Category: Gun Control

Gun control issue

The issue of gun control raises a very contested debate whenever any act of violence is committed and a gun is involved executing it. Several stakeholders, including politicians, policy implementers, gun lobbyists, and the civil society have been engaging in the discussion for over a century, but an ultimate response is yet to be reached.

Those suggesting that ownership of the gun is illegal and unethical observe that the local authorities and the federal agencies in charge of the gun control policy are not doing enough in terms of policy formulation because the rate at which people acquire guns and use them to destroy life is alarming.

Indeed, it is a threat to the national security. For the advocates, they present a dissenting view by noting that the law goes too far, which amounts to infringement of individual rights.

Opponents of gun control defend the argument that each American should be allowed to own a gun since introducing control measures prevent individuals from protecting their lives and property. For instance, hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen should be allowed to acquire guns since their aim is not to harm anyone, but instead to enjoy their lives (Lavery & Hughes, 2008).

The Second Amendment to the constitution allows free ownership of guns in the country. Since life is highly valued, any person should have the ability to