Abstract
Guns vs. Crime present a controversial topic, which has attracted the interest of the global community. The subject is attaining high relevance due to the crimes committed through firearms. Some individual argue that strict gun regulations has the potential of reducing crimes and fatalities. However, other people believe the global community would witness less crimes or fatalities if more people were armed. Further arguments indicate that the availability of gun motivates otherwise law-abiding people to engage in crimes especially in moments of upsetting emotions. Challengers of the idea of controlling gun believe armed citizens minimize criminal’s incentive to engage in crimes because of severe penalties for crime. Moreover, they are not convinced that gun availability has the potential of encouraging ordinary people to commit crimes.
Guns have the potential of resulting to increased crimes because they ease the procedure of committing crime. For instance, armed criminals can easily attain victim’s cooperation. Furthermore, guns may define the magnitude of crimes committed. In particular, guns empower criminals making them be at the position of committing major crimes such as murder and bank robbery. In this respect, availability of guns can result to increased number of criminals while motivating the current criminals to be more aggressive. Furthermore, high number of guns in homes can enhance burglary as they present valuable loot. Various countries have imposed gun control regulation in effort of reducing the number of crimes committed. In some cases, this approach has been successful in reducing the number of crimes. However, some of the states observing strict gun control regulations have often presented high case of crimes (Malcolm, 2005). Lott argues that although guns are involved in about 70% of all serious crimes, the trend toward the relationship of Guns vs. Crime is theoretically ambiguous (Lott, 2010). Some individuals propose the need of instituting gun control regulations arguing that reducing guns availability result to reduced crimes since criminals will have limited access to the vital tool for executive their activities. If guns fuel the likelihood of a conflict resulting to a person’s death, then increase in the gun ownership will essentially increase the cases of homicide. From a different view, gun ownership will result to reduction of criminal activities in a situation where the potential of victims’ likelihood of possessing a firearm deter criminals from committing crimes. Various studies have provided factual statistics that have supported each of these assumptions, which has rendered understanding of the relationship between guns and crimes more sophisticated. It is apparent that guns are preferred tools for many culprits. Armed criminals can easily command compliant from victims and the crimes involving guns are severe than one committed without guns.
According to LaPierre (1995), over 12, 000 murders are executed with firearms in America with firearms every year. Most of these crimes are committed with handguns, which are also used in various other crimes. In essence, a huge percentage of the serious crimes in which criminals use handguns include homicide, assault, robbery and rape among many others (Roleff, 2000). Presently, a considerable number of people own a gun. More than 190 million guns are in the hands of the ordinary citizens including over 60 million handguns. Furthermore, the manufacturing of guns adds about two million new handguns each year. This has created a situation where a large number of people own guns for self-protection in this homes. Particularly, almost half of families in America have a gun in their homes. The high number of guns that are in circulations has prompted challenges to the enforcement of the existing gun laws.
The increased cases of the crimes including the use of guns have encouraged the legislation of various gun-control laws. For example, the federal and state regulations discourage the drug addicts, mentally challenged people, alcoholics and people with criminal records from owning guns. Procedures controlling gun ownership are tight in some states. For example, some states may require a person to purchase a license and register the serial number of the gun with the authority before he or she can own a gun. LaPierre (1995) argues that in consideration to the high number of guns in circulation, measures must be adopted at federal level to ensure that firearms are not abused. In view of this position, various provisions have been provided that control the use of guns especially in the United States. An important gun control policy includes the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (BHVA). This act imposes a five-day waiting period before one can be allowed to own a gun. The Act also guides that firearm dealers must conduct a national instant criminal background checking system prior to the transfer of any firearm. Furthermore, policies such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLE) (1994), prohibits the production of 19 military assault weapons. Besides the adoption of these policies, the rate of crimes witnessed in various states has not fully responded as hypothesized thus creating a dilemma of relationship between guns and crime. Supporters of the idea of gun control identify gun registration and control as an effective strategy for reducing crimes. However, claims have emerged that registration and licensing guns has an insignificant effect in reducing the rate of crimes or reducing accidental fatalities. Lott (2010) argues that registration and licensing do not affect the rate of crime in the society since criminals mainly do not obey law. Studies highlight that gun regulations only affect law-abiding citizens; however, criminals will always find a way of getting what the need (LaPierre, 1995).
According to Lott (2010), criminals are encouraged by self-preservation, which means guns can be deterrent. Lott further states that effect of the defensive nature of guns is evident in the different rates “hot burglaries” in which the victim is at home when criminals strike. For example, studies indicate that Britain and Canada that have strict gun control regulations have high cases of “hot burglaries.” Contrast to this situation, the Unites States that has fewer restrictions record low cases of “hot burglary” of less than 13%. Studies clarify this controversial situation by noting that most criminals are worried of armed victims more than the legal consequences of engaging in crimes. The fear of armed victims make American criminals spend more time in executing an attack to ensure that nobody is at home to take full control over the situation. This is unlike the case in Britain and Canada where the criminals know that the chance of victims being armed is low thus motivated to strike attack without any worry. A study conducted on Convicted American felons indicates that most criminals presented a sentiment that they mainly avoid late-night burglaries since they consider them highly risky as the victims can shoot them easily.
