Societies are built, maintained and developed on the fundamental notion of peace and security. Violence and criminal activities disturb the equilibrium of a society by damaging the peace and security. That is why the governments try to restore peace through their policies. One of the crimes that is given significant importance in America is gun crime. Many legislations and licensing policies have been brought throughout the history. However, an unending debate for and against the gun rights and its effects also continues (Nisbet, 2001). Keeping this debate in view, two issues are discussed in this paper: a) should people have a right to keep a gun, and b) whether gun controlling reduces violence. With the help of empirical and theoretical literature, these questions are analyzed. It is noted that for a common man having a hand-gun increases a sense of security in this insecure environment, therefore, people have a right to having a gun. Moreover, stricter gun control laws and licensing will not reduce gun violence as the two do not have a causal link or statistical correlation. That is because gun is just a tool, which has many other shapes too, and it is not the tool that does the violence but the person who holds it and if this tool is taken away, the person may use any of the many other tools available. Thus, it is the actual criminal behavior that needs to be dealt with for the prevention of violence.
First of all, it should be noted that having a gun is a constitutional right of every American. The second amendment of the constitution gives Americans right to have a gun for their self defense (Spitzer, 1998). The second amendment and its philosophical basis give a very thorough understanding that why a person may have a gun. It clearly argues that the purpose of social contract is to make people feel safer and securer. The social contract gives people right to defend themselves against illegal, harmful and violent entities. Under the light of that argument, if guns are used for protection and self-defense purposes, then it is a right that they get by entering in social contract. It is a right that is deep rooted to their sense of security and safety. Therefore, as long as a person may not harm the other innocent individual or group with it, he or she is at liberty to have a gun and add to his or her perceived security and defense. This is what philosophically underlies the second amendment that gives people right to gun for self defense (Spitzer, 1998).
One may counter this argument by arguing that providing security under social contract is the government’s responsibility. Social contract leads to the formation of a government for the fundamental responsibility of creating, expanding and maintaining peace and security in the society. Therefore, it is not to an individual to take the responsibility and keep violent gadgets like guns to defend oneself; it is government’s, lawmakers and executers responsibility.
However, Spitzer (1998) would disagree with such an argument. It is argued that no doubt it is government’s responsibility to keep its citizen safe and secure, but it is also true that a society cannot be made completely crime free. Some elements of destruction would always remaining existent and government would remain unable to control and prevent them. In such cases an individual cannot remain as a pitiful, helpless victim of uncontrollable crime. It is in their best interest and advantage that they may keep some apparatus for their self defense (Cobb, 2014; Spitzer, 1998). Spitzer (1998) further notes, in favor of gun rights, that, guns turn out to be an excellent help in potential and actual cases of self defense. Therefore, even if it is government’s responsibility, but the imperfection of government’s abilities and people’s general-will makes the case stronger for gun rights.
On the other hand, the supporters of gun control may argue that despite the philosophical implication, despite the constitutional right, the presence of guns in a society is harmful. The argument says that existence of such lethal tools in a society is itself a threat. Therefore, their elimination is necessary not only for reduction of the perceived threat, but also the actual crime and violence (Poe, 2001). This means that even if gun is good for self-defense, but it is worse for aggression and violence. And having a gun for self-defense might add more to the worry. Therefore, the prevalence of guns in a society needs to be controlled for the peace of the society (Poe, 2001). If there are little number of guns, the perceived crime rate would directly drop down and the perceived threat would also indirectly be terminated. Therefore, gun control is good for peaceful coexistence (Poe, 2001).
But no matter how convincing the argument may sound in theory, the statistics tell another story. A lot of researches quantitative and qualitative have that been done that argue that there is no causal relation or statistical correlation between gun prevalence and crime rate (Weir, 1997; Nisbet, 2001; Cobb, 2014; Poe, 2001; Spitzer, 1998; Kleck & Patterson, 1993; Zimring, 1968). Note that from 1960s to 2014, researches have been presented here and they all share similar results and that are that gun control and crime control are not statistically related. From Zimring (1968) to Cobb (2014) American society has changed significantly, but the correlation between gun control and violence reduction is still insignificant.
