Table of Contents
International comparisons have been offered as proof that more guns mean more violence, and so - more deaths. However, this belief is often ridden with misconceptions, factual errors, and unrepresentative comparisons. Comparative data on violence and gun ownership within nations show a negative correlation. There is no logically proved powerful positive relation between the levels of gun ownership and the violence levels within a country or a subgroup. According to John (1998), national patterns show that areas with high levels of gun ownership demonstrate low levels of crime implying that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite on the contrary, findings suggest that illegal aggressions are inhibited by high saturations of guns in places or a correlation of that condition.
Guns and Violence
Data from earlier eras reveals that jurisdictions within the America with the most stringent gun ownership rules are generally the ones with high rates of violence. Conversely, areas where guns are most dense and impose little controls on guns ownership to responsible and law abiding citizens experience low homicide levels (Paul, 1992). There are many explanations to this situation, but any of them does not prove that implementing gun control will reduce violence and murder. This implies that allowing qualified citizens to own guns does not result to more violent crimes or murders. Rather, adopting state statutes permitting responsible adults to carry guns has been followed by remarkable reductions in murder and crime in these nations.
One explanation of why the level of gun ownership in the society does not increase the rates of murder and crime is that murderers are not evenly spread throughout the population. Findings of perpetrator studies indicate that violent criminals usually have a history of involvement in criminal activities. Therefore, violence will not appreciably rise with law abiding citizens- responsible people if they own firearms, because they are not the ones who rob, rape, or murder (Paul, 1992). In the same light, crime would not fall if guns were totally banned from all citizens. As the examples of Russia and Luxembourg suggest, those who are engaged in criminal behaviors will still look for guns to use, despite severe gun controls, or look for alternative weapons to use.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
The argument that “more guns equal more death” would only be reasonable if murders mostly involved ordinary people who kill because they have access to a gun when they get angry. However, the available data does not show that correlation (James, 2002). States with more guns per capita do not show higher crime levels than those with lesser guns per capita. Gun ownership has been criticized, with critics arguing that someone who owns a gun to protect themselves from burglars is likely to use it on their spouse or other members of the family when seized with rage, since it is the most available weapon. These comments do not rest on any evidence, since studies show that most murderers are aberrant individuals having precedents of violence, substance abuse, psychopathology and other dangerous behaviors in the past (Paul, 1992). Despite the fact that there are many family murders, studies show that mostly they do not happen in ordinary families, and they are not committed by ordinary people. Most of family murders usually have long prehistory of offensive behavior.
Guns and Suicide
Cross-national comparisons do not show that countries with high level of gun ownership have higher death or suicide rates than those with low gun ownership rates. Examining statistics from nations across the world reinforce this non-correlation. The comparison of suicide and murder mortality data of thirty - six countries from 1990 to 1995 to gun ownership levels revealed no significant association between levels of gun ownership and the total mortality rate. Gun ownership levels have also been revealed to show non-correlation with suicide levels (Arthur et al., 1992). If the presence of a gun at home corresponds to a higher risk of suicide, then denying potential suicides firearms will result to a decision to live. However, evidence shows that denying a person with a one way of committing suicide, will only push them to look for a different method. This is because their motivation to commit suicide is either social, economic or other circumstances, and not the gun (Arthur et al., 1992).
Decreasing the availability of guns does not result to any social benefit if it only increases the use of other methods of murder or suicide, the outcome of which is almost the same amount of deaths (Arthur et al., 1992). This is because the determinants of suicide and murder are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, and not the presence of deadly mechanism. Such inanimate objects as guns are not responsible for the behavior of humans. Jurisdictions afflicted with high rates of violent crimes tend to have more stringent gun ownership controls. However, this does not alleviate the crime, since banning guns cannot change the social, economic, and cultural factors that are the real factors determining violence and crime rates (Gary and Don, 2001).
Guns and Security
Indeed, when used for self-defense, guns can serve as source of psychological barrier against the fear of crime as well as seriously inhibiting aggression. Leaving a person defenseless in time of need by enforcing controls gives the uncomfortable feeling at the thought of an attack (James, 2002). In addition, licensing drivers and registering automobiles has not prevented road rage, drive-by shootings, drug deals, bank robberies or any other crime where automobiles may be used. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show about the little prevalence of violence in places where guns are saturated shows that firearms do not bring out aggression in any significant way. If more guns meant more deaths, then there should be more deaths in geographic areas and demographic groups with a high level of gun ownership, (Gary 7 Don, 2001). However, this is not logical since gun ownership level is higher among married people, among middle - aged people, among rich people, higher among whites than among blacks, - all patterns that are reverse to the distribution of criminal behavior.
Law-abiding and responsible people who follow gun-control laws are unable to defend themselves from criminals. In addition, it is not guaranteed that banning guns will free the society of guns, as we it is seen on the example of the war against drugs - it has not any more than the drug war has liquidated drug abuse. Those who wish to access illegal guns will be able to access the black market as easily as they purchase drugs (Paul, 1992). Statutes meant to keep guns from criminals, will finish providing responsible people with guns when they need them to defend themselves, usually not even opening fire
There is no proper basis to suppose that people who arm themselves for criminal purposes would not be able to do so even if the general ownership of firearms in the larger population is restricted (Gary and Don, 2001). Similarly, there is no strong proof that lessening the availability of weapons in general, will make it impossible for real criminals to have an access, even under the stringent controls of gun ownership
Banning guns is a useless way to fight against crime and prevention of suicide. In the effect of crime, it is counterproductive since it leaves people unprotected to criminals. Years of gun control have not done much to end crime, or make people to feel secure on the streets. Violent people are not likely to be constrained by gun-control laws. To prevent the problems of crime, murder, and suicide, the society has to find solutions to social, economic, and cultural determinants affecting them.