Analyzing the Gun Control Issue

Gun Control

Definition of the Problem (Gun Control)

In America as well as other parts of the world, the role played by guns in committing violent acts, and what must be done in this regard, is a hotly debated topic. However, some facts are incontestable. Over 31,000 individuals sustained gunshot injuries in the year 2010, in America. As these victims are mostly youths, gun violence can be considered as one among the primary reasons for premature deaths in the U.S. Apart from mortal wounds, there were, in the same year, approximately 337,960 non-fatal acts of violence perpetrated with the use of guns; emergency departments of American hospitals received 73,505 cases of nonfatal wounds made by guns. The economic and social costs associated with gun violence are also huge, in the U.S. (Webster, 2013)

However, ironically, in spite of gun violence's colossal impact, a majority of public discussions in regard to gun policy revolve only around mass shooting incidents in public sites. Usually, these tragic and shocking incidents are presented as random violent acts that can neither be predicted nor prevented, perpetrated by persons with severe mental ailment. Cosequently, anybody who sees, hears, or reads gun policy-related media reports may infer the following: (1) principle concerns are mass shootings, weapons used for assault, and mentally unstable people; (2) regulations for gun control disarm honest and respectable citizens, but have no effect on lawbreakers' accessibility to weapons; (3) no evidence exists regarding whether or not gun control regulations are effective; and (4) society doesn't show sufficient interest and enthusiasm in strengthening existing gun regulations. Still, facts (backed by proofs) contradict all the above misperceptions. As indicated in the essay by Miller and colleagues (2002), gun accessibility significantly elevates risks of death by violence in the U.S., as a number of violent acts committed by guns involve impulsive altercations leading to lethal wounds or death, if guns can be easily accessed. Vittes and coworkers (2012) elucidate, in their demand for enhancing disqualifying conditions to possess firearms, that this holds true particularly when the conflicts involve people with a history of committing crime, domestic violence perpetrators, youth, and substance abusers (Webster, 2013).

America is not the only country plagued by mass shooting incidents, or addressing a prevalent issue of gun violence. There have been mass shooting incidents in Scotland, Dunblane, and Tasmania's Port Arthur, giving rise to significant changes in UK's and Australia's gun laws. Brazil was known for having one of the world's highest gun violence rates; here, too, massive alterations in gun laws brought about reduced violence rates. While bans on specific handguns (such as in Britain) or mass buybacks and bans of particular long guns (such as in Australia) will not likely happen in America, researchers did review the lessons which may be learnt by American lawmakers and advocates, from the success of other countries, in this respect. For several years, some groups maintain that the American Constitution's Second Amendment is a barrier to a majority of gun laws. Another key factor, which contributes to any specific evidence-based rule becoming a law is public opinion (Webster, 2013).

Thesis Statement: In America, guns can be uniquely accessed, when compared with other developed countries of the modern worlds, and hence, the U.S., has the highest global murder rate, by far (Kates & Mauser, n.d.)

Trading of guns in secret has emerged in America as a response to laws by the federal government forbidding possession and ownership of firearms by a specific population group believed to have an excessively high likelihood of misusing them -- i.e., chiefly youngsters and adults having serious criminal history -- while maintaining convenient access for all others (Cook, Ludwig, Venkatesh, & Braga, 2007). Since long, global comparison and evidence have, been testament to the belief that "more weapons" implies "more deaths"; therefore, "fewer weapons" implies "fewer deaths." Ever since 1965, at the very least, the false claim that America is the developed country characterized by the highest global murder rate, remains a myth created by politically-driven Soviet minimization aimed at hiding actual homicide rates. Well before 1965, extremely strict Soviet gun controls were established by a state policing system providing rigorous enforcement. The success of that regime may be understood through the fact that even to this day, there are very few civilians in Russia who possess firearms; also, very few homicides involve guns. Nevertheless, obvious success in ensuring that its citizens remain disarmed has not prevented Russia from being at the top of the list of developed nations with the highest global murder rates. During the sixties and early seventies, rates of Russian murder cases without gun involvement paralleled, or often went beyond, those of U.S., with its lax gun laws. Though the rates in America first became stable, then deteriorated rapidly, murders in Russia rose to such a dramatic height that by early nineties, its murder rate was thrice as high as that of America (Kates & Mauser, n.d.).

