Introduction
The right to own and use guns is considered one of the most important rights by many American citizens. The significance of this right can be seen from the fact that it is included in the Second Amendment and successive governments have continued to protect the right. However, this right has become controversial in recent decades due to the many incidents of gun related violence observed all over the United States. In response to the increase in gun related violence, the government has enacted a number of gun regulations.
These gun control regulations are meant to reduce the ease with which civilians can obtain guns. Gun control policies are based on the premise that tighter control will reduce the prevalence of weapons. In turn, this reduction will result in the decline in the violent crime carried out using firearms. This paper will set out to ascertain the impact that gun control laws have on violent crime prevalence and the number of guns available to civilians in the US.
Guns and Crime
Crime is one of the most important problems affecting modern society and governments and policy makers are constantly looking for ways to reduce crime. Among the various types of crimes, violent crime is considered the most serious and its prevalence has a negative impact on the entire society.
Guns are associated with violence since they are lethal weapons that can inflict deadly damage. Gun availability might encourage a weaker attacker to confront stronger victims. Guns also make it possible for an attacker, who would not have the courage to attack at close proximity to engage his victim from a distance.
Due to their effectiveness, guns are the weapon of choice for most criminals. Research indicates that more than 60% of the homicides in the US are carried out using firearms (Moorhouse and Brent 106). Guns are also used to carry out non-lethal crimes such as sexual assault, robbery and simple assault. Reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that in the non-lethal crimes where weapons were used, 40% of the offenders used firearms (Walter 5).
Federal Regulations
Due to the significant negative impacts of firearms, the federal government has implemented some major statutes to regulate firearms. The first major Federal statute is the National Firearms Act of 1934.
This regulation was designed to limit the ability of individuals to obtain guns that were perceived to be especially lethal. The regulation controlled the types of firearms that civilians might purchase making it impossible for high caliber assault weapons to be freely traded. Walter documents that since 1934, the US government has imposed strict control on fully automatic firearms and shotguns (3).
These restrictions were tightened even further when fully automatic firearms were banned from private possession since 1986. This ensures that the law enforcement officials have a monopoly on powerful automatic weapons that can be used to cause significant damage.
The second major Federal statute implemented to regulate guns was the Gun Control Act of 1968. This regulation was meant to assist law enforcement agencies in their efforts to reduce the crime and violence attributed to firearms. The regulations imposed restrictions on the trade in small arms and imposed age restrictions on gun sales.
A major change in the GCA was made through the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This amendment required thorough background checks to be carried out before a person could purchase a firearm. Intensive background checks are carried out to ensure that the individual who wants to purchase a firearm does not have a criminal record.
There is a waiting period that a person must endure before the gun sale is complete for the background check to be complete. Gun control laws also specify the minimum age requirement for gun possession. To further limit the number of guns available, a person is not allowed to purchase more than one firearm per month.
Effect of Gun Control and Violence
Comparisons between crime rates in areas with strict gun laws and those with more relaxed gun control laws undermine the effectiveness of gun laws. For example, there are stricter regulations of guns in urban areas than in the rural areas. As a result, there is a prevalence of guns in rural America with rural residents being more likely to own firearms than urban dwellers.
However, violent gun crime is heavily concentrated in cities while there is minimal gun violence in the rural areas despite the overrepresentation of firearms in these regions (Blocher 85). This suggests that there are other factors responsible for crime prevalence other than the presence of guns.
Decades of research have failed to provide convincing findings that gun control measures lead to a reduction in crime rates. The US stands out as the industrialized country with the highest rate of gunfire related violent crime and the largest number of guns in civilian hands. These facts have led to the wrong conclusion that gun ownership leads to crime and as such, a stricter control of gun ownership will reduce the rates of violence (Tomislav, Kovandzic and Kleck 1).
However, the evidence offered to show that gun control laws and regulations reduce the crime rate is rather weak. In one study, it was found that when gun controls were utilized, only 3 deaths per 100,000 were avoided (Moorhouse and Brent 108). This marginal benefit was not guaranteed since the studies did not consider socioeconomic factors that might affect the crime rate in a region
The supposed correlation between crime and gun availability continues to provide the greatest impetus for implementing even more restrictive gun laws in the country (Moorhouse and Brent 119). More stringent gun control measures are always demanded for following tragic incidents where the attacker uses firearms to kill many people. However, Domenech asserts that gun control policies will not prevent violent individuals from engaging in their destructive actions (25).
While guns are the most common weapon used in homicides, the rate of firearms related murder has decreased significantly since 1993 A report by the FBI states that the number of firearms-related murders and non-negligent manslaughter rate per 100,000 of the population decreased from 6.6 for 1993 to 3.2 for 2011 (4). These statistics suggest that an increase in gun availability does not necessarily contribute to gun related homicides since the number of guns in the US has increased by over 100million between 1993 and 2011.
