Should the Government Ban Assault Rifles

The most serious crime problem in America has continued to be gun violence. In the last ten years, the state government has set a number of initiatives to curb gun crime. These include reforms of licensing systems for fire arm dealers, a ban on juvenile handgun possession, an establishment of a national background check method for rifle buyers, crowned with project safe surroundings. This is as a result of collaborative work of American attorneys and authorities at local levels to end local gun violence and improve punishment for gun criminals. Probably, the greatest controversy of these state initiatives was banning semi-automatic assault artilleries and large amounts of ammunition magazines entitled Title XI, Subtitle A of violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994.

The law forbids a small group of weapons known by ban advocates to be specifically risky and attractive for the purposes of the criminals (Koper, Woods, & Roth, 2004). Owners, as expectedly, defy gun registration processes as it has led to seizure in the past. Also, extending the ban on individuals who do inter-state businesses of it is legally not allowed. It brings upon additional problems in management with no incremental advantage. Hence, this brings us back to the registration debate (Kopel, 2015).

These findings explore whether a complete ban on assault guns would assist in the fight or whether there is a better reason for the government to let people keep these weapons.

i. Legally acquired weapons used in violent crime in records of past events

During the 1980s and early 1990s, legal weapons used by criminals increased. Semi-automatic arms and AWs equipped with LCMs were connected with a number of strongly publicized murder incidents that raised concern for the public to access powerfully, high powered military weaponry and other rifles whose ability can discharge bullets at high numbers in a short time. There was high profile situations in which criminals with semiautomatic handguns with LCM, wounded and killed high numbers of people (Koper, Woods, & Roth, 2004).

ii. The More the guns, the lesser the crime rates?

In the United States of America, murder rate increased twice in the 10-year span in the middle of the 1970s. Because this coincided with widely growing gun sales, it was argued by many people, and high evidence existed to show, that the increased number of guns equalled more deaths. This summary doesn't follow suit. It was almost impossible that this was reversed i.e. the spectacular decade increase in all kinds of crimes connected to murder and burglary may have caused people to buy guns out of fear (Kates & Mauser, 2007).

iii. Are the assault weapons the crime guns?

Crime artilleries are not assault guns. It is true, however, that the majority i.e. ninety percent of guns used in crime activities are handguns. Shotguns, long guns and assault weapons are rarely found in street crimes, gang crimes, and drug crimes, anyway. Even if assault weapons were used disproportionally in crimes, it would be more illogical to stop them than to ban a model of a car that appears in drunken driving circumstances. This defies order of the mind, believing that a criminal who couldn't get a certain weapon would do away with committing the crime when there are many non assault models serving the same purpose (Jacobs, Why ban 'Assault Weapons?', 2015).

iv. On Necessity

As evidenced in Great Britain and Australia, arms possessed by individuals illegally has been done on a large scale in countries like Great Britain and Australia. But in a country like the U.S., an operation of such a magnitude would be near to impossible. Only through effective policy making and alternate arrangements can people considered to be of grave danger to the neighbourhood be brought under scrutiny. As the President, Barrack Obama iterates, it is the civil commitment on improving care and stronger laws that is the need of the hour (Kopel, 2015).

v. Using Law as an Instrument

Scholars agree that the existing laws are largely incompetent. Because the demand for ban covers even the most ordinary rifles available with the common people. This would lead to a confiscation of at least 50% of guns in the open, today; and this includes rifles used for hunting, as well. Instead, what the policy makers focus on now is, to ban semi-automatic rifles that has a high degree of sophistication, like, having military-style features, bayonet attachment and flash suppressor. The state of California leads the nation on this. Yet, sale of assault guns continue. A scaled down version of a sophisticated gun that is correct under the purview of law goes on (Winkler, 2015).

vi. Historical basis of the possible effect of the ban

Following the ban on ownership of assault rifles, it was observed that these weapons were used on fewer crime occasions than before. A primary study conducted by the federal authorities revealed that assault weapons that were recovered from crime scenes dropped significantly in the period that the ban was in force. The percentage fall in the number of assault type rifles stood at 70% from 1992 to 2002 (Gerney & Parsons, 2014).

vii. What opponents of gun control are saying

The arguments presented by opponents of gun control vary based on the types of control proposed. However, they all agree that controlling ownership of guns does not achieve its intended purpose. They pose an argument to the effect that it is just as hard to keep guns from being purchased by people who pose a high risk of abuse as it was to stop the sale of illicit liquor when there were such bans on it. Some of these opponents point out that the low level of crime rates in some countries has nothing to do with policies on gun. They argue that the secret lies in the multicultural differences (Krouse, 2012).