In the year 2004, the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) published its assessment by reviewing 253 journal articles, 43 governmental publications, 99 books, and a certain degree of primary empirical research. The study could not identify any form of gun control that facilitated the reduction of violent crimes, accidents involving guns, or suicides. In the previous year, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) drew the same conclusion in its analysis of then-recent research works. Not until the end of the First World War did Western Europe and Britain implement strict gun controls. In line with the results of aforementioned American assessments, these rigorous measures did not curtail the common trend of increasingly growing violence across the developed world (including Russia and USA) following the Second World War (Kates & Mauser, n.d.).

The belief that the presence of more firearms decreases crime is a very controversial notion. This argument has concealed the corrosive impact of Mustard and Lott's efforts towards the idea that guns in a greater quantity imply more murder. As affirmed before, adoption of regulations by states allowing gun possession by millions of good citizens has not led to any increase in violence or homicide in those states. In contrast, highly significant drops in violent crimes and homicide followed a lax gun policy. Ascertaining if this increased access to firearms is responsible for decrease in violent offenses requires taking in consideration several other factors which may potentially have played a part in the decline. While the key reason behind this is unknown, the unquestionable outcome is that violence, and particularly, murders, have reduced considerably in America in the last fifteen years (Kates & Mauser, n.d.). This drop in USA's crime rate appears to be much more impressive, if taken relative to other countries in the world. A survey by the Home Office of UK revealed a growth in violent offenses in 18 out of 25 surveyed nations, in the last decade of the twentieth century. This contrast ought to stimulate intellectuals to speculate about why this is the case in some countries, and to raise questions on policies grounded in the idea that increased restriction of gun ownership by country laws decreases violent crime rates. America is perhaps right in its promotion of firearms for responsible, law-abiding adult citizens. It can also be that the nation's reduced rates of violence correspond to increased death penalties or prison population. More research is needed for more accurately determining the most vital aspects of America's approach, or finding out whether joint action of all three aspects helped achieve lower rates of violent offenses (Kates & Mauser, n.d.).

Social Problem (GUN CONTROL)

Serious discourse on gun control in USA has assumed two key approaches: legal and criminological. Experts in the latter field have raised questions regarding whether different gun controls can potentially decrease different forms of gun misuse (including crimes involving guns), or whether such restrictive regulations would leave innocent victims without any effective self-defense. Experts in the legal field have investigated whether or not federal and state rights of possessing arms pose legal challenges to gun confiscation or ownership/possession restrictions (Kopel, 1995).

Defining the problem.

The legal and criminological approaches realistically gauge guns. In other words, they assess the pros and cons (and the legal response) of individuals being in possession of objects capable of sending lead bullets downrange. Plainly, it is true that the physical characteristics of guns' influence much of their importance (for both good and evil). In this respect, America has accurately understood guns from a realistic perspective, in that its key feature is its physical characteristics; a gun is capable of shooting at attackers from a safe distance and a smaller, vulnerable individual will be able to protect herself/himself from an attacker. In case of handguns and other easily portable firearms, the person under attack can project force (thus protecting themselves) unmatched by any other means. On the other hand, these abilities of a gun will also work with some juvenile undersized criminal -- the gun projects matchless force. However, though the gun's real physical characteristics and their utilization are crucial to comprehending its role in USA, the fact that the value of a gun is normally very loosely related to the gun itself is true as well (Kopel, 1995).