The focus on firearms as the major cause of violence ignores the other variables that contribute to the prevalence of crime in the society. Various social and economic variables influence the prevalence of crime in a place. To increase the accuracy of the findings, any study of the relationship between firearms per capital and violent crime must consider these variables.
Crime rates are influenced by the effectiveness and efficiency of the police force in the region. Regions with similar gun control laws will have differing crime statistics depending on the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system in the particular region.
Some studies indicate that relaxation of certain gun control policies reduces violent crime rates. The right-to-carry laws can offer greater protection to civilians who are given the opportunity to defend themselves. These laws afford relatively greater protection to minority groups and women who are more vulnerable to criminal attacks (Trotter 26).
Reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that firearms are used for self-defense purposes by a significant number of civilians (Walter 5). However, precise statistics on the number of times civilians use firearms in self-defense are not available since law enforcement officials do not collect this information.
When right-to-carry laws are implemented, there is a higher probability that a criminal will encounter an armed civilian. This increases the risk that the criminal might be injured or killed as he attempts to perpetrate a violent crime against the armed victim. This generates a significant deterrent effect, as criminals are likely to substitute confrontational crimes for non-confrontational crimes (Tomislav 2).
Effect of Gun Control on the Number of Firearms
Gun control laws have failed in their attempt to decrease the private civilian gunstock in the US. Some gun control laws effectively limit the ability of individuals to access firearms. Due to the strict background checks and age restrictions, the policies lead to differing rates of access to firearms. However, this has not led to an overall decrease in the number of guns possessed by the civilian population over the years.
The number of guns in the US has been steadily increasing over the past three decades in spite of the stringent gun control measures implemented by state and local governments. A national survey carried out by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1994 revealed that there were 192 million firearms owned by 44 million people (Walter 4). This meant that 35% of households in the US owned one or more firearms.
By 2000, the number of firearms had increased substantially with more households reporting to own one or more firearm. Walter documents that there were approximately 259 million guns in the US in 2000 (4). This figure increased even further with approximately 294 million firearms being possessed by civilians in the US by 2007. It is estimated that the number of guns in civilian possession is 310 million. This implies that the number of civilian gunstock in the US has almost doubled in the US since 1968.
The gun regulation policies used by many States control the number of guns released to the public by imposing strict rules during the purchase process. Only licensed dealers are allowed to trade in firearms and the eligibility of a customer must be ascertained before a purchase is made.
However, these measures fail to cause a significant decrease in the total number of guns available to Americans. To begin with, firearms are long-lived capital assets that can last for decades. Guns purchased by civilians many years ago are still functional today. Moorhouse and Brent declare, “The stock of privately owned firearms in the US is large relative to annual sales” (122).
Discussion
High crime rates have often been used as the justification for more and stricter gun control laws in the country. Moorhouse and Brent reveal that there are literally hundreds of state and local gun control statutes meant to control the availability and ownership of firearms by the general population (104).
However, research evidence does not support this causal effect between gun control and crime rates. From the research findings presented herein, it appears that gun control in its current implementation is ineffective. There is little evidence supporting the positive impact of gun control on the crime rate or the number of guns possessed by the public.
Conclusion
In spite of the charged debates on gun control, little is known about the effect of gun policy. This paper set out to highlight the effect that gun policies have on the prevalence of guns in the country and the level of crime and violence. The paper began by highlighting the relationship between guns and crime. It then highlighted some of the Federal regulations imposed to control guns.
The paper has shown that there is no support for the presumption that gun control reduces crime rates in the country. When socioeconomic and law enforcement agency efficiency factors are controlled for, there is little evidence of gun control implementations in their current form reduce violent crime rates.
While it is possible that gun control laws can have a positive effect on crime reduction, it is clear that the currently employed laws are ineffective. It would therefore be of use to determine the gun control laws that can be effective in reducing crime rates. Such laws should then be implemented in order to achieve the desirable outcome of crime reduction in the country.
Works Cited
Blocher, Joseph. “Firearm Localism.” Yale Law Journal 123.1 (2013): 82-146. Web.
Domenech, Benjamin. “The Truth about Mass Shootings and Gun Control”. Commentary 135.2 (2013): 25-29. Web.
Moorhouse, John and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Cato Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-124. Web.
Tomislav, Kovandzic, Schaffer Mark and Kleck Gary. Estimating the Causal Effect of Gun Prevalence on Homicide Rates: A Local Average Treatment Effect Approach. Berlin: Institute for the Study of Labour, 2008. Print.
Trotter, Gayle. “Should Congress Pass Stronger Gun Laws?” Congressional Digest 92.3 (2013): 25-31. Web.
Walter, Brown. “Gun Control Overview.” Congressional Digest 92.3 (2013): 3-7. Web.