Introduction
With the media ever focused on shooting throughout the USA, which only seems to add the fire that is the gun control debate. Shooting and even Mass shooting tear at the emotions of the populace, and the heat is on for someone to do something. The gun control debate is not new; however, many people are demanding action. Proponents of both sides of the argument tend to bring non-facts to the debate in order to persuade people to listen to their argument. Besides, the actual implication of the effectiveness of the gun control is still controversial. The American population can no longer remain silent and continue to suffer the disturbing consequences of increased crimes. There is the need of exploring this subject from a rational viewpoint to gather important information that could aid the formulation of effective policies to address this concern. There have been many valid arguments made for less gun control; however, I believe stricter gun controls can decrease the rate of crimes.
Initially, it is apparent that stricter gun control has the potential of bringing down the rate of crimes. Imposing stricter gun regulations will make the process of obtaining a gun long and tedious. This means that criminals will have greater difficulty in obtaining firearms. Such a situation is important because criminals mainly use what they can access easily. In essence, adopting stricter gun control regulations means denying criminals an important tool for committing crimes (Lott, 2010). The practice will discourage criminal activities since robbery or other criminal activities is much more challenging when one is not armed with powerful tools like guns. Furthermore, the practice will reduce the severity of the crimes committed since criminals will only commit crimes using other simple tools. Statistical reviews affirm that crimes committed using guns are most likely to result to fatalities. It is also nothing that control and prevention of crimes becomes easier when criminals disarmed. It is indisputable that the reduced number of the guns in the circulations, the rate of crimes will decrease considerably. Imposing stricter gun control regulations translate to reducing the number of the guns in the wrong hand, which affirms potential of this strategy in reducing crimes (Allison, 2013).
The feasibility of the ability of stricter gun control laws in reducing the numbers of crimes is supported by various studies that have explored this subject. Furthermore, real time examples that highlight the efficiency of this strategy in reducing crimes are identifiable in countries that have already imposed strict gun control laws. Studies assert that countries have strict gun control regulations have comparatively lower rates of crimes (Gold, 2004). For example in countries like Brazil, it is illegal to be in possession of an armed weapon and having them in public places. Brazil has also implemented disarmament programs, which has assisted in reducing crime. These policies has proved to be effective since Brazil has recorded a decreasing number of crimes since the adoption of these policies. Furthermore, other countries such as Canada, England, and Australia that have imposed strict gun control measures have fewer crime rates than U.S (Allison, 2013). Empirical evaluations highlight a clear relationship between the number of crimes and the strictness of the adopted gun control policies. In account of these practical examples, it is evident that states with proper and strict gun laws have fewer gun related crimes (Lott, 2010).
The significance of adopting stricter gun control measures is endorsed by studies that have shown that a simple required background check could have prevented a number of tragedies around the U.S. The strategy is effective because it essentially means withdrawing the guns from the hand of criminals (Mehalko, 2012). Gun control measures are capable of reducing crime as fewer people have access to these deadly weapons. With proper gun registration, it is able to give guns to citizens who genuinely need them for self-protection. It is apparent that guns are very dangerous weapons that need to be handled cautiously. In this context, the state should be keen in controlling individuals who are allowed to own these weapons. This is in view that, although allowing citizens to own guns can reduce the number of crimes if they are used constructively, the practice can also result to increased crimes since guns can easily misused (Lott, 2010). For example, one may get into an intense argument when probably drunk and engage in unwarranted shooting. If stricter laws were in place, a good check one’s background and past records would help in knowing the people being issued with guns. Imposing stricter procedures for applying gun ownership would also oblige individuals to behave responsibility when issued with gun. Furthermore, applying harsh penalties on person possession of illegal armed weapons would discourage individuals from owning guns illegally. This will result to a situation where only responsible citizens are allowed to own guns, thus ensuring that they are being used for self-protection (Gold, 2004).