Indeed, one reason behind many Americans caring so particularly for firearms is that they represent and impart self-sufficiency and individualism -- the two attributes where citizens of the U.S. outpace all others in the developed world. Americans uniquely focus on the first attribute in all everyday aspects. They go to work by a personal car, carry out purchases at self-service outlets, and own or rent single-family homes that have independent laundry facilities; even in the area of recreation, Americans depict this inviduality -- they may work for leisure in their own private gardens, or hone some skill by engaging in different do-it-yourself tasks. A parallel justification is presented for why America does not have a left socialist party or a right religious / nationalist party: American culture espouses individualism. However, numerous cultures place high emphasis on equality (Kopel, 1995). Nevertheless. American equality is typically less interested in equality in terms of wealth dissemination; its emphasis is equality in terms of individual status. The concept of due respect to the upper classes of society has, since forever, been looked down upon as an un-American ideology. Classlessness (in addition to self-sufficiency and individualism) may be illustrated via the typical armed hero in American culture (the cowboy); in contrast, its Canadian and Japanese counterparts are, typically, a mounted policeman (i.e., government worker) and a samurai or aristocrat, respectively. Unlike the expensively-clad British knight, or the mounted policeman of Canada (possessing a firearm issued to him by the government, which distinguishes him from the ordinary citizen), or the famous samurai of Japan (carrying an exquisite, hand-made sword), America's classic hero went about with a mass-manufactured Colt .45 or other such handgun, which was available for a cheap sum of $10 at any hardware store (Kopel, 1995). The Colt guns, naturally, were famously called "Great Equalizers," implying (partly) that they make a weaker and smaller individual functionally equivalent to a stronger, larger individual, by enabling the former to protect themselves from the latter from a safe distance. An inscription carved on Winchester rifles aptly communicated this advantage of firearms: "Be not afraid of any man, / No matter what his size; / When danger threatens, call / on me / And I will equalize." Therefore, in a culture wherein the values of self-sufficiency, equality, and individualism are all perceived as greatly desirable, it ought to be unsurprising that guns and other such tools that supposedly accord their possessors the ability to put those values into force would become popular. Also, it ought to be unsurprising that this tool would grow to become a cherished icon of these values, according to some (Kopel, 1995).

Among the most significant symbolic elements of firearms is, possibly, the following: in the view of both gun haters and gun lovers, the tool is linked to someone "taking matters of the law into their hands." If one takes this element in the precise legal context, defending oneself by the armed utilization of cannot be likened to the above. All of the 50 states of USA permit the use of, (or threat of utilizing), deadly force for protecting oneself from a violent crime. All states further recognize citizens' right to arrest any individual perpetrating a violent offense in their presence. Hence, by definition, the application of lawful force by a civilian is not a matter of "taking control of the law"; it is just like any other legal right (e.g. signing an agreement). However, the application of force by a lawbreaker is, in fact, a breach of law; one may say the criminal tried to take the law in his hands, in this context (Kopel, 1995). If a civilian threatens or actually utilizes force for preventing or stopping a crime, he/she is, in fact, seizing back the law from the wrongdoer, and simultaneously restoring it to its owners (that is, themselves, under the legal ideology of America). American society commonly approves of the utilization of force for self-defense. Two public polls conducted in 1985 asked people whether "vigilantism," meaning "civilians' taking control of the law," can be justified by the situation. 71% of survey respondents answered with "sometimes" or "always." The U.S. justice system's backing of citizens' contribution towards defending against perpetrators of violent crime is in agreement with the nation's practice of involving citizens in several other key areas of governance (Kopel, 1995).

A possible solution for the problem.

Taking into account the practical and figurative role of guns in a culture entrenched with popular sovereignty and individualism, the extreme forms of gun control can, in some ways, be inconsistent with several aspects of the nation's culture. In gun rejection and approving of other more "civilized" foreign countries, a few supporters of gun control indirectly suggest a more European, less American model for relating the state with the individual. It is unfair to consider gun prohibitionists as anti-patriots. A few of them are not comfortable with particular facets of the nation's cultural values and trends (like violence and individualism), as well as the difficulty of controlling 'rednecks', minority communities, and migrants. One means to partly solve the inconsistency of loving the nation but disliking a few facets of its culture and trends is rationalizing away the latter (Kopel, 1995). One will be successful by just abolishing guns altogether if their very existence is principally responsible for crime and violence in the U.S. (and rural icon status personified by gun culture). Ramsey Clark, formerly the Attorney General of America and one of the supporters of gun prohibition, stated that firearms made lambs into lions; in other words, if guns disappeared, everyone would be lambs (vulnerable and easy victims). Holding objects accountable helps one avoid the nasty business of castigating people, for their lack of self-control and ethically wrong choices. While some supporters of gun control sincerely believe that their advocacy will help lower crime rates, others appear to be driven by an urge to convey their contempt for those in ownership of guns. Still others might not be very willing to disparage gun owners (especially the inner-city, lowest class of society) for their behavior, and hence, guns play the role of an alternative "scapegoat" (Kopel, 1995).

Thesis Statement: Laws pertaining to permissive possession of concealed handguns (i.e., shall-issue legislations) have dramatically lowered the rates of crimes, including murder (LUDWIG, 1998)

Crime represents among the top concerns of American citizens; frustration in this regard has led to both individual and societal action. Largely driven by a fear of being victimized by criminals, about 35-40% of families in the U.S. maintain an overall sixty-five million handguns and one-hundred-and-twenty-seven million long guns, in spite of uncertainty concerning whether gun ownership on such an extensive scale boosts or reduces public safety. For owners, guns can help defend them against anyone who tries to break in (or is successful in breaking in); however, keeping a firearm at home also appears to possess a risk element, in potentially aiding unintended injury, murder, and suicide. Moreover, gun possession can impose both benefits and costs. High gun ownership rates might have general deterrence consequences, for instance, by decreasing the incidence of burglary cases in occupied homes. Then again, more than 500,000 guns are stolen per annum -- ensuring that guns do not get into the wrong hands is rendered much more difficult with the private transference of more than two million second-hand weapons a year. A new survey revealed that 85% of respondents not owning firearms and 40% of possessors of guns' self-report to feeling less secure if more individuals within their community had access to a firearm (LUDWIG, 1998).

Shall-issue regulations' net impacts are just as hard to anticipate as the impacts of large-scale ownership of guns, though the former has a much bigger potential for negative and positive externalities. If possession of firearms rises after enactment of these regulations, the rate of murders might rise, since firearms in hostile clashes replace less deadly weapons. Shall-issue legislation may also facilitate murders if increased gun possession by potential victims makes offenders arm themselves more frequently. Conversely, if more civilians walk around with firearms because of shall-issue regulation, anticipated costs of perpetrating an offense may rise. This rise might dissuade some criminals, especially with the increase in permits issued with time, in a given state. Furthermore, it is likely that offenders may alter their outlook on the expense of crime, owing to publicity linked to the law's enactment; in this case, all deterrent benefits might be linked to legal regime modifications (LUDWIG, 1998).

Ethical Outcomes Influencing Society and Culture.

The question of whether or not "shall-issue" regulations that liberalize concealed possession of handguns will bring about a lowering of crime rates is becoming ever more significant, in the arena of public policy, as an increasing number of American states have been considering, or have already implemented, such legislation. Mustard and Lott's (1997) highly publicized research indicates that shall-issue regulation decreases crime, saving both money and lives. In the academic as well as criminal context, several major facets governing policy outcomes differ at the level of the local community. In education policy, the government has invested considerable resources towards collecting rich information at the student or school level. By contrast, numerous key determinants of crime remain unmeasured, are exceptionally hard to measure, or are not compiled methodically by government bodies. Those who are opposed to gun control have different perspectives, about certain forms of gun control; however, they generally assert that regulations for gun control fail to attain their goal. They contend that ensuring weapons don't get into "high-risk" groups' hands (despite federal regulation and enforcement), is just as tough as the attempt to stop the consumption and sale of alcohol was, in the Prohibition era (Krouse, 2012). Lawmakers need to know of the distinctive identification issues in assessing anticrime policies, like concealed-weapon carrying rules, and ought to realize that even thorough research like the one done by Mustard and Lott (1997) might fail to offer reliable information. Federal and state lawmakers may have several motives for supporting shall-issue legislation; however, the notion that these regulations will decrease crime frequency must not be one such motive (LUDWIG, 1998).