Another aspect that explains the idea of guns vs. crime, especially in the context of guns, as a deterrent tool is identifiable in the sense that deterrence is helpful even to individuals who are not actively involved in defensive actions. Studies affirm that individuals who defend themselves often protect other citizens indirectly. Lott (2010) explains this argument by noting that “hot burglaries” homeowners who are armed mainly warn the criminals from breaking into homes. This is because this practice creates a spillover effect, which discourages criminals from committing crimes because they fail to know in advance individuals who might be armed. Studies explains that the idea of having concealed guns is based on the argument that having concealed guns discourages increases the risk characterizing attacks because criminals fail to establish if the victim is armed before striking. In consequence, the practice results to reduced number of crime as criminals are worried of engaging in attacks. LaPierre (1995) presents a comparative insight regarding the idea of concealed gun by arguing that with “open carry” handgun laws, criminals are able to identify the potential defense victims thus they can target more vulnerable individuals. A study interviewing felony prisoners highlights that, 56% of the criminals indicated they could hardly attack a potentially armed victim. In particular, the criminals from states that have high number of citizens with personal guns were most worried of encountering armed victims. This has the potential of reducing the number of crimes as criminals shy from engaging in crimes.
However, some studies have provided evidence of a position contradicting the argument that countries with high numbers of armed citizens experience low rates of crimes. Roleff (2000) study indicates, homicide rates and gun ownership are positively related. In an attempt of explaining this situation, scholars argue that this relationship is fueled by the lagged changes in the relationship between the current change in homicide and gun ownership. This means the relationship is not prompted by simply the increase in gun ownership due to increased criminal activities. In a number of instances, an increase in the number of guns owned by the ordinary citizen has resulted to an increase in the number of homicides. However, the relationship of a state of increased gun and other categories of crime is insignificant. This means that guns enhance crime activity mainly through their effect on homicides. Another theory explaining a state of increased crimes with an increase in gun ownership argues that that most homicide crimes are committed by close acquaintances. This includes crimes that happen within gang members who know each other, although such crimes assume a small percentage. In urban areas where most cases of murder happen, most killings are because of gang-related wars over drugs. According to Lott (2010), increase in gun ownership presents an increase in crime by increasing the chances that any crime will result in a victim’s death. This state may also be explained by the fact that gun ownership may increase the chances that a domestic dispute may be accompanied with the death of one or more persons. Individuals can easily commit grievous crimes even following simple domestic conflicts when guns are easily accessible. Apparently, keeping a dangerous weapon such as gun at the disposal of every person who wishes to get and use it any time is detrimental.
Some analysts introduce a new insight to the idea of gun vs. crime by arguing that there exists no relationship between the two. The major argument staged by this group is that no significance relationship is identifiable between the available guns and the overall crime rates. This means, the supporters of the position that few guns result to reduced cases of crimes might be wrong. This group of thinking asserts that homicide is not the only aggressive crime whose rate is affected by the availability of guns. Other crimes such as robbery and assault are also of relevance when thinking of the rate of crimes in the society. In this context, the argument championing lack of relationship between guns and crime is informed by the consideration that although allowing law-abiding citizens own guns may increase homicide, the practice also has the potential of reducing other crimes such as robbery and assault. This argument is rational since there is evidence from various countries that allowing citizens own firearms is characterized with a decrease in robbery and assault crimes (Roleff, 2000).
It is disturbing to learn that often, crime rates in areas that have assumed strict gun control regulations exceed the national average rates. This affirms that guns have a concealed relationship with the crime rate. In essence, the effect of guns on crime does not come out clearly, because the situation revolves around various factors. The availability of guns discourages criminals from committing crimes while empowering them to commit crimes in other ways. Jeremy (2013) states that even with the adoption of various gun laws and the high support of the move from various stakeholders, crime is a still a serious problem in most States. The concern of high crime is particularly distressing when one compares the crime rates in gun controlled States to the crime rates in States that have not adopted the approach of imposing strict gun control regulation. For example, Washington that has adopted strict gun bans since 1960 presents high rate of crimes while the suburbs in Virginia that has few gun control measures have a lower rate of crime. In reference to the crimes rate in States with most and lesser gun control regulations, it appears that gun control procedures have the potential of resulting to higher crime rates. This position is supported by statistics indicating the number of crimes in various regions. For example, the crimes rates in England have recently increased due to the effect of the gun ban policy adopted in the mind 1990s. Particularly, crimes such as robbery, home invasion and other crimes in England are higher than the one experienced in the United States. In reference to this example, it is apparent that gun control regulations do not directly result to decreased rates of crimes (Jeremy, 2013). However, it is worthwhile noting that comparing the rates of crimes in various countries or States my fail to provide the actual effect of the relationship between guns and crime. This is because other factors such as the wealth of a country and its social-political structure may have effect on the rate of the crimes. This essentially means that the availability of the guns is not the sole factor determining the rate of crimes. It is apparent that a State that has well organized political and social-economic structures is likely to have low rates of crimes with or without gun control policies. In reference to the analysis, it is clear that guns and crime have a dynamic relationship. In essence, in some situations, increase in the availability of gun results to increased crime; however, increase in the number of guns ownership often work towards reducing crimes in the society. This highlights the significance of exploring the issue of gun vs. crimes in the society from diverse perspectives to understand the real relationship between these variables.
References
Lott, J. R. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roleff, T. L. (2000). Guns and crime. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven Press.
LaPierre, W. R. (1995). Guns, crime, and freedom. New York: HarperPerennial.
Malcolm, J. L. (2005). Guns and violence: The English experience. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Jeremy, D., B. (2013). Guns Vs. Crime. Retrieved on 23th Nov. 2013. From http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm
