REVISION TWO PAPERS
ExpertWriterpro
revised_final_draft_2.docxRunning head: FINAL DRAFT 1
FINAL DRAFT2
DOES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TIGHTER GUN LAWS PLAY A ROLE IN REDUCING GUN RELATED DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Final draft
Jinyan Xie
ABSTRACT
Gun laws are laws and regulations that govern the sale, possession and utilization of ammunition and firearms within the nation. Different States have different laws concerning firearms and ammunition; these laws are not entirely similar to the federal laws on firearms and ammunition. With gun related deaths being an ever present issue in the United States, necessary measures need to be taken to curb the issue, if not to eliminate it. The driving force behind the high number of gun related deaths has been said and proven to be the massive number of guns circulating in civilian hands. To lower the number of such killings, it is imperative that stricter gun laws be implemented and reinforced by thestategovernmentsincollaborationwith the federal government of the United Statesascertaingunlawsalreadyexist, despite not having much impact.Other countries such as Australia and U.K havesuccessfully reduced gun related violence by implementing the gun laws. ItisneedlesstosaythattheUnitedStatesofAmericahasputinplacesomemeasures to control gun, however, tighter laws are necessary as the existing laws have not brought sanity to the issue of gun related deaths.
Among the reasons why I support guns laws are: gun related deaths will be reduced, economic cost will be significantly cut, since the money that goes into treatment and also combating these crimes will be saved, and it is because American citizens will be able to live without fear of insecurity. However, the suggestion of implementation of tighter gun laws has not gone without opposition. Certain arguments were that possessing guns as civilians enables those civilians help the police to reinforce law and order. Similarly, they also argued that the federal government will be going against the constitution by implementing gun laws that denies the citizens to own guns. Despitesomeoftheseargumentsbeingvalid, itshouldbenotedthatthereis more atstake if tight laws are not put in place to govern the handling and use of guns in the nation. Following Massachusetts lead, the federal government should also put forward certain measures to compliment the gun laws.Innocent livesare at stake without gun laws, and if this is what it takes to save them, then nostoneshouldbeleftunturned with relation to theregulation of guns.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In the U.S, it rarely becomes news when a person dies as a result of gun shooting. In 2000, nearly 30,000 people died as a result of gun violence.On December 14th, 2012, 20 year old Adam Lanza brutally shot 20 children plus 6 staff members at the Sandy Hook elementary School, before killing himself. The incidentwas recorded to be the second most deadly ever caused by one individual in the history of the United States of America. Such incidents shouldgive us more reasons to strengthen the already existing gun control laws in the United States.
Gun related killings have a long history in the United States. This could be because the conditions were, and are still conducive for these barbaric killings to occur. Many people owning guns coupled with weak gun regulations could be one of the reasons. On the sociological perspective, it could be because the morals of the United States citizens have deteriorated so much as to the point where they no longer value human life.
There are currently over 200 million guns in use which makes it pretty easy to obtain a firearm in the U.S. If guns could be regulated more by banning certain weapons and requiring a more in-depth background check then gun violence would decrease. According to Don. B, Kates Jr. A professor in Criminal Law, European nations that banned guns have extremely low homicide rates. In Great Britain and Japan for instance, guns are strictly monitored thus the low rates of gun violence.
WHY GUN LAWS?
As a result of easy access to firearms, criminals and rogues find it easy to commit murder. The consequence of this is that huge numbers of innocent lives are lost. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) of the United Nations estimates that more than 10,000 gun deaths result in the country annually.In the current decade alone; such inhumane and barbaric incidences of violence have occurred in numerous places. For instance in July 20th, 2012 when James Holmes, killed 12 and injured 58 others in the century 16 movie theatre, Aurora, Colorado. The shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 as well as the Chardon high school incident of February 2012 are also other examples.
Such immense homicide rates are alarming thus the need for the federal U.S government to enhance gun laws in efforts to reduce these deaths. These laws will regulate the use of firearms thereby inhibiting reckless use of this weapon.
