Gun Laws, Violent Crimes, and Public Opinion, Essay Example

Anyone who watches the news these days can understand that there is an epidemic of violence in the United States today.  Violent acts such as shootings and murder prompt many people to think that stricter gun control laws may be necessary in order to curb this intense violence.  However, it is not just the guns themselves that are the problem.  The media today is saturated with violent images, such as beatings, knife fights, and rapes.  Video games, movies, television and even the Internet display violent images to the point that many adults and children are becoming desensitized to violence. However, it is guns and gun laws that are under attack by advocates who wish to see a decrease in the violence occurring America.  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects Americans right to keep and bear arms.  Gun control advocates believe that the Second Amendment is outdated, and that in order to curb violent crime and murder stricter gun control laws must be enacted and enforced.  Although gun control advocates have continued to insist that stricter gun laws reduce violent crime, there has never been any empirical evidence presented to support it, and in fact it has been shown that gun control laws tend to lead to an increase in violent crime and murder.

The popular misconception that stricter gun laws leads to less violence can be disputed using empirical evidence gathered by the Graduate Institute of International Studies and presented in the report by Dr. Mauser.  (Mauser 2007).  The report shows that there appears to be a negative correlation between violent crime and gun laws.  Russia is a nation that has been already greatly influenced by gun law advocacy and is a country where very few people own guns.  Only 4% of the population owns guns yet it holds one of the highest homicide rates at over 20%.  In Luxemburg, a country where none of the population owns guns due to very strict gun laws, there is a 9% homicide rate.  On the other hand, there is France, where 30% of the population owns guns and there is only a 1% homicide rate. There is also Germany, where also 30% of the population owns guns but the homicide rate is less than 1%. (Mauser 2007)   This is in strict opposition to what gun control advocates would like us to believe, yet the figures speak for themselves.  Mauser goes on to say that, “Data on firearm ownership by constabulary area in England, like data from the United States, show a negative correlation, that is, where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are the lowest and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.” (Mauser 2007)

Gun control laws that have been enacted and enforced have failed to alleviate violent crime.  “In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research.  It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.” (Mauser 2007)  England has often been cited as an example of a country that has benefitted from strict gun laws.  In the late 1990’s, England banned all handguns and most types of long guns.  Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from law abiding citizens who chose to give them up peacefully.  However, by the year 2000, the ineffectiveness was apparent. England and Wales had had such an increase in violent crime that they actually led Europe by having the highest violent crime rate, even surpassing the United States. (Mauser 2007).

Gun laws are ineffective because of the fact that criminals will still find a way to get a gun as long as there are companies still making guns.  There will never be a shortage of firearms as long as there are still gun manufacturers and a demand for firearms.  Gun laws create a lucrative black market, and there are plenty of buyers who have no qualms purchasing a gun from the black market. Law abiding citizens who go in accordance with the law are at a disadvantage.  They are left in the extremely unpleasant position of being left somewhat defenseless, since any criminal coming to rob or attack them will most likely bring their illegal firearm, and the law abiding victim will have to defend himself with his trusty bat or with a call to 911 from his cell phone.  Knowing how quick police response can be, he may be better off throwing his cell phone at his attacker.  Gun laws do not seem to get illegal guns off the street, only make legal guns harder to purchase.  For a criminal with malicious intentions, stricter gun laws are not going to make much of a difference anyway.

The fear that by allowing citizens to own and carry concealed handguns there would be a drastic increase in violent crime has proven to be unfounded as well.  “In 1987 Florida enacted a controversial “concealed- carry” law. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. It is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate.” (Snyder 1997)  It may be that criminals are more wary to attack if they think that their victim may be carrying a concealed handgun.  If they know that their victim is unarmed then it makes for an easy decision.  If the criminal has a gun and the victim does not, the criminal is more secure in his belief that he will be successful in his crime and that he will be met with little resistance from the victim.  Gun laws, and especially the concealed hand gun laws, make criminals a little less sure of the outcome of their attack.  Call it a deterrent.  “Concealed-carry reform reaffirms the basic idea that citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal attack. And since criminals can strike almost anywhere at any time, the last thing government ought to be doing is stripping citizens of the most effective means of defending themselves. Carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect.” (Snyder 1997)

Public opinion has waned as well on stricter gun laws.  In a survey done in 2006, public support was in favor of harsher regulations both for obtaining gun permits and harsher punishments for those convicted of illegal gun trafficking. (Smith 2007).  However, in a 2009 Gallup poll the public showed a different attitude.  Only 44% of Americans, less than half, felt that gun control laws should be more strict.  The first time the question was asked in 1990, the public opinion was at an all time high of 78% in favor of stricter gun laws.  Since then support has been dropping. Until this year, Gallup had always found a significantly higher percentage advocating stricter laws. At the same time, 12% of Americans believe the laws should be less strict, which is low in an absolute sense but ties the highest Gallup has measured for this response.

It is apparent that the world today faces a problem with violence.  However, the right to own a firearm does not appear to be the problem.  It has been shown that gun laws to not lead to a decrease in violent crime and that in face may increase the violent crime.  In addition, tougher laws for illegal arms dealers do not seem to be a deterrent when laws create a lucrative black market that for a criminal outweighs the risks of being caught.  Finally, public opinion is now reaching the point that they feel stricter gun laws limit their freedoms without giving them added protection.  The victims of violent crimes, such as the ones represented by the Brady Center, are right to want to reduce violent crime but their agenda to limit guns is not the answer.