Data is derived generally from observation or experiment. Acceptable approaches for evaluating and gathering evidence differs, grounded on the issue being dealt with. For case in point, the procedure makes use of data from comparative researches -- those that assess results amid a group subjected to the outcomes as opposed to intervention within a specific concurrent or historical group that had not been exposed or had been less exposed -- to respond to questions related to effectiveness of interventions. After the individual studies making up the body of evidence of effectiveness for an intervention are identified, they are assessed, their outcomes are obtained, the evidence is shortened, as well as the potency of the evidence is evaluated (Briss, Zara, & Pappaioanou, 2000).

Each study happens to be classified as having good, fair, or even limited quality of execution centred on the limitations taken into consideration, studies that have 0 -- 1, 2 -- 4, as well as 5 or more limitations happen to be classified as being good, fair, as well as limited in execution correspondingly. Studies with limited execution are not included in bodies of evidence to support recommendations. Several principles guided the classification of evidence effectiveness as strong, adequate, or inadequate evidence. Strong or adequate evidence may be centred either on limited research studies with superior execution and more viable design; or perhaps a larger number of research studies with less viable design or inadequate execution (Briss, Zara, & Pappaioanou, 2000).

The restriction imposed in 1934 by the federal authorities on ownership of automatic weapons appears to have yielded fruit. This observation is accomplished by the rare use of machine guns in crime. The restrictive weapon licensing system adopted by Washington DC in 1976 led to a reduction in deaths as a result of guns. The scenario endured a couple of years following the enactment of the laws (Roth & Koper, 1999). The methods (based on community guide) for running reviews and connecting evidence to recommendations have been cast into the spotlight elsewhere. In summary, each community guide topic; a team of multidisciplinary background runs a review that is based on the following (Briss, Zara, & Pappaioanou, 2000):

• Creating an organizing formula and strategy for the selection of interventions to be examined;

• Looking for and retrieving evidence in a systematic way

• Assessing and evaluating and summarizing the quality of evidence found

• Examining the cost effectiveness of the available evidence and pointing out the barriers that may arise in its application;

• Pointing out and creating a summary of the gaps in research.

• Owing to the fact that this review is focused on examining the effectiveness of the laws on firearms in preventing criminal acts, the studies on laws on firearms were only examined if they reviewed a violent crime. The measures of the outcome sought to determine the success or failure of every intervention under review was violent criminal acts. Such acts include murder incidences, robbery and aggravated assault. Injuries sustained from firearm accidents and suicide is also a subject of focus. It was also found that apart from being a blatant breaking of the law, aggravated assault was a health related crime. It involves taking or trying to snatch any valuable effect or item from the custody of its bona fide owner through forceful means or inflicting fear or threatening them (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

A median was computed to summarize the measure of effect for each of the interest outcomes. In the case of incidents in which evidence exceeded six studies, an interquartile range was computed to show variables. The outcomes for each of the studies were presented as an estimate point for the change (relative) in the rate of violent results linked to the intervention. The amount of evidence to show the effectiveness was viewed as strong, enough or insufficient based on the number of available studies, the execution quality of the studies, evaluation approaches for the studies, how suitable the designs of the studies were, how consistent the results were, and the size of the median effect.

The community guide applies systematic review methods to assess the value of the effectiveness of the intervention. Recommendations are provided by the task force after considering the strength of these reviews. The strength of the recommendations is derived from the evidence strength of effectiveness. This means that the task force can either recommend an intervention or discourage its application by reviewing the strength of the evidence on how effective they are (Briss, Zara, & Pappaioanou, 2000).

There are several other forms of evidence that can influence a recommendation. For instance, if evidence that comes from an intervention outweighs the improved results, it could lead to a recommendation being discouraged from use. Effective interventions are valued for their cost effectiveness. Guidelines from economic evaluation generated by Community Guide conventions are applied to achieve such an end (Carande-Kulis, Maciosek, & Briss, 2000). Since none of the laws on firearms under review were found to contain enough evidence to enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to effectiveness, there were no economic reviews done. If there is insufficient evidence to determine how effective an intervention is, it should not be construed to mean that it proves that such an intervention is ineffective. It is only an indication that there is need for further research before such an intervention is gauged for effectiveness.

The increase in crimes committed by gun and homicide associated with long guns is not a function of increased access to long guns. It is a dynamic that is inversely related to the decrease in access of handguns or the sheer decrease in crimes by handguns. Several factors are possible for this scenario. For instance, crime is noted to be on the decrease in major cities as opposed to rural locations. However, several studies have demonstrated that stronger gun control laws are liked to lower rates of gun crime. These studies should help authorities at various levels of state and federal government to consider gun control options. There should even be a more consistent focus on the control of long guns and assault rifles (Gerney & Parsons, 2014).

Budget and Time:

Time: 15 days of work consisting 8 hours of work each day

The Budget: XXXXXXXXX