Gun Control

Control This

It’s a late night and you just got off of work, and as you exit the office building and head for the car, you are stopped by a man that is now holding you at knife point and demanding your wallet. If you had a gun, you could pull it and tell the man to leave, but because of local laws you are not permitted to carry a concealed gun, and you have to surrender your wallet to the man for your own safety. If this citizen had had a gun this story would have ended much differently. In today’s society we often hear news reports about violent crimes involving shooters, and the government’s first reaction is to put new laws into place limiting gun ownership and accessibility to firearms in hopes of lowering the occurrence of violent crimes. Though many states and the federal government have passed laws limiting firearm usage in hopes to lower the number of crimes time and time again, a question arises: are these laws effective in reducing crime, and is the government going in the wrong direction? Information given by the media and the government is often given out of context and in a manner that is biased against guns, gun control laws do not work, and through passing gun control laws the government is making it harder and harder for the good law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against assailants.

The media loves to have a good story, and what makes a good story is the one that hits at the people’s emotions; particularly the stories that scare people. For example, when someone with a gun, and not necessarily by a criminal, accidentally kills an innocent person. According to John Lott, in rare case this does happen; he refers to an example when a student in Louisiana was going to a Halloween party and was killed by a resident of the neighborhood that the student was in, because the student was thought to possibly be an assailant (Lott 1). Lott continues to explain that the media used this story to show that defensive gun use can go wrong, and it can, but what the media failed to tell their audiences is that citizens kill 30 people accidentally every year, but law enforcement manages to accidentally kill 330 innocent people every year (Lott 1-2). And these law enforcement officers are strictly trained to use their firearms properly, and they kill more people accidentally than people that don’t have the training that police have.

There is another concern for gun control proponents, but the media still puts it out of context. James Jacobs, states that there is much concern in the media and in to gun control proponents concerning children and gun accidents (Jacobs 29). However, Jacobs explains that this concern is exaggerated, and in 1997, 40 children under five-years-old were killed in household gun accidents: it is always tragic that a child dies because of an accident and in no way deserved such a fait, however what is even more tragic is the 1,100 and 600 children under five whom died from car accidents and drowning, respectively (Jacobs 29).

So while the government is trying to pass laws regulating, controlling, and outlawing guns, should they not do the same for cars and, swimming pools, and bathtubs? Lott mentions that another statistic that even after safety caps were required by law to be put on aspirin and other related drugs, there were still 3,500 deaths by poisoning in children under five (Lott 10). He continues by adding that this is most likely do to the illusion of safety for the parents toward there children, because they believed that their child could no open the bottle (Lott 10). But outlawing these drugs would be silly, so why outlaw guns when they kill far less people than automobiles, pools, bathtubs, and aspirin? Especially when guns are necessary for personal protection and reduce violent crime rates: which leads into the next point.

Handgun and other firearms are often viewed as a threat to society, especially when the media and the government influence the beliefs of people through the information that they share, as we analyzed before. However, this is not the case. Jacob cites information from the Department of Justice that in 2003 of the 4,949,380 total violent crimes, only 366,840 of them involved a firearm of some kind while 331,240 involved a knife, and the remainder involved no weapon at all (Jacobs 33). These statistics are relatively close. One can come to the conclusion that the assailants whom used a knife and not a gun probably did not use one because they did not have access to one. However, if the government did enforce more controls and bans on guns (assuming that the outlaws do get rid of there guns, even though they obviously do not care what laws are in place), these criminals will just switch to using knifes and other household items as an instrument on intimidation toward their victim, and crime would still continue. Would society really be any safer, knowing that violent crimes would still persist? Jacobs, in his book, mentions that in 1999, ninety percent of violent crimes were committed without a weapon anyway. Besides, according to John Stossel, co-anchor for ABC news, 20/20 and author, interviewed prisoners in New Jersey State Prisons (New Jersey has very strict gun control) and found that they did not care if laws were in place and they could not purchase a gun from a legal dealer, they could get on anywhere as long as they had money (Stossel). So the question still remains, would we really be any safer with stricter gun controls?

A study done by economics professor John Moorhouse, of Wake Forrest University, found that gun control laws do not reduce the number of gun fatalities (140). When Moorhouse conducted his study, he analyzed each state at a time and took into account all variables that could affect the number of gun crimes: economic standing, demographics, law enforcement and, of course, the laws in place in the state (Moorhouse 141). Moorhouse claims that he found in his research no evidence backing that gun control, or lack there of, reduces or has any effect on the number of crimes in states (Moorhouse 143). He further explains, “…high crime rates lead to more stringent gun control laws. But subsequent to that, there was no impact on crime rates” (Moorhouse 143).

Likewise, Gary Kleck, a criminologist has shown studies that the international rate of gun ownership shows no relationship to and homicides (Jacobs 11). John Lott’s research strengthens both of these arguments when he found that when the most populated counties with the highest crime rates legalized concealed carry, crime rates drop dramatically; he and other economists whom have studied the effects of concealed carrying of firearms is “the most cost-effective method for reducing crime” (Lott 19-20). So at this point in our argument, we can begin to deduce that it is safer to live somewhere with less stringent gun control laws, simply because they do not work, and little effect on the number of crimes committed that involve an attacker and a victim i.e. violent crimes. However, when these laws are not in place, it is easier for citizens to defend themselves with a firearm against attackers and not be prosecuted for doing so.

Guns make it possible for citizens to not be victimized by an attacker, and often times are the equalizer during an attack. No one wants to be shot, so if a possible victim pulls a gun on an attacker; the attacker is likely to run away. According to Lott, “criminals are motivated by self-preservation, and handguns can therefore be a deterrent” (5). In a national survey 98% of the time that a victim pulls their gun for defensive purposes, they only need to hold it in a threatening manner and don’t even have to fire a shot (3). John Stossel mentions in his essay that guns are used twice as often defensively as they are offensively, and that there are over 700,000 cases of defensive gun usage annually. However, if citizens are not allowed to carry their weapon into certain public places, what chance do they have to defend themselves against an attacker; many attacks happen in such gun-free zones because the attacker knows that they will have no opposition (Lott)

The government is going in the wrong direction when it comes to gun control. Yes, guns can be dangerous, but if one educates themselves on proper care and safety, then many accidents can be avoided. However, the benefits of guns in society outweigh the issues, thus gun laws and controls can be detrimental to the life and safety of individuals and the people near them, simply because these laws are not effective and greater “gun control,” does not mean less crime.
Work Cited

Jacobs, James B. “The Extent of Gun Violence Is Exagerated.” Gun Violence: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2006. 28-36. Print.

Lott Jr., John R. "Columbine to Va. Tech to NIU: Gun-Free Zones or Killing Fields?" Investors Business Daily 26 Feb. 2008: n. pag. Opposing Viewpoints. Web. 14 Apr. 2010.

Lott Jr., John R. More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago: The Chicago Press University, 1998. Print.

Moorhouse, John. “Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Gun Violence.” Gun Control: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2007. 140-144. Print.

Stossel, John. “Myths About Gun Control.” Liberals Versus Conservatives 19 Oct 2005: n. pag. Opposing Viewpoints. Web. 14 Apr. 2010.