relative to crime does not hold water. In retrospective, guns cannot be able to operate independent of a human being. This is based on the fact that a gun requires control for it to cause any real harm. Thus, a control of the human being is essential to ensure that guns are not misused. In the words of Barr, it has never been an issue of guns, but rather that of the prevailing culture.
In addition, the argument of gun control controlling crime does not add up. In the words of Polsby, the issue of gun control is more of a rationality issue. An issue that borders on determination of the relationship between gun control and the level of crime. Individuals tend to ignore the fact that crime rates continue to soar even after the enactment of the necessary legislature. In addition, areas where gun control laws fail are kept out of the discussion. An example of this is the wide gap that exist between Indianapolis and Washington D.C. Washington D.C has a murder rate of 69 individuals for every 100, 000 while Indianapolis’ rate is approximately 9 per every 100, 000. Washington D.C has strict gun control legislation stemming from many years; as opposed to Indianapolis. However, the enactment of this legislature has not had any impact on the level of crime in Washington. The crime rate in Indianapolis has stayed at an all-time low, compared to Washington D.C, despite them having lax laws on the issue of gun controls. Indianapolis is renowned for the existent laws that allow for individuals’ to possess guns.
With respect to legislature, North Idaho has minimal or virtually non-existent gun control laws. An individual can easily have access to a gun. This is based on the fact that one can purchase one without the required bureaucracy and red tape in other states. However, the Idaho County faces minimal or next to non-existent gun shootings. Literally, the last shootings to occur in this area were as a result of an official Federal Bureau of Investigation business. However, in Chicago, there exist cases of wide spread shootings. Chicago has undergone radical changes on the aspect of gun control. In Los Angeles, the existing laws are strict to the extent that it is hard for someone to easily access a fire arm. Statistics have also reflected a drop in the level of crime in the country. Since the year 2000, aggravated assault cases have fallen by 21 percent, violent crime rates by 20 percent, and motor vehicle theft by 44.5 percent.
However, there is a need for the government to completely control the use of semi-automatic guns. This is in light of the various mass shootings that have been witnessed. Examples include the recent Aurora Theater Shooting, Virginia Tech Shooting, and the Columbine High Shooting. Other deadly incidents include the University of Texas Massacre. In all these incidences, an individual or two managed to kill a multitude of people with a single gun; a semiautomatic. A semiautomatic allows an individual to spray a round of bullets with a slight touch of the trigger. In addition, a semiautomatic weapon holds a large amount of bullets. Some guns are also made in such a way as to allow for an easier change of a magazine. In this case, semiautomatic weapons should be outlawed to avoid them landing in the wrong hands. In the most recent cases of public shootings, individuals have been known to wield automatic weapons. This weapons allowed the killers to unload and load clips easily leading to the death of many. Thus, semiautomatic guns should be outlawed.
Accordingly, various arguments have been advanced for the existence of gun control laws. One such argument is one made by Brady’s Centre Mr. Brady. Brady argues that there do not exist the need for a gun. He reflects that the need for a gun is replaced by the existent of a police force whose aim is to protect the individual citizen. Brady continues to argue that citizens should combine forces with the police so as to root out crime in their respective cities. However, Brady fails to take into consideration that owning a gun is an individual’s constitutional right. In addition, a recent ruling reflects negatively on Brady’s thoughts. According to the ruling, the police force is not constitutionally inclined to protect citizens. This means that an individual is left vulnerable without any protection in the case that they do not own a gun. The ruling was made in a case where a husband kidnapped two children from his estranged wife, killed them, and put them in the back of a truck for parading. The woman had reported the issue to the police prior to the killings. On the basis of this ruling, the citizen has no protection from anything that might befall him or her. Owning a gun arises as the best option in this scenario. With a gun, an individual can be able to personally protect themselves from any mishap that might occur.
Also, Klein, a journalist with the washington post, argues that the level of crime rate is lower in areas where there exist strict gun control rules. Klein stops short of saying the guns kill people. However, statistics paint a different picture. Guns cannot operate indepedently of control, thus, it is only people who are involved in the killing of other people. Areas with stricter gun controls have been found to have a higher crime rate compared to similar areas with lax controls. This is based on the fact that the number of guns does not influence the number of crimes committed in an area. However, the level of crime is influenced by the existent culture in a society. The society is the basic institution that moulds individuals. The view of the society on certain issues would thus have a direct impact on the level of crime rate as opposed to the number of guns in that society.
In a nutshell, there does not exist one single definite vantage point for looking into the issue of gun control. This is based on the fact that the relationship between crime rate and gun control is not definite. Statistics have shown the inverse being true. Places with lax gun control laws have no shootings as opposed to other areas that have lax or minimal gun control laws. The real solution to controlling crime is the disarming of criminals. Disarming law abiding citizens does not produce a reduction of crime since, the citizen was initially being obedient to the law. Constitutionally, an individual is allowed to protect themselves from any attack. This is based on the fact that there is no legal entity that is obliged to provide protection to an individual. In retrospective, it is not the duty of the police to protect an individuals. The main duty of the police is upholding the law. In this perspective, the government should not enact more gun control laws inclined towards disarming the citizens. Rather, the government should come up with ways of disarming the criminals.
Works Cited
Kopel, David B. "The Ideology of gun ownership and gun control in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Ideology (2000): 3-34.
Lew, Peter and Brian H Kleiner. "Implications of Concealed - Gun Laws for Business." Managerial Law 44.1 (2002): 31-36.
Moorhouse, John C. "Does Gun Contol Reduce Crime or Does Crime increase Gun Control?" Cato Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-125.
Polsby, Daniel D. "The False Promise of Gun Control." The Atlantic (1994): 57-68.
Wachtel, Julius . "Sources of crime guns in Los Angeles." An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management (2000): 220 - 239.
Wells, William , Yan Zhang and Jihong Zhao. "The effects of gun possession arrests made by a proactive police patrol unit." International Journal of Police Strategies & Management (2012): 253-271.
