Will Fewer Guns Lead to Less Violence?
In December of last year, tragedy struck Newtown, Connecticut and rocked the nation. Adam Lanza, a 20-year old man with a history of neurological disorders, shot his sleeping mother with a handgun, filled a car with guns and ammunition, and then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary, where he opened fire rifle and killed 20 children and 6 adults in less than 5 minutes. Lanza committed suicide after the shooting.
Our immediate reaction is to do anything possible to prevent something like this from ever happening again, yet we struggle with what measures to take. A gun was used in the massacre, but the gun was not the culprit. The familiar debate over gun control and Second Amendment rights is now at the forefront of our national dialogue. This paper seeks to address the following questions:
1. Should more regulations be brought to bear on guns or gun owners?
2. What effect do current gun regulations have on criminal behavior?
3. If the new regulations are instituted, what impact can we expect on violence and crime?
4. Do fewer guns mean less violence?
The Effect of Regulation
The Newtown tragedy has brought gun control issues to the minds of many, and gun control advocates are using this national focus for political benefit. Gun control advocates support regulation to solve social problems of violence in society, and are sometimes hostile toward firearms as a class. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, proponents of gun control think that the language in the Constitution is inadequate for modern society, that our modern police force and high-tech weaponry make the need for personal protection less important. In addition, proponents wonder why guns should be used for anything other than hunting or sporting. They also feel that the Second Amendment is not absolute, and should be limited or have specific requirements to reflect the changing world.
However, when you start reviewing the facts about guns and violence, you may develop a different viewpoint. There seems to be no amount of laws or regulations that is going to keep a criminal from doing what they want to do. If they are determined enough, the threat of legal ramifications will not be a deterrent. With some, the fact that it is illegal may make it more alluring to them.
Grant Duwe, the author of Mass Murder in the United States says that mass murders, like the one in Newtown, have dropped to the lowest levels since 1960 (Domenech 25-29). He indicates that the rate of mass murder was at its highest in 1929, long before the weapons that advocates are wishing to ban were invented.
Although it seems that there have been outbreaks of mass shootings, we currently live in a time of relative domestic peace. Violent crime in the US is at a historic low. James Fox, (Domenech 25-29), shows that the numbers of mass shootings has remained very consistent for almost 30 years, with approximately 20 shootings per year and an average of 100 deaths. Overall, mass shootings account for just one percent of the total homicides in the country.
The mass media may be to blame for this skewed perspective, because media outlets often give mass shootings substantial and sensationalized coverage. This type of coverage can create the false impression that the incidence of mass shootings is rising. Duwe (2013) blames the media for this irresponsibility,
“Because claims makers have relied almost exclusively on national news coverage as a source of data, they have made a number of questionable claims about the prevalence and nature of mass murder since the high-profile cases represent the most sensational and least representative mass killings. And the news media have completed the circle of distortion by disseminating the bulk of the claims that have been made, leading policies that targeted the rarest aspects about mass murder.”
Many criminology studies blame the media for dramatizing mass murders, seemingly without reference to the actual facts, while simultaneously ignoring the real cause of the mass murders. Chistopher Uggen, compares mass murder to “diseases that attract attention for their horror but kill few,” writing that “rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases – and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.” (Domenech, 2013, 25-29)
Currently, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Californian, is trying to push legislation to ban 120 named firearms. This bill will be ineffectual before the ink dries, because once you put a name on a weapon, you create a loophole that allows the gun to be renamed; therefore, it will no longer be illegal. She is also trying to mandate government seizure of private possessions without compensation. This proposed legislation has sparked a reaction from the law-abiding gun owners. In 1994 200 million guns were legally owned in the U.S., and almost 1.3 million violent crimes were committed with firearms, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Today, 300 million guns are legally owned and there were roughly 350,000 violent crimes involving firearms. The number of legal guns owned went up by one third, and firearm related crimes dropped by 74 percent.
This is a very interesting statistic and brings into question an unexamined assumption often made by gun-control proponents: If a law-abiding person possesses a firearm, then that person will use a firearm against another person in a moment of stress. Dave Kopel, the research director of the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute, in Denver, posts that opposition to gun ownership is ideological, not rational:
"I use gay marriage as an analogue,” he said. "Some people say they are against gay marriage because they think it leads to worse outcomes for kids. Now, let's say in 2020 all the social-science evidence has it that the kids of gay families turn out fine. Some people will still say they're against it, not for reasons of social science but for reasons of faith. That's what you have here in the gun issue."
According to AdamWinkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, permit holders in the U.S. commit crimes at a rate lower than that of the general population. "We don't see much bloodshed from concealed-carry permit holders, because they are law-abiding people," Winkler said. "That's not to say that permit holders don't commit crimes, but they do so at lower rate than the general population. People who seek to obtain permits are likely to be people who respect the law."
According to John Lott, an economist and a gun-rights advocate who maintains that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens helps curtail crime, the crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is lower than the crime rate among police officers. The number of Americans who have a license to carry a concealed handgun is the highest is has ever been, currently upwards of 8 million and the homicide rate is the lowest is has been in 20 years.
Supporters of the Second Amendment contend that gun control regulation does not accomplish what it is intended to accomplish, and that more legislation and regulation will not be the panacea that solves our social problems. They also feel that current laws aimed at keeping weapons away from high risk individuals are difficult to enforce. There still is an insistence on the need for people to have an effective means to protect themselves and their property. Law enforcement and the justice system have not shown that they can provide adequate public safety for everyone in all settings.
Interestingly, many are trying to get gun laws changed or enacted because of the violence, this includes Hollywood actors who portray violent acts in films. But in the end, they count on others, with guns, to protect them. Gun legislation is keeping guns away from the law abiding citizen, but not from the criminal. In the past twenty years, all but one of these mass shootings have happened in government created so called “gun free” zones. Law abiding citizens cannot legally bring guns into these locations. By creating these zones, the government has created places rich in human targets, completely unable to defend themselves against a deadly attack. What seems to make more sense is to enforce the more than 20,000 under enforced gun related laws that we currently have on the books. Gun laws have no impact on the people that have no intention of following such laws. We don’t have meaningful or consistent penalties for people who break the laws.
Who is in favor of stricter gun laws? According to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 61 percent of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws. The last time the poll was conducted, January of 2011, 52 percent responded that gun laws should be “more strict.” Only 37 percent of Republicans support stricter gun laws, this is a 13 percent jump from 2011 polls. Among Independents, 49 percent are in favor of stricter laws, which is a one percent increase from the 2011 poll. Whether or not someone in a household owns a gun or not is the biggest factor of opposition or support to stricter gun laws. Among those who own a gun, 45 percent support stricter gun laws. 75 percent support stricter laws when the household does not have a gun. Of those polled, 42 percent said that someone in their household owns a gun.
The gun debate is very intense and both sides to the argument seem to have very strong cases in their corner. As citizens, we need to make sure that we are thoroughly informed about all sides of the debate and make sure that our politicians know how we feel so the right decisions can be made for America and Americans.
Our immediate reaction is to do anything possible to prevent something like this from ever happening again, yet we struggle with what measures to take. A gun was used in the massacre, but the gun was not the culprit. The familiar debate over gun control and Second Amendment rights is now at the forefront of our national dialogue. This paper seeks to address the following questions:
1. Should more regulations be brought to bear on guns or gun owners?
2. What effect do current gun regulations have on criminal behavior?
3. If the new regulations are instituted, what impact can we expect on violence and crime?
4. Do fewer guns mean less violence?
The Effect of Regulation
The Newtown tragedy has brought gun control issues to the minds of many, and gun control advocates are using this national focus for political benefit. Gun control advocates support regulation to solve social problems of violence in society, and are sometimes hostile toward firearms as a class. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, proponents of gun control think that the language in the Constitution is inadequate for modern society, that our modern police force and high-tech weaponry make the need for personal protection less important. In addition, proponents wonder why guns should be used for anything other than hunting or sporting. They also feel that the Second Amendment is not absolute, and should be limited or have specific requirements to reflect the changing world.
However, when you start reviewing the facts about guns and violence, you may develop a different viewpoint. There seems to be no amount of laws or regulations that is going to keep a criminal from doing what they want to do. If they are determined enough, the threat of legal ramifications will not be a deterrent. With some, the fact that it is illegal may make it more alluring to them.
Grant Duwe, the author of Mass Murder in the United States says that mass murders, like the one in Newtown, have dropped to the lowest levels since 1960 (Domenech 25-29). He indicates that the rate of mass murder was at its highest in 1929, long before the weapons that advocates are wishing to ban were invented.
Although it seems that there have been outbreaks of mass shootings, we currently live in a time of relative domestic peace. Violent crime in the US is at a historic low. James Fox, (Domenech 25-29), shows that the numbers of mass shootings has remained very consistent for almost 30 years, with approximately 20 shootings per year and an average of 100 deaths. Overall, mass shootings account for just one percent of the total homicides in the country.