Take the example of Kleck and Patterson (1993) research. Not much research have been conducted at such thorough level. It collected data from all 170 cities of America and the size was about 100,000. It analyzed the gun controlling against many crimes including homicide, robbery, suicide, gun accidents, assaults and rape; all of which involve use of guns in a significant manner (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). The study results were as follows: the height of gun pervasiveness in a society has no statistically significant impact on the mentioned violent crime rates. Contrarily, the prevalence of crimes increases the pervasiveness of guns. And more importantly, gun control and licensing restrictions do not reduce down the presence of guns in a society significantly. Above all, majority of restrictions related to gun control have no significant influence on violent crimes’ rates (Kleck & Patterson, 1993).
The purpose of choosing the results of this paper is that it explains it all very thoroughly. First of all, note that it is not the prevalence of guns that give rise to crimes, but the prevalence of crimes that gives rise to guns in a society. This is because gun is simply a tool which could be used for defense as well as destruction purposes. There were, are and will always be many other such easily available apparatuses too. Each of these tools including guns has an open ended use. One may use it for defense or for aggression. Thus, it is not really about the gun or any other such thing, but about the individual who uses the gun.
In other words, a gun does not fire itself; there is always a hand, a mind and human behind holding and firing the gun. Without that person’s negative motivations, a gun in itself could not do anything. Therefore, the cause of prevalence of crime in a society is not in guns, but in the criminal behaviors and the factors that cause the rise of potential criminal behaviors and those that turn the potential into actual criminal behavior. Therefore, gun control cannot reduce the crime.
If the authorities are sincere for reducing the crime, it is the criminal behavior and elements that promote, increase and maintain such behavior ought to be eliminated. The strategy should not be crime controlling, but crime prevention. That means that those social, environmental and pressing factors that increase the tendency of a crime in an individual and then eventually turn into a criminal ought to be eliminated if the crime is actually to be reduced. Otherwise, with simple gun control especially when it is as the first and may be the only step for crime controlling, there would be no positive outcome. And such a strategy is bound to fail as there is no significant relation between gun control and crime reduction.
In short, it has been analyzed in the paper that the debate over gun control may have arguments for and against, however, the arguments for gun control are based on fallacious assumptions and narrowed approaches. On the other hand, the arguments provided against gun control have philosophical, legal, theoretical and empirical support.
Therefore, it could be concluded that gun right is one of the primary rights that the American constitution gives to its citizens. It is a right that cannot be taken away from the masses as it gives them a sense of security and defense against perceived and actual threats. Governments cannot secure each and every household, therefore, gun right acts as a secondary option for citizens. Moreover, gun control does not in any significant manner reduces crime. Rather gun control legislations even do not decrease the prevalence of guns in the society. Therefore, opting gun control as a strategy against gun crime is a flawed policy. It is the criminal behavior that ought to be eliminated not the guns.
However, it should be noted that gun is a lethal weapon and its harmful and noxious consequences cannot be ignored. Therefore, a middle path should be looked for where people may even keep gun rights to increase their defense against harmful elements, but its negative consequences could be avoided.
References
Cobb Jr, C. E. (2014). This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible. Basic Books.
Kleck, G., & Patterson, E. B. (1993). The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(3), 249-287.
Nisbet, L. (2001). The gun control debate (pp. 175-508). Prometheus Books.
Poe, R. (2001, January). The Seven Myths of Gun Control. Forum (an imprint of Prima Publishing).
Spitzer, R. J. (1998). The politics of gun control (p. 147). C. J. Kelaher (Ed.). Chatham, NY: Chatham House.
Weir, W. (1997). A well regulated militia: the battle over gun control. CT: Archon Books.
Zimring, F. (1968). Is gun control likely to reduce violent killings?. The University of Chicago Law Review, 721-737.
