Gun Control or Gun Education? Research Paper Example

It would seem the big question in the gun control debate is whether existing gun laws are sufficient, or whether more firearm laws are required.  Would there be a lower rate of crime in the U.S. if weapons we less accessible?  As our country searches for approaches to diminish firearm related causalities and viciousness, a study from 2007 distributed in a Harvard University journal is regaining consideration for its claims that more control over guns doesn’t fundamentally mean there will be a dip in law violation.  One Harvard study suggests, “If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,” the authors wrote.  Research demonstrates a direct relationship between lower gun-related episodes and less stringent laws, stricter laws on guns in Massachusetts has apparently led to less deaths, as indicated by the most recent information, putting the state in the second to last opening for the least number of reported fatalities across the country. (Annear)

The writers of the Constitution ensured peoples’ right to bear arms and pretty much any kind of gun.  Firearm control advocates accept that stronger laws can keep the death toll down and our communities safer.  Indeed, even people who bolster weapon rights recognize that certain individuals ought not to be allowed to claim weapons.  Current weapon control laws avoid offenders, rationally sick people and youngsters from owning weapons.  Sadly, there have been cases where youngsters and disturbed shooters have procured weapons and utilized them to confer mass killings.  Law surveys from the 1970s refer to America’s high rate of firearm related law violations contrasted with other mechanical nations as a driving component behind weapon control enactment.  It was this very startling research that prompted New York City to place gun control laws in action to effectively decrease its criminal activity.

The U.S. isn’t the country with the most weapon assisted homicides.  The minimal Central American nation of Honduras, which has 68.4 gun killings each 100,000 people, which is 19 times the U.S. rate.  Moreover, there are a larger number of countries with higher rates than the U.S, for instance, Mexico, Colombia, the Philippines and South Africa.  However, those spots tend to be making countries where peace is not prevalent, and political unsettling is strong. Robbery and strike rates are higher in Britain than in the U.S., yet criminal activity is much lower.  (UNODC)

Are there nations with moderately high weapon possession rates – 50 or more every 100 citizens – and low criminal activity rates?  There is.  Finland, which has 69 weapons every 100 individuals, and Switzerland, which has 61 every 100 individuals.  Finland had only 14 weapon assisted homicides in 2010, a rate of 0.26 every 100,000 individuals.  In Switzerland, with 40 firearm killings in 2010, had a somewhat higher rate of 0.52 every 100,000.  Both those nations have stricter firearm control laws than the U.S.  In Finland, a country where most utilize firearms for sport as opposed to security, citizens must acquire weapon licenses, which must be renewed every 5 years.  They likewise must express the reason they wish to have a firearm – and self-protection is not a legitimate reason.  (UNODC)

The latest year for which measurements are accessible, in 2011, the U.S. had 11,101 crimes carried out with guns, which added up to around 70 percent of all murders, as per the U.S. Places for Disease Control and Prevention.  That is a rate of around 3.6 firearm killings every 100,000 individuals.  Comparatively, the UN Global Study on Homicide (by any weapon) put the British homicide rate at 1.2 per 100,000 while the U.S. rate was 4.6 per 100,000.  (UNODC)

Another important question on whether or not to restrict gun laws is who ought to be permitted access to firearms, and who makes that decision?  Furthermore, how would we keep the people deemed unsatisfactory from owning firearms?  According to the national government, people are rate more risky than others to own guns.  Among those so doled out are sentenced criminals, outlaws, medication addicts and individuals inclined to abusive behavior at home. All are prohibited, under government law, from owning a gun. Oddly enough, some of these people may never have even attempted to purchase or fire a weapon.  This is just one of the reasons why the list of People Who Should Not Be Allowed to Possess a Gun may be insufficient.  Just because an individual is willing to drive excessively over the speed limit multiple times, possessed prescription medication without a prescription, or drove intoxicated does not mean they are a savage criminal.  By striping access to weapons for offenders, even offenses unrelated to abuse or weapons, the consensus is lives will be saved.  Yet it’s also true that the rights of those individuals who may never submit gun violence is being hindered. (Editors)

Which raises the next question, how do we know the good guys from the bad guys?  The good guy – bad guy perspective of individuals pervades the contentions of the firearm campaign as well as the investigations of the few gun analysts and numerous gun advocates who see an uprightness in an intensely outfitted citizenry. “The quotes that take after are representative: ‘Gun control focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than the apprehending and punishing the guilty.’  ‘No matter what laws we enact, they will be obeyed only by the law-abiding – this follows by definition.’”  (Hemenway)

On the other hand, there are several good questions raised from the other side of the fence of individuals against restrictions on gun control. A critical part of the discussion is the way that firearms are utilized as a part of self-defense every day for numerous people across the globe —generally without even shooting a shot.  Consider this scenario based on an actual event, a licensed citizen noticed suspicious behavior and exhibited a gun; however, no shots were fired and as soon as the potential threat saw an observer with a gun, the shooter submitted their weapon soon after.  Of course the story is not always this neat, but there are typical similar endings.  A licensed citizen or armed officer saves the day, or there was no individual on the scene able to help and lives were lost.

The U.S. has a considerable measure of weapons that there’s about one gun for each individual who lives in the nation.  This stockpile of weapons is developing at a quick rate, around 8 million guns are made universally every year, and 4.5 million are purchased by individuals who live in the U.S.  Further, it’s just around 20 percent of the populace owning 65 percent of U.S. capability.  In 1973, there were firearms in about one in two families in the United States; in 2010, one in three.  In 1980, almost one in three Americans possessed a weapon; in 2010, that figure had dropped to one in five.  (Kiger)

Stricter firearm control laws would keep people from the right to protect themselves, their families, and their property, and what about the rights of hunters and recreational gunmen.  Of course, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the first thing to come to mind.  This 27-word entry incorporates the well-known expression “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The central contention that firearm control rivals make is that the privilege to possess and utilization weapons is an obvious individual opportunity ensured by the Constitution.

Firearms are a part of our culture, our legacy, and image of a savage society of war. Of course, not every issue concerning guns is gruesome. Practice in the firearms range with dad is probably much fun! As specialists – and voters – increase more information about the ways and methods for firearms, there is motivation to trust that more decisions can be reached from fact and by agreement.  (Editors)

In closing, consider these few final thoughts – is gun control a public health issue? What type of policies can be implemented?  Should we have a firearm safety class in high school?  It is critical that we have an open discussion channel for this issue between gun advocates, medical care professionals, anti-firearms individuals, our youth, state officials, and community at-large. The freedom to educate parents and family members about safe gun storage, about the risks of owning a gun in a household where youth are present, and about the importance of considering mental stability is critical.  Maybe the real issue is less about gun control and more about the need for a health-based system for preventing gruesome acts such as mass shootings in schools or movie theaters.

Works Cited

Annear, Steve. “Harvard Publication On Gun Laws Resurfaces As Talks About Firearms Continue.” Boston Daily 30 August 2013.

Editors, The. “Who Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Own a Gun?” Bloomberg View 9 December 2013.

Hemenway, David. Private Guns, Public Health. The University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Kiger, Patrick. “10 Big Questions in the U.S. Gun Control Debate”. 04 February 2014. 21 April 2015.

UNODC. Global Study on Homicide. Vienna: United Nation publication, 2013.

UNODC. The Globalization of Crime. United Nations: United Nations Publication, 2010.