Studies highlight that a considerable number of the crimes committed using guns are committed by the youth. The youths have mainly failed to portray a responsible and mature habit when using guns. Besides, lenient gun control strategies have failed to restrict the youths from accessing guns (Mehalko, 2012). Imposing stricter gun control measure that could successfully deny young minds a chance of accessing these deadly weapons presents as a rational strategy for reducing crimes. A certain age limit should be put in issuing of guns to curb the crimes committed by the youths. This is in view that mature citizens are more likely to handle guns more appropriately (Lott, 2010). Higher levels of gun violence among the youth stem from not only access to guns, but access to drugs as well. Drug use can factor into a higher amount of gun violence for three reasons. First of all, the pharmacological effects of the drugs themselves leads to psychological states that are less responsive in violent situations. The economical factor of drug use is simply that violent crimes are committed in order to support drug habits. Finally, crimes that exist due to the drug industry itself, committed by dealers and distributors, are a factor as well. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1996)
Following the tragedies of various of school shootings committed by seemingly troubled children, studies have been done contributing to an understanding of why and how they happened. This has been in the pursuit of trying to decide how to effectively pass legislation that stems these tragedies in the U.S. and abroad. Although the media often portrays recent shootings as being more violent and often than in the past, the fact is that mass murders have occurred in schools over the entirety of the 20th century. In fact, the largest death toll of a mass school shooting occurred back in the 1920's in the state of Michigan. “This point is worth making because all of the worst massmurders in U.S. history—not just the murder of more than 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, but all mass murders with death tolls greater than 32—have been committed with explosives or fire, not guns” (Kleck, 2009) In this sense, the usual approach to stemming the tide of gun violence by looking at situations such as this might not be the best way of finding adequate gun control policies.
“Ironically, exploitation of school shootings for the advocacy of irrelevant gun controls may have obscured the genuine merits of various gun control measures for reducing “ordinary” gun violence.” (Kleck, 2009) While these have often been related to gun crime, the highest amount of deaths were due to the use of explosives in the attacks. This shows that simply limiting the capacity of guns will not necessarily be sufficient. Furthermore, oftentimes the firearms used in these attacks aren't obtained through legal means, but either through theft or the black market. This is an example of why gun control laws must be broad in their approach. In fact, it seems that oftentimes, in cases when the shootings were planned in advance, it has been found that it wouldn't have been possible to prevent them with the policies in place. “Premeditation and planning is significant because it means that these killings could not have been prevented by gun control measures aimed at reducing or deterring routine or daily weapon carrying—measures such as locker searches or use of metal detectors at school entrances.” (Kleck, 2009)
Furthermore, there seems to be a correlation between gun violence and poverty. According to studies, violent crimes related to gun violence share a direct corollary with areas of lower incomes. This shows that, while gun control laws are of crucial importance, it is also important to take into account the effects that poverty has on gun related crime in the U.S. “Unless this country directs its efforts toward the socioeconomic ills which appear to bear the strongest relationship to violent deaths by firearms, the fatalities likely will remain high whether this country has gun control laws or not. (Kwon, 2010) These higher statistics are likely due to the implementation of social control policies that support negative reinforcement. Studies show, though, that positive reinforcement practices are much more effective. In this way by implementing policies that promote the desired behavior, as opposed to those that punish undesired behavior. By improving the lives of people within society, the promotion of hope will effective lower violent crimes. “If crimes of passion are, as many experts claim, often motivated by hopelessness, then efforts to reduce or even eliminate the hopelessness sources of such are likely to have a positive impact.” (Kwon, 2010)
The significance and the urgent need of imposing stricter gun control regulations to curb criminal activities in the U.S cannot be re-emphasized. The people opposed to this idea should think of the real implication of such a strategy instead of dismissing this important proposal ignorantly. The entire American community should wholeheartedly embrace and support policies that aim at stiffening the control measures to check the menace of the increased crimes. It comes down to you voting on the core issues at play at your local voting office. Nothing can be accomplished if you do not put forth the effort to facilitate change. I do respect the opinions all valid arguments and hope that a comprehensive agreement of change can be made by working together. I hope that imposing stricter gun control measures will prevent another Columbine shooting or any mass shooting for that matter. With the adoption of this proposal, I am confident that the America will be safer and admirable country to reside.
- References
Kleck, Gary. (2009). The Mass Shootings in Schools: The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control. American Behavioral Scientist. Vol. 52 No. 10.
Kwon, Scott, Safranski, & Bae. (2010). The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Vol. 56. No. 1.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1996). Reducing Gun Violence: An Overview of Programs and Innitiatives. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquence Prevention.
