Argument PaperOver the last twenty years, a large amount of effort and money has been spent overlegislation regarding gun control.
Gun control advocates maintained that increased gun controlcould reduce the soaring crime rates of the early 70s. However, most of the arguments used forgun control are the result of careful manipulation of data and emotional appeal. These mythsare twisted by our liberal media until they are seen as the truth. However, despite the claims ofgun control activists, gun control does not reduce crime, it leaves law abiding citizensincreasingly vulnerable to violent crime.Order now
One common claim of gun control advocates is that gun control in foreign countries,notably Great Britain, is responsible for their lower crime rates. They present statistics showingthat Britain has lower murder rates than America, but skip some other interesting information. First, the gun control methods used in Britain include searches and other checks foundunconstitutional in America. Also, the British are far more successful than Americans inprosecuting criminals.
For instance, 20% of robberies reported in London end in conviction,compared to only 5% in New York City (Ten Myths 5). In a broader sense, consider that despite the fact that in a typical year about 8. 1 millionviolent crimes will be committed in America, only 724 thousand will be arrested. Of those, only150 thousand will receive prison sentences, and over 36 thousand will serve less than one yearterms. The biggest problem in America is our revolving door justice system (Ten Myths 3).
Despite the efficiency of British investigative procedures, the British armed robbery ratehas never been less than twice the highest recorded before the gun control laws took effect in1920. In fact, over the last twelve years, the British armed robbery rate has increased anastonishing 300% while the American rate has dropped (Ten Myths 5). Also, from 1930 to 1975,the British murder rate has increased 50% while the American murder rate rose 30%. Anotherforeign nation, Jamaica, totally prohibited gun ownership in 1974. By 1980, Jamaicas gunmurder rate was six times that of Washington D. C.
, which has the highest rate of any Americancity. However, Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gunownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime ratesare among the lowest in the Western World (Bender 148). Granting gun owners more freedom to carry their weapons responsibly has not causedAmericas crime rate to increase! Rather, American crime has been shown to decrease whenmore freedom is allowed. In 1996, the University of Chicago Law School conducted a study ofthe crime rates of every county in America over the last fifteen years and determined that violentcrime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed weapons, with murder rates dropping8. 5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Overall, it is estimated that1.
5 to 2. 5 million people use guns for defense in America every year, saving society up to 38. 9billion dollars annually (Pratt 16A). Another fabrication of gun control advocates is that gun control would reduce crimes ofpassion, in which a person kills a family member in a fit of rage. However, 90% of allhomicides involving family members killed by other family members are preceded by violencethat caused such a disturbance that police were summoned. Professor James Wright of theUniversity of Massachusetts conducted a study of crimes of passion and determined that themurders were, the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal violence between theparties.
He elaborated, noting that, The common pattern, the more common pattern, is forwives to shoot their husbands. Proportionately, men kill their women by other means, morebrutal means, more degrading means. To deny that woman the right to own the firearm is, in asense, to guarantee in perpetuity to her husband the right to beat her at will (Ten Myths 6). Professor Wright, with Professor Peter Rossi, conducted another landmark study of 1800criminals that disproves another myth, namely that handguns are not an effective means ofdeterrence and protection. In the study, 85% of criminals felt a smart criminal would try todetermine if his potential victim was armed.
75% of burglars avoided homes that were occupiedfor fear of being shot. 80% of handgun predators encountered armed citizens, and 57% ofthem were scared off by shots from armed citizens. In fact 60% of criminals fear armed citizensmore than police (Ten Myths 4). It is with good reason that criminals fear armed citizens. In a typical year, armed citizenskill between 1,500 to 2,800 felons in excusable self-defense and justifiably wound 8,000 to16,000. Police kill 300 to 600 criminals per year justifiably.
(Ten Myths 4) Despite the large gapbetween police and citizen killings of criminals, citizens have better judgment, mistakenly killingonly 30 innocent people per year, compared to 330 people police kill in the United States peryear. Also, criminals succeed in disarming citizens in less than 1% of encounters (NCPACRIME 1). For these reasons, handguns are effective deterrents to crime. In addition, defense doesnot require anyone to be hurt. In fact, 98% of protection cases involves the citizen eitherbrandishing his gun or firing warning shots into the air.
Even among criminals, protection fromother criminals is the number one reason for possessing a gun (NCPA CRIME 1). A further myth is that legally owned guns contribute to crime. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. Studies show violence and crime to be highest among young, poor, single, urbanblack men. However, the average legal gun owner is a middle age, middle class, rural white man(NCPA CRIME 1). In fact, of the 60-65 million handguns legally owned in America, 10,000were used for homicides in 1989, meaning that only .
02% of handguns are used in homicides. The remaining 99. 98% of handguns are never used for unlawful purposes (Ten Myths 3). Another reason gun control does not work is due to the nature of our Constitution. TheFifth Amendment guarantees Americans protection from being forced to incriminate themselves. Since felons are not permitted to own handguns, the Supreme Court, in Haynes vs.
U. S. , 309 U. S.
85 (1968), concluded that the government can not prosecute felons for not registering their illegalguns (Ten Myths 4). From 1978 to 1979, nine states adopted amendments to their state constitutionsguaranteeing individuals the right to own firearms by large margins. 28 states followed suit inthe 1980s, barring cities and counties from passing local gun restrictions. In November 1976,Massachusetts voters rejected a gun control initiative that the polls predicted to pass by a marginof two-to-one. In 1982, California voters rejected 67 to 37 a statewide freeze on the number ofhandguns in the state, again despite polls favoring the freeze to pass. Finally, House Bill S.
49,the Firearms Owners Protection Act, was favored by citizens contacting their representatives bythe astounding margin of 95 to 1, once again despite polls showing most people did not supportthe bill (Ten Myths 2). These figures show a trend that applies across the country at the state andnational level: the American voters do not favor more gun control. Along with the American people, those who see more crime than any other occupation,our police forces oppose gun control. During the 1982 freeze referendum in California, 51 of58 working sheriffs opposed the freeze, along with 101 Chiefs of Police(Ten Myths 2) In a 1976survey, the Boston police force found that 80% of police felt a handgun was an effective form ofself defense(Matza).
A 1990 survey of the National Association of Chiefs of Police found that90% of chiefs felt that banning handguns would reduce neither crime nor a criminals ability toobtain a handgun and 87% felt the same with regards to banning semi-automatic guns of allclasses. 88% felt that banning all guns would not reduce crime, while 90% felt that gun controlwould reduce police departments effectiveness by diverting money, manpower, and resourcesfrom cops on the streets to paper pushers behind desks(Ten Myths 2). Also, the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association and the National PoliceOfficers Association all support private handgun ownership (Matza). Another problem of gun control is that many gun control laws also call for registry of gunownership.
Many gun owners have been labeled extreme for maintaining that gun registry willlead to the confiscation of their guns. However, such an action is not without precedent. In1989, the Soviet Union confiscated 60,000 legally owned and registered rifles from citizens inthe Soviet Republic of Georgia. Even avowed gun prohibitionist Charles Morgan of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union noted, I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with theNational Rifle Association, that that kind of record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventualconfiscation under one administration or another, during testimony to a Senate subcommittee in1975 (Ten Myths 4). The greatest myth of gun control is that it reduces crime.
The statistics from the foreigncountries mentioned earlier in this report show that gun control has not worked there. Threecities make prime examples of the effect of gun control in America: Boston, New York, andWashington, D. C. In 1976, the state of Massachusetts passed the extremely restrictive Bartley-Fox law.
Itwas seen as one of the most restrictive gun control laws ever passed. During 1976,Massachusetts was ranked as the nineteenth most violent state in the nation, and Boston was thenations fifth most violent city. By 1981, Massachusetts had moved up to number eleven in thenation, while Boston was ranked the nations most violent city (Matza 148). New York is yet another example of how gun control fails. Due to soaring crime ratesand almost indefinite waiting periods to obtain licensees to carry handguns, many otherwiselaw-abiding citizens obtained guns illegally or carried their legal weapons illegally.
One,Bernhard Goetz, was imprisoned for unlawful possession of a handgun after he used his gun todetain four muggers who assaulted him until police could arrive. His assailants were released,and later were back in court for crimes ranging from armed robbery to rape. In fact, New Yorkscrime rate is due more to revolving door criminal justice than anything else. In 1984, only20,641 criminals out of 106,171 arrests received jail time. New York, which is 3% of Americaspopulation, accounted for 12. 5% of the nations handgun homicides (Ten Myths 9).
In 1976, Washington D. C. passed extremely strict gun control laws. From 1976 to 1982,Washingtons violent crime rate rose 43% and the handgun homicide rate rose 14%. Thenational rates rose 20% and 3%, respectively. In fact, in 1990, the D.
C. homicide rate reached 80per 100 thousand, the highest rate ever recorded in an American city and an increase of 200%from 1976. The national rate rose 10% in the same time. These statistics show that the people ofthese cities were vulnerable to crime and had no legal way of defending themselves.
