Gun ownership in the U.S. faced several controversies because some people were from the idea on the implementation of the gun control laws while the others opposed the idea. The proposed second amendment of the gun control is based on both the advantages and the disadvantages, but it is possible to identify some truth in it. Therefore, an individual’ understanding depended on their interpretation and the facts well known to them.
One of the cons was that the gun control laws did not deter crime, but gun ownership deterred (Lott, 2013). The Liberals believe that they can solve this problem by tightening the controls on the acquisition and ownership of the weapon up to its total ban. Justifying their position, the Liberals put forward the following arguments: the more people own guns, the higher is the level of crime; the ownership of a weapon increases the risk of being killed; the removal of firearms from the hands of criminals prevents serious crimes. The Conservatives believe that the weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens hold back criminals from attacks. They are also in favor of retaining the right for the purchase, ownership and carrying of firearms. They refer to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees this right. The Conservatives say that weapon itself does not kill anyone, but it becomes a tool in the hands of people. Therefore, it is necessary to toughen the penalties for the use of weapons for criminal purposes and more tightly control those who have committed a crime.
Many years of experience in the fight against crime in the U.S. and other countries show that hardening penalties for crimes rarely deters people from committing the crime. Removing weapons from the hands of criminals is a tempting target and attractive propaganda slogan. But no one knows how to approach the achievement of this goal. For example, the latest initiative of law-enforcement authorities of some states who have decided to pay money for each surrendered unit of illegal weapon to the police, has failed. Firstly, it was returned a little number of weapons, and secondly, returned weapon was not suitable for use (Ridder, 2014). The severe restrictions or even a ban on the ownership of weapons does not affect the possibility of illegal access. Past American experience shows that the ban on the sale of goods with the demand of the population, leads to the emergence of the black market of prohibited goods. It was during the prohibition law, and today with the ban on the sale of drugs. Currently, in the U.S. is thriving black market of weapons. Thus, tightening of rules on the purchase of weapons will not touch those who buy weapons on the black market. Therefore, it is almost impossible to take away weapons from criminals. According to Liberals, the Second Amendment is a declaration, which also does not apply to an individual.
The fundamental difference between Liberals and conservatives are reduced to one issue: how the presence of weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens effects on crime. The article by John Lott presented data on changes in the number of murders before and after the adoption of stringent rules limiting the tenure of firearms. These data clearly show that anywhere from Chicago and the District of Columbia in the United States to island states like Jamaica, Ireland and the U.K. the restrictions have led to an increase in crime. Mark Gius, an economics professor at Quinnipiac University, in his turn, done extensive research on the effect of anti-gun laws on a change in the level of crime. It was analyzed data from 1980 to 2009 years. According to his research strengthening restrictions led to the reduction of crime. The report on the study was published in the Applied Economic Letters journal. The results of this research show that in states with more stringent restrictions on the purchase of weapons and their concealed carry, crime rates are lower (Gius, 2016). It was also found that the prohibitions on the possession of assault rifles have practically no effect on the level of crime.
One of the prejudices, which I gave way to was that the best way to fight crime was declaration the areas of schools and public establishments as zones free from weapons. In such areas, no one has the right to pack a gun, much less to use it. And since there are no weapons, there would be no crime. But this idea only makes it easier to attempt and commit a crime. The announcement of this or that territory as a zone free from weapons just informs the offenders about the places where they can feel safe. In the free zones the unarmed people cannot offer serious resistance to the armed criminals. Nowadays, the idea of free zones does not receive support among school leadership in the U.S. Another prejudice was that the permission on concealed carriage of weapons outside the home for those who have the right to its ownership will be an ineffective measure. In fact, the permission to carry concealed weapons has a strong psychological effect. It hinders criminals from committing attacks. The research conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice showed that 40% of criminals at least once abandoned the intention to attack, fearing that the potential victim is armed (Gresham, 2016).
Thus, the Believing Game has changed in my opinion, on account of ownership of the weapons in the U.S. Firstly, it has expanded my knowledge in this matter. This game showed that there are many pros and cons of this law, in addition, they are closely linked one to the other. For example, a ban on the ownership of weapons, suggests that the decrease in the number of weapons will reduce the number of crimes. In practice, however, such a ban only increases the number of weapons on the black market, and increases the number of crimes. Besides, most of the gun control laws have proved ineffective because the criminals are cunning. The view was correct because the people would obviously acquire the guns through dubious means. Believing in the idea meant that the determined citizens would use anything to own guns at their disposal even if it meant stealing or getting them through corrupt deals.
References
Gius, M. (2016). “An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates”. Applied Economics Letters. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294
Gresham, T. (2016). “The Great Gun Control Con”. The Washingtion Times. Retrieved 1 May 2016, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/tom-gresham-the-great-gun-control-con/
Lott, J. R. (2013). “More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws”. University of Chicago Press.
Ridder, K. (2014). “Gun Control Pros and Cons: 3 Points on Both Sides of Debate”. Newsmax. Retrieved 1 May 2016, from http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-control-pros-and-cons/2014/09/28/id/597212/
