Gun violence is one of the most controversial topics in the United States. In the year of 2018, there has been at least over 300 mass shootings alone in the United States which resulted over 30,000 fatalities whether it is suicides, homicides, etc. This almost averages to at least one mass shooting a day. People started questioning the security of public facilities such as schools, hotels, and college campuses, etc. This caused an outcry within the United States community calling for better gun control laws. On the other hand, there are handfuls of individuals that disagree with the passing of more stricter gun control laws. They argue that firearms are their personal rights which can be found in The Second Amendment stating that you have the right to keep and bear arms which is very difficult to change. It means that “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”. So far, the only action taken were the passing of State laws, and even so, it is only a handful of states that followed suite. These laws range from a stricter age requirement, harder licensing, and restricting access to certain guns. But, do guns laws actually have an effect? A research study by Justin Haskins showed that there is minimal correlation between gun control laws and the reduce of gun violence. Gun rights advocates have said for years that gun control doesn’t work because criminals don’t care about law. It was stated that “Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer….The simple, undeniable truth is that gun control does not work.” (Rittgers) Gun control laws have minimal effect on the rate of gun violence and there are better ways to reduce the issue.
People in favor of gun control laws say that if laws made guns purchases stricter and if more firearms were banned, people would be safer, but based on state level crime data, this claim was proven to be rather ineffective. For instance, many of the states with the lowest crime rates, also have the weakest gun control laws. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that supports enhancing gun control laws, gave in its recent gun-control report card F grades to five of the six states that have the lowest homicide rates. The data also show there is no connection to higher gun ownership rates and greater amounts of crime. There are six states where 50 percent of the households own firearms which are Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming (Haskins). If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of firearms, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true here as well. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates (Haskins). Further, many cities with very low legal gun ownership rates and stringent gun-control laws, such as Chicago, have extremely high gun-related murder rates. Gun control laws also don’t prevent mass shootings. An analysis conducted by statistician Leah Libresco shows Australia and Britain have not experienced fewer mass shootings or gun-related crimes since enacting their very strict gun-control laws. Even if it could be proven gun control does prevent violent crime from occurring, enforcing sweeping gun-control legislation in the United States would be virtually impossible. There are about 270 million guns in America, and in 29 states, at least one-third of the households own guns (Haskins). There is no possible way to to check home for home for gun ownerships. In other countries with strict gun laws, lawmakers have attempted to enforce buyback programs that offer cash for people who turn in banned weapons to government agents. This has little hope of working in the United States. Even if it was effective, it also does not stop the fact there are guns being imported from borderlines such as Canada or Mexico. A study in 2013 by the Trans Border Institute and Igarape Institute estimates an average of 253,000 firearms cross the U.S. Mexico border every year. Earlier in 2017, the Canadian government reported it believes there are greater than 1 million prohibited guns in its country, and Canadian officials believe most of the firearms were brought there from the United States. These figures prove that without massive border security improvements, there is no possible way to effectively reduce the amount of gun ownership. Gun related crime caused by Americans, who legally own a firearm involved in the crime is virtually nonexistent. Of the 33,000 gun-related deaths that occur each year, two-thirds are suicides, and the majority of the remaining 11,000 deaths are gang related and involve guns that were purchased illegally (Haskins). By contrast, 88,000 people die every year from alcohol-linked causes. That means if you exclude suicides, alcohol is 650 percent deadlier than guns, and no one is calling for another Prohibition. Instead of penalizing gun owners, who use their firearms to save thousands of people every year, lawmakers should work to reduce crime by improving economic growth and providing additional educational opportunities which are methoods for limiting crime.
David Rittgers who is an attorney and legal policy analyst at Cato Institue, served 3 tours in Afghanistan as an officer and served as a reserve judge advocate. The Supreme Court’s rejection of Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago is more than a recognition that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. Strict gun control policies reason that denying law abiding citizens access to the means of self defense will somehow make them safer. According to David Rittgers, this statement is blown out of proportion and is not something to trust. Racism was a factor in gun control in America. States across the South instituted gun control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the KKK. While racism was no longer a serious issue, the assassination of major United States figures turned gun control into an article of faith among progressive politicians. Society though the elimination of firearms as the only way to counter the increase of crime within the United States. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully obtained or owned in the District. In 1983, the state of Chicago followed the same route. Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, Chicago has served as the gun control capital of the United States. Ironically, Chicago has one of the highest mass shootings in the United States (Ortiz). There was an incidnet once in Chicago where 52 people were shot with 8 dead (Ortiz). This caused Chicago residents to call out the National Guard to help patrol the streets.. Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with illegal guns. An 80 year old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man’s home while running from the police and the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self defense, sending the other two running (Rittgers). The Illinois legislature justified self defense shootings which created an affirmative defense for those who violate local gun bans when unregistered guns are used in self defense. Illinois recognized the basic injustice of the Chicago gun ban. Otherwise law abiding citizens are victimized at a high rate. Residents cannot depend on the police to defend them. The removal of guns and firearms means the removal of personal self defense of residents of the United States which also means the removal of their rights.
Gun laws don’t stop violence. In fact, no laws stop violence.Violence is considered illegal but yet it still happens. There’s a good argument to be made that the current laws, although they are often broken, are still good because they discourage unlawful activity. This is surely true. However, it is very difficult to put an actual number or statistic to how many violent crimes did not happen because a person was influenced by a certain law. Laws definitly prevent some criminal activity even though they don’t stop it completely. Though it is at a small influence. Some take this line of reasoning to believe that we should then have even more gun laws. Even thoigh they are not one hundred percent effective, the majority public belives they discourage crime. While that is true to an extent, people will always find a way to commit crime. Banning guns is a horrible idea because it will not work to reduce violence, laws only restrict law abiding people, and reducing access to firearms is not only a Constitutional issue, it also makes more victims. The removal or restriction of gun ownership means that residents will lose their right of self defense, which in term means they leave themselves vulnerable to the action of crime. Also there is statistical evidence that gun control laws are not as effective as the majority thinks. Gun control laws are very hard to work around and just is not very effective in general. We should be focusing on the psychological side of the issue and find what is causing indivudals to commit crime. It is not the gun it is the user. Gun control laws have minimal effect and there other solutions to reduce violence.