Gun Control and Crime Prevention Various Internet

Gun Control and Crime Prevention

Various Internet sources on the topic, as well as newspaper articles and public debate in general, have proved that the issue of gun control is a controversial one which is far from being resolved. For some critics, gun control is an essential measure to reduce or even prevent criminal activity. According to arguments raised by this camp, gun control laws will prevent criminals from obtaining weapons easily and will therefore reduce the crime rate. On the other side of the debate, there are those who argue that gun control will have little effect beyond robbing law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves effectively in a world that has become increasingly rife with crime. Furthermore, arguments raised by this group state that criminals are unlikely to follow legal means of obtaining weapons, regardless of the presence or absence of gun control laws. For these reasons, some questions that I would like research to answer include whether there is any reason to believe that gun control will reduce crime, if these laws will simply result in an infringement on human rights, and whether either case has been proven conclusively by empirical research. Perhaps a review of the article "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" By Kates and Mauser (n.d.) would shed some light on some of these questions.

In their introduction, the authors already address the third question I had, which was whether the research has proved conclusively whether or not gun control affects the national crime rate. The authors draw on international data to imply that comparisons among countries have been falsified by various factors. Although the implication of these comparisons have been that the murder rate has been the highest in the United States because of the relatively free access to firearms, the authors note that political motivations have created false data statements since at least 1965. This is interesting information, since the worldwide falsification of data by politicians and other powerful parties creates difficulties for empirical verification. Hence, the answer to this question appears to be in the negative, that there has been no conclusive research to prove either that gun control laws would or would not reduce the crime rate. Indeed, the authors maintain that, in Russia, where gun laws have prevented the majority of citizens from obtaining firearms, the murder rate remains the highest in the developed world; they simply do not involve firearms.

As for graphic material, the authors provide several tables with the purpose of comparing gun ownership and murder rates on an international scale. Most significantly is the first of these in the introduction, which indicates a negative correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate in any given country. Indeed, a comparison of various continental European countries shows that the countries where gun ownership is highest are also those where the murder rate is lowest. This was very surprising to me, since the general argument for gun control is that it would prevent violent crime. Although my opinion ranges towards the opposite, against gun control laws, I would not have expected the clearly consistent negative correlation suggested by the authors.

It follows, then, that the authors seek alternative motives for violent crime, besides the fact that firearms are readily available. One of the influences on the murder rate appears to be social factors. The authors also note that the research has been focusing on the wrong questions in its fever to prove either side of the debate conclusively.

Following the earlier finding that gun ownership correlates negatively with the crime rate, the authors also note the inherent fallacy in assuming that a lack of firearms will also mean a lack of violent crime or suicide. The motive for the crime or suicide remains, whether firearms are available as a means to these ends or not. The central point of the article is then that guns are simply a means to accomplishing a goal. The goal itself is not motivated by the availability of firearms. A lack of availability would simply cause perpetrators to search for, and find, other means of murdering others or committing suicide. To substantiate this, the authors specify the example of Russia, where both the murder rate and suicide rate are about four times higher than those in the United States. While there are more violent crimes involving firearms in the United States than in Russia, the overall rate of these crimes are far lower. Hence, questions regarding the crime rate have revolved around the rate of firearm involvement rather than the crime type itself, thus inflating the idea that guns cause violent crime.

Interestingly, the authors also address the other side of the argument, that pro-gun laws would affect the ability of people to defend themselves and thus deter violent criminal activity. While they acknowledge that there appear to be persuasive arguments for this viewpoint, the ultimate finding is that this is also proven false. The data unearthed by the authors appear to indicate that the deterrent value of self-defense weapons can be proven only in the United States, but not throughout the world. In countries other than the United States, where firearm ownership is high but violence low, another reason should be identified for this correlation. Generally, the consensus appears to be that the crime rate in such countries was low to begin with, and remains so regardless of less stringent gun laws. Conversely, countries with initially high crime rates retain those crime rates regardless of more stringent firearm laws.