Aaaa

Does Gun Control Reduce Crime?

It is clearly in the interests of children and families to reduce gun
violence in the United States. Each day, on an average, 13 children
under the age of 19 are killed by gunfire and more are injured.
Homicide is the second leading cause of death for youths 10–19 years
old. For black males of this age, it's the No.1 cause of death. Most
youth homicides are committed with firearms, especially handguns.
A heated debate rages between those who believe in rigidly controlling
guns and those who believe in no gun regulation.

In general, the gun‐control community wants to limit the availability of guns

(which is a supply‐reduction strategy). On the other side, the National Rifle
Association (NRA) claims that the Second Amendment guarantees each
citizen an absolute right to “bear arms.” Consequently, the NRA fights all
attempts to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and sale of guns. In
general, the NRA and its allies favor tough sentences for criminals who use
guns (which is a demand‐reduction strategy).

Gun control does reduce crime

Gun‐control advocates advance several arguments to support their
position that the government should restrict the availability of guns to
reduce violence.

1. More handguns in circulation equals more violent crime.

2. Owning a handgun increases a person's risk of being killed.
3. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals prevents violent
crime.
4. Taking guns away from criminals reduces violent crime.

Gun control does not reduce crime

The National Rifle Association (NRA) criticizes pro‐gun‐control
arguments and offers an alternative proposal for reducing violence.

 Guns don't kill—only people kill. If more people carried guns to

protect themselves, there would be less violent crime.
 Gun‐control laws are unconstitutional because they violate the
Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
  Waiting period laws such as the Brady Bill are the first step on
the road to a police state.
 Gun control laws don't reduce violent crime.
 An alternative to gun control—mandatory sentences for persons
who commit crimes with firearms—will produce greater
reductions in crime and require less sacrifice on the part of gun
owners than gun‐control laws.

Evaluating gun control

 Proponents of gun control suggest that some of the arguments
against gun control are invalid. For example, they cite statistics
that support the fact that if more citizens carried guns to defend
themselves, there would be little decrease in crime because
crime victims rarely use weapons anyway. And they point to the
fact that, so far, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to read the
Second Amendment (“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”) as granting a personal right to
bear arms, but rather as a declaration that Congress should not
do anything to displace state militias (in modern terms, the
National Guard). The case most often cited is U.S. v. Miller
(1939), which upheld a law restricting possession of a type of
shotgun.

 Additional refutation of anti‐gun‐control points involves the

assertion that if more states passed mandatory sentencing laws
for criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes, crime
would be unaffected because in the past such laws have failed to
cut crime. Gun‐control advocates further point out that if more
states had waiting periods and background checks, they would
not usher in a police state, pointing to the fact that although
Congress passed the Brady Bill in 1994, it has yet to set off a
chain of further steps leading to the establishment of a police
state and that there is simply no logical reason to think that
waiting periods will cause the emergence of a police state.

 A major question is whether or not gun‐control laws reduce

crime. Thus far, handgun bans have failed to have any significant
impact on murder rates because of the large number of handguns
in circulation prior to the bans. Attempts to outlaw the
manufacture and importation of handguns have failed because
 they stimulate the genesis of a black market for guns similar to
the black market for drugs. Laws seeking to keep handguns out
of the hands of criminals, juveniles, and mental defectives have
failed to reduce crime because active criminals either have guns
already or can steal them. Waiting periods and background
checks temporarily stop some criminals and juveniles from
getting guns, but many steal them or get them through the black
market.

 Taking guns away from criminals is the one promising approach.

Proactive arrests (made by police officers on patrols in gun‐crime
hot spots, using traffic enforcement and field interrogations) for
carrying concealed weapons substantially reduced gun crimes in
Kansas City in the mid‐1990s.

For better or worse, America has the most guns in the world — and
unsurprisingly, the most gun deaths in the world. However, violent crimes in
general occur at similar rates throughout much of the developed world.
Whether the solution to gun deaths is the ability to bear arms, or stricter gun
control measures, let’s take a look at the sides of the argument.

YES
To the chagrin and deep disagreement of second amendment
originalists, a team of researchers at the Harvard Injury Control
Research Center have recently demonstrated, in a review of all
relevant literature, that more guns equal more gun deaths. This trend
holds true when comparing the US to 26 other developed countries, of
which the US has, on average, a murder rate roughly 15 timer higher.
This relationship also holds true across states within the US, with
states that have more guns, having more gun homicides, even when
controlled for poverty, urbanization, age and gender.
[Tweet “America has the most guns in the world — and unsurprisingly,
the most gun deaths in the world.”]

While the vast number of privately-owned guns in the U.S. would be

virtually impossible to collect, or keep track of entirely, cutting down
on the availability of future guns, and offering incentives such as gun
buyback programs, or public gun lockers has proven a good way to
lower gun crime throughout most of the developed world. Unlike the
U.S., in which legislative responses to mass shootings have been
relatively mild, or non-existent, countries like Japan, Canada, and
Britain are success stories for responding to mass shootings with
regulations on who can own a gun, restrictions on shotguns and semi-
automatic weapons, and incentives to turn in guns.
David Hemenway, a social scientist at Harvard looks at figures citing
the number of times guns were used in self-defense in the United
States, and believes they are a pure fantasy. Hemenway notes that
cases that are cited as incidents of self-defense usually involve an
escalating quarrel between two parties that know one another. In
short, the self-defendant plays some role in the escalation of the
conflict, and thus is not acting completely in self-defense. In an
interview with Harvard Magazine he notes that the number of
instances you might use a gun in self defense ranges from “zero to
once in a lifetime.” Hardly a compelling reason to have millions of guns
on the streets, and available to most people who want them.

NO
Even if David Hemenway’s numbers above are correct and the average
gun owner really does only have zero to one chance to use a gun in
self-defense in their life, it appears that just knowing someone could
have a gun deters a great deal of crime. Take the U.K., where it is
nearly impossible to own a gun, as an example.
While the UK has a lower rate of gun crimes per capita than the U.S.,
the percentage of UK crimes involving guns has increased since gun
control laws have been ratcheted up. In short, criminals are more
likely to use guns in crimes, knowing they can intimidate innocents
who in all likelihood don’t have guns.
[Tweet “It appears that just knowing someone could have a gun deters
a great deal of crime.”]

On top of a large percentage of crimes involving firearms, the amount

of violent crimes other than firearm crimes has increased since the
weapons ban. When firearms became harder to obtain, people acted
violently with whatever else they could find: bats, knives, clubs. Also,
for those who really don’t care about the law, now crimes can be
committed knowing that victims won’t be armed. If guns are outlawed,
only outlaws will have guns; and that’s a dangerous combination.