However,the courts have ruled several times that the police have no responsibility to protect individualcitizens. When questioned about the law, former D. C. police chief Maurice Turner said, Whathas the gun control law done to keep criminals from getting guns? Absolutely nothing.
. . Cityresidents ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun (Ten Myths 10). The reason gun control fails should be obvious to an intelligent person. Since a criminaldoes not, by definition, obey laws, gun control cannot hope to be applied to them as they willaccess their guns by criminal means.
These same laws will leave a law abiding citizen almosttotally defenseless as the law provides them no means of protection. Meanwhile, criminals, whoare often not oblivious to the news, will be emboldened by the knowledge that their potentialvictims have no means of defense. Plainly, gun violence is a problem in America, but if gun control does not work, whatwill? The answer is laws adding extra punishments for criminal use of guns. This targets thecriminal element of society while protecting those citizens who own guns for lawful purposes.
Furthermore, these laws work. Virginias murder and robbery rates dropped 31 and 23% respectively in fourteen yearsafter the passage of mandatory penalties for firearms offenders. Arkansass homicide ratedropped 25% in fifteen years and Delawares homicide rate dropped 42% in thirteen years aftermandatory penalties were legislated Delaware also recorded a 52% drop in robberies over thesame period (Ten Myths 11). These figures show that mandatory sentences help to reduce armed violence by sending aclear message to criminals: criminal misuse of a firearm will not be tolerated and will be swiftlyand severely punished. Coupled with the deterrence value of armed citizens, these laws reducecrime by introducing to the criminal the possibility of longer jail terms, wounds, or even death. Another solution to the problem of handgun violence is to make gun locks, vaults, andother safety devices a tax-deductible purchase.
This would give gun owners an incentive to storetheir guns in safer conditions while reducing the rate of people who are killed either by accidentsor stolen guns. Any funds lost by the government through such a program would almostcertainly be recouped in savings from the prevention of accidental deaths. Gun owners wouldalmost certainly respond positively to such action, given that when Florida offered free gun locksto citizens, they ran out within days and were left scrambling for more (Rogers). Especially after the tragedy of Littleton, it is important to remember that gun control mustbe viewed in a rational and thoughtful manner in which logic and the facts are not overwhelmedby emotion.
As the research and presentation of the author demonstrate, the facts speak forthemselves. Gun control is a misdirected attempt to curtail criminals by stripping the law abidingof the ability to arm themselves for protection. Gun control often has no measurable effect oncrime, and when the effect can be measured, it often reveals an increase in the crime rate. Furthermore, gun control would reduce funds for the apprehension of criminals, reduce theeffectiveness of police forces, waste millions, perhaps billions of dollars, and serve as a possiblemeans for tyranny to stamp out any possible resistance.
Therefore, gun control should be viewed not as a solution, but as a catalyst for furtherincreases in violence and lawlessness in America. Any law that aims to punish the criminal atthe expense of the law abiding is doomed to failure. Current efforts to punish gun makers for themisuse of guns is comparable to suing auto makers for the deaths caused by drunk drivers. Careful review of the facts reveals that what is needed in America is not gun control, butcommon sense coupled with a better concept: criminal control. OutlineThesis: Despite the claims of gun control activists, gun control does not reduce crime.
I. IntroductionII. Myths of Gun ControlA. Foreign gun control worksB. Gun control reduces crimes of passionC. Criminals do not fear armed citizensD.
Guns contribute to crimeE. Criminals are constitutionally exempt from gun controlF. American favor gun controlG. Police support gun controlH. Registry is a harmless aspect of gun controlI.
Gun control reduces crimeIII. ConclusionA. SolutionsB. Final analysis and personal observations LIST OF WORKS CITEDBender, David ed.
Would Gun Control Reduce Crime? St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1984. Matza, Michael. Do more guns mean less crime? No point blank answers Philadelphia Enquirer 31 May, 1998. NCPA Crime Summary. Available (Online) http://www.
arcrafts. com/think/Essays/NCPACrime. html. 4 April 1999.
Pratt, Larry. Concealed guns save lives. USA Today. 26 April, 1999. natl.
ed. Rogers, Bill. Gun Locks Go Faster Than Police Can Hand Them Out. Naples Daily News. 27March, 1998, natl. ed.
Ten Myths About Gun Control. Available (Online)http://www. arcrafts. com/think/Essays/Ten.
html. 4 April 1999.