In other countries, gun laws have been very successful. In Australia for instance, a ban has been placed on automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. The nation also implemented a mandatory buyback option for every newly banned weapons. This was followed by a 59 percent reduction in firearm homicide rates and a 65 percent reduction in suicide rates. These reductions prove the effectiveness of the gun laws. In U.K, similar results were achieved when gun laws were implemented. They made a couple of changes in their gun regulations in the past few decades. Most specifically making a ban on the semi-automatic rifles (1988) then followed by a full ban on all handguns in the year 1998. The bans were triggered by the mass shootings at Dunblane and Hungerford. This was then followed by a series of various legislative changes and improvement by the police in matters of firearm control. This resulted in significant reductions in the rate of crime (by gun) in both England and Wales. Crimes by gun are now almost half what it used to be decade ago.
The ExistingGun laws in the U.S.
Following examples set by the countries mentioned above, various states in the U.S put laws to ensure that violent individuals, especially if they are unauthorized, do not possess guns. Hawaii and the District of Colombia require registration of some or all the fire arms. New York on the other hand demands that all handguns be registered under its licensing law. However, these laws allow unremitting possession of grandfathered weapons, provided they were owned and registered prior to the ban (Ciyou, 2013). Similarly, some states require that any sales of ammunitions be reported to relevant authority such as a local agency, whereas others require that new residents catalogue any firearm in their possession with the area’s authority. In California and Maryland for instance, new residents are required to register their ammunitions within 60 and 90 days of moving in respectively. Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Pennsylvania and Vermont however have more strict laws; they completely outlaw the keeping of any registry of privately owned firearms
It is clear that some citizens of the United States of America have failed to exercise control over the use of guns, and that is why there are above normal numbers of gun related deaths and injuries. This sole reason is enough to make a claim for the strict implementation of gun laws, to control and regulate the behavior of gun holders. Similarly, to reduce the number of these barbaric shootings, the government would ban civilians from owning guns, but the viability of this option is in question; especially with the great number of firearms already in circulation; thus the need for control.
Why I support the gun laws
Gun laws will help curb the many deaths by the bullet. Figures from 2008 alone indicate a massive 12,000 deaths from gun shots in America compared to 11 in Japan. It is also a widely accepted factor that most gun accidentsare as a result of the careless handling of firearms.
There are massive economic costs connected with gun violence in the U.S. Gun-related deaths and injuries resulted in medical and lost productivity expenses of about $32 billion in 2005. Nonetheless the general cost of gun violence goes well beyond these figures. When lost quality of life, psychological and emotional trauma, decline in property values, and other legal and societal consequences are included, the cost of gun violence in the U.S. was projected to be about $100 billion yearly in 1998 (Bradley, 1997). A new study has examined the direct and indirect costs of violent crime in eight geographically-diverse U.S. cities, the assessed average annual cost of violent crime was more than $1,300 for every adult and child. Since much of these costs are due to lowering residential property values, violent crime significantly reduces tax revenues that local governments need to address a broad array of citizens’ needs. The direct annual cost of violent crime to all levels of government was estimated to be $325 per resident. These massive economic losses could be stopped if only gun laws were introduced thus lowering the deaths and incidents related to gun shots (Safranski, 1997).
A gun may act as a symbol of power, especially if everyone do not own one. It is therefore easy for those who own guns to intimidate innocent civilian just because of the fact that they own a gun. For this reason, it is necessary for control measures to be put in place to prevent such and create a society where no one lives in fear of being intimidated by other ‘powerful’ individuals. Also, in cases of disagreements, individuals may just pull out guns and possibly shoot at each other. This state of anarchy can be avoided when tighter gun laws are implemented (Zimring, 1968).
OPPOSITIONS TO THE GUN LAWS AND THEIR RESPONSES.
The idea of tighter gun laws has not gone without its share of opposition as another category of individuals think otherwise.
Some argued that; when civilians are allowed to keep guns, they are helping the government to maintain security. They added that armed civilians help eliminate bad guys and can also protect state against invasion. However, I do not agree with them. Armed civiliansdo not act under any jurisdiction, and can perpetrate reckless killings since they are under no obligations. This takes us back to the initial problem that we intend to eliminate. When these civilians are allowed to own guns, those with bad intentions will also grab this opportunity and promote crime using the guns. So I still recommend that the government regulate gun ownership by civilians through reinforcing gun laws.
Another opposition is that inspiteof the implementation of the gun laws, criminals will still find ways to access guns. Well, this might be true, but with tighter gun laws, they will have a harder time accessing guns. Furthermore, it will be easier to trace them when they commit crime with the guns, since the guns will have been registered under provision of the guns laws.
Another opposition is that murder will still exist even though gun laws are implemented. As shown by a case study from the UK, the banning of guns from civilian hands has not stopped gun related murders from taking place. This is true, but gun laws are not to totally eliminate murders, this is not tenable. However, with gun laws, murder cases will be reduced especially those involving guns (Kleck, 1993).
The federal and state governments will be overstepping their boundaries if they were to limit or ban the handling of guns. This is another opposition. This argument was defended by quoting the second amendment rights which protects the right of individuals to bear or own firearms. In as much as this opposition has ground, gun laws are not meant to deny Americans the ownership of guns, they are meant to regulate the use of these guns, to avoid reckless murders and accidents.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Massachusetts has led the way in taking gun control measures by setting up a committee of expert charged with the task of lowering the rate of gun violence in the states. This has been done alongside other measures that helped Massachusetts to maintain safety where gun violence is involved. The federal government of the United States should follow this lead and do the same. Some of the measures that Massachusetts have put in place in include:
Measures to make schools safer
Massachusetts have put in place effective plans to strengthen the communication between emergency stations and schools. The communication lines between the schools, fire departments and the local police are effective and open at all times. This prevents gun violence before it gets out of hand, since emergency reporting will be easier and faster. Another option is to put in place school radios connected for a two way communication with the police.
Urban Violence
Even though much of the attention have been given to school shootings, the nation should pay attention to the youth, who murder and are murdered by the bullet in urban areas. These shootings are mostly due to drug or other gang related activities. A comprehensive approach is necessary, as recommended in Massachusetts, to combat this urban violence, something more than just gun control laws. The country should set up a program or expand the already existing programs to provide rehabilitation services to the affected youths in our country. If such a program would be backed with the gun laws, then it is a sure way of ameliorating barbaric killings in the nation. The families of the youths in the streets should also be investigated in an effortto solve the problem the youth are facing. These problems might have their sources in these families.
Mental Health services
The nation should expand the available mental institutions’ and make psychiatric services more affordable. This will create an incentive for individuals to seek help rather than keeping issues with themselves until they blow up in form of violence. Massachusetts has made this step as a measure of reducing barbaric killings by the gun.
Prevent unsuitable persons from acquiring guns
National laws that ban unsuitable individuals from acquiring and owning guns should be put in place and the existing general laws be improved. The licensing systems should also be made simple and easier to understand. This will enable law enforcement officers to determinethe suitability of a person to be given a gun license more easily. This may be made easier by placing specific standards of suitability to be used during the licensing process, thus avoiding inconsistency and help the licensing authorities to make rational decisions. This move by Massachusetts is also advisable to the US federal government.
CONCLUSION
Even as the United States continue to bare the tag of the most violent country, with the number of gun related deaths on the rise, more (in addition to the already existing gun laws) can be done to curb this problem. Those on the opposition should hearken unto the voice of toleration and join the fight to end the barbaric slayings arising from the irresponsible manner in which guns are used.
Again, the subject should not only be about the reduction of guns in civilian hands, but should also be about the issue of sanctity of human life. Whether owning a gun or not, human life should be naturally esteemed and not call for laws to restrain the use of guns, in an attempt to help reduce barbaric shootings.
Although controlling guns has proven to be a tough challenge, it is never too late to give it a try. Let us not forget that it is not about guns, but about lives.
References Bradley Scott, M. B. (1997). The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws. The journal of American Economics and Sociology, 41-50. Ciyou, B. L. (2013). Gun laws by state: reciprocity and gun laws quick reference guide (2014 Ed.). Carmel, Indiana: Peritus Holdings, Inc... Duggan, M. (2001). More Guns, More Crime. Journal of Political Economy, 109(5), 1086-1114. Iii, J. J. (2003). The Final Bullet in the Body of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis. Criminology: Public Policy, 2(3), 397-410. Kleck, G., & Patterson, E. B. (1993). The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(3), 249-287. Kwon, I. G., Scott, B., Safranski, S. R., & Bae, M. (1997). The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 56(1), 41-50. Lott, J. R. (1998). More guns, less crime: understanding crime and gun-control laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mcphedran, S. (2013). More guns more or less crime? An Australian perspective on an international question. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 15(2), 127-133. Murray, D. R. (1975). Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence. Social Problems, 23(1), 81-93. Zimring, F. (1968). Is gun Control likely to reduce violent killings? The University of Chicago Law Review, 35(4), 721-737.
