Gun control in the United States is one of the most hotly debated issues in the country as of late; given the increase in prominence of school shootings, and the proliferation of gang violence in major metropolitan areas, many people wonder what the potential effects of gun control might be. Some argue that gun control removes a vital Constitutional right to bear arms and increases crime by only allowing criminals to have guns, whereas others believe that gun control itself is an effective deterrent to crime by removing the sheer number of guns off the streets. There is strong evidence on both sides of the debate, leading to a controversial and complex issue on what the American responsibility toward gun control should be. Despite the problematic nature of exercising gun control, and its effectiveness, it is determined that social intervention and other initiatives will be far more effective in reducing gun violence than gun control laws.
Gun violence seems to affect major metropolitan areas most of all in the United States. According to Uniform Crime Reports, Chicago's crime rates are still high and getting higher. In 2010, there were 436 murders, 1,1359 criminal sexual assaults, 14,205 robberies, 5,033 instances of aggravated assault, 74,561 thefts, 19,016 motor vehicle thefts, and more (Chicago Police Crime Summary, 2010). All of these are slightly down from 2009's figures, but this number has been increasing in the past couple of years. While violent crime as a whole is down, murders (particularly shooting deaths) have increased slightly. The vast majority of this crime is due to gang violence, as the West and South Sides of the city still experience a great deal of impoverishment and segregation from the rest of the city.
In order to combat these crimes, there are Neighborhood Watch organizations in place, and Chicago Police still remain a huge factor in fighting crime. Public initiatives to curb gang violence, such as the CeaseFire program (now called Cure Violence) and other pilot programs to discourage youth gang violence, are also in place. Their primary motivation is to treat gun violence like a disease and treat it at the source; this is done through identifying and detecting potential gun violence environments and individuals, reducing risk to others, providing intervention and interruption of potential gunmen, and facilitating the changing of norms and behavior of people in the city. Cure Violence activists will work with social support systems and beyond that, going to neighborhoods with at-risk youth on their own to focus resources and reduce instances of violence through social intervention. To that end, there are complementary social initiatives in place to help stop gun violence in cities, independent of exercising gun control legislation.
The arguments against gun control are fairly strong. In the wake of stricter gun control legislation, Wilson believes that adding more paperwork will simply not have a great deal of effectiveness in keeping guns off the streets: "Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns" (Wilson, 1994). Citing statistics on illegal and legally purchased guns, as well as the current state of police resources towards stopping illegal carrying of guns, Wilson believes that more police power to take away unlicensed firearms will lead to fewer fatalities in our nation's cities. In essence, according to Wilson, "The most effective way to reduce illegal gun-carrying is to encourage the police to take guns away from people who carry them without a permit" (Wilson, 1994).
Wilson provides potential solutions for making his proposal workable; metal detectors carried by police have been advocated to aid them in the frisking and gun discovery process. This is claimed to help constitute reasonable grounds for a pat-down, which no evidence is suggested to support that, or discount the possibility that it does not detect a gun, but instead someone's keys. The advocacy of greater police powers is troublesome, and Wilson does not convince that this is not an extremely reactionary view of the potential for gang violence. Instead of focusing on taking away guns, Wilson's argument might be better served by attempting to suggest ways of helping the socioeconomic problems that lead to the gang violence his argument frequently cites. As it stands, gang life and city life are painted in broad strokes that almost seem like dogwhistle racism; "Guns often convert spontaneous outbursts of anger into fatal encounters" (Wilson, 1994). Wilson attempts to reconcile opposing arguments, but these arguments are brushed off as foolish without a proper examination of the evidence, making the argument somewhat one-sided.
On the other side of the coin, gun control laws are argued to make it much more difficult for criminals to get guns in the first place. Gun control laws, according to Zimring, are typically argued to help reduce criminal homicides, but other arguments state that the murders would occur either way, because the murderer would find some other type of weapon with which to do the deed. According to Zimring's argument, in which he studies homicide rates in relationship to the rate of attacks, banning firearms would most likely cause a measurable lessening of homicides in an urban setting. However, the question remains as to whether or not those decreased levels of gun violence would just result in a higher ratio of knife-related violence. Given the patently deadlier nature of guns as opposed to knives, it seems disingenuous to discuss them in the same breath. While other countries with stricter gun control laws have been cited as a reason to increase gun control (these nations have lower murder rates), the actual proof that these nations are more or less violent because of guns is not a strict causation.
In conclusion, gun control in the United States is a complex issue with no clear answer. Both arguments on either side carry a great deal of weight; criminals who commit crimes are going to want to commit them either way regardless of weapon, but removing guns from the equation will put up as many barriers as possible to access: "if we are serious about reducing drive-by shootings, fatal gang wars and lethal quarrels in public places, we must get illegal guns off the street" (Wilson, 1994). However, the burden of proof rests on those who advocate for gun control, as conclusive evidence has not been provided that there is a strict correlation between murder rates and the increase or decrease of guns in a country or region (Kates & Mauser, p. 694). To that end, there is currently not enough evidence in the current literature and body of research to support the increase in gun control legislation.
References
Chicago Police Department. (2010). Crime summary. Chicagopolice.org. Retrieved from
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Index%20Crime%20Statistics/2010%20Index%20Crime%20Statistics/mcsDec10%5B1%5D.pdf.
Kates D.B., & Mauser, G. (2007). Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A review
of international and some domestic evidence. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 30(2): 649-694.
Wilson, J. (1994). Just Take Away Their Guns. New York Times.
Zimring, F (1968). Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings? University of Chicago
Law Review 35(4): 721.
