Is Gun Control an Effective Way of Reducing Crime Rates?

By: Mary Joy L. Sayman

Many people are still arguing recently is about controlling of gun ownership in reducing crime

rates of the country. Research has clearly shown that countries with higher rates of gun ownership

have lower crime rates than countries with low gun ownership rates. Therefore, reducing the rates

of gun ownership would not have the desired effect of reducing crime and here are the following

reasons that supports the topic.

The first reason is that offenders with firearms have a higher chance of success if they know

they will encounter victims who are unarmed. Citizens with firearms tend to be more empowered

than their unarmed counterparts. Criminals in areas with low gun ownership rates have more

power over their victims, and a higher success rate is an incentive to continue the practice.

The second reason is that the gun will serve as a protection or self-defence to its owner

especially when he/she has a big business dealing with. Many firearm owners have a gun for self-

defence purposes, and many of them have no criminal or violent intention of using the gun. In

fact, many handguns are rarely fired and are only kept as a security contingency.

The third reason is that deaths from firearms are quite rare. Their primary uses are hunting,

target practice, household, and business premise protection. Of all the homicides committed in

the country in a single year, less than one percent involve the use of guns.

Gun control would eventually do citizens more harm than good. Using firearms to reduce

crime rates is a task with no prior proof of success anywhere. Until better measures are found, it

would be better to let citizens exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. Moreover, it is clear

that more gun ownership leads to more citizenry safety.