The mass media may be to blame for this skewed perspective, because media outlets often give mass shootings substantial and sensationalized coverage. This type of coverage can create the false impression that the incidence of mass shootings is rising. Duwe (2013) blames the media for this irresponsibility,
“Because claims makers have relied almost exclusively on national news coverage as a source of data, they have made a number of questionable claims about the prevalence and nature of mass murder since the high-profile cases represent the most sensational and least representative mass killings. And the news media have completed the circle of distortion by disseminating the bulk of the claims that have been made, leading policies that targeted the rarest aspects about mass murder.”
Many criminology studies blame the media for dramatizing mass murders, seemingly without reference to the actual facts, while simultaneously ignoring the real cause of the mass murders. Chistopher Uggen, compares mass murder to “diseases that attract attention for their horror but kill few,” writing that “rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases – and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.” (Domenech, 2013, 25-29)
Currently, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Californian, is trying to push legislation to ban 120 named firearms. This bill will be ineffectual before the ink dries, because once you put a name on a weapon, you create a loophole that allows the gun to be renamed; therefore, it will no longer be illegal. She is also trying to mandate government seizure of private possessions without compensation. This proposed legislation has sparked a reaction from the law-abiding gun owners. In 1994 200 million guns were legally owned in the U.S., and almost 1.3 million violent crimes were committed with firearms, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Today, 300 million guns are legally owned and there were roughly 350,000 violent crimes involving firearms. The number of legal guns owned went up by one third, and firearm related crimes dropped by 74 percent.
This is a very interesting statistic and brings into question an unexamined assumption often made by gun-control proponents: If a law-abiding person possesses a firearm, then that person will use a firearm against another person in a moment of stress. Dave Kopel, the research director of the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute, in Denver, posts that opposition to gun ownership is ideological, not rational:
"I use gay marriage as an analogue,” he said. "Some people say they are against gay marriage because they think it leads to worse outcomes for kids. Now, let's say in 2020 all the social-science evidence has it that the kids of gay families turn out fine. Some people will still say they're against it, not for reasons of social science but for reasons of faith. That's what you have here in the gun issue."
According to AdamWinkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, permit holders in the U.S. commit crimes at a rate lower than that of the general population. "We don't see much bloodshed from concealed-carry permit holders, because they are law-abiding people," Winkler said. "That's not to say that permit holders don't commit crimes, but they do so at lower rate than the general population. People who seek to obtain permits are likely to be people who respect the law."
According to John Lott, an economist and a gun-rights advocate who maintains that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens helps curtail crime, the crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is lower than the crime rate among police officers. The number of Americans who have a license to carry a concealed handgun is the highest is has ever been, currently upwards of 8 million and the homicide rate is the lowest is has been in 20 years.
Supporters of the Second Amendment contend that gun control regulation does not accomplish what it is intended to accomplish, and that more legislation and regulation will not be the panacea that solves our social problems. They also feel that current laws aimed at keeping weapons away from high risk individuals are difficult to enforce. There still is an insistence on the need for people to have an effective means to protect themselves and their property. Law enforcement and the justice system have not shown that they can provide adequate public safety for everyone in all settings.
Interestingly, many are trying to get gun laws changed or enacted because of the violence, this includes Hollywood actors who portray violent acts in films. But in the end, they count on others, with guns, to protect them. Gun legislation is keeping guns away from the law abiding citizen, but not from the criminal. In the past twenty years, all but one of these mass shootings have happened in government created so called “gun free” zones. Law abiding citizens cannot legally bring guns into these locations. By creating these zones, the government has created places rich in human targets, completely unable to defend themselves against a deadly attack. What seems to make more sense is to enforce the more than 20,000 under enforced gun related laws that we currently have on the books. Gun laws have no impact on the people that have no intention of following such laws. We don’t have meaningful or consistent penalties for people who break the laws.
Who is in favor of stricter gun laws? According to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 61 percent of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws. The last time the poll was conducted, January of 2011, 52 percent responded that gun laws should be “more strict.” Only 37 percent of Republicans support stricter gun laws, this is a 13 percent jump from 2011 polls. Among Independents, 49 percent are in favor of stricter laws, which is a one percent increase from the 2011 poll. Whether or not someone in a household owns a gun or not is the biggest factor of opposition or support to stricter gun laws. Among those who own a gun, 45 percent support stricter gun laws. 75 percent support stricter laws when the household does not have a gun. Of those polled, 42 percent said that someone in their household owns a gun.
The gun debate is very intense and both sides to the argument seem to have very strong cases in their corner. As citizens, we need to make sure that we are thoroughly informed about all sides of the debate and make sure that our politicians know how we feel so the right decisions can be made for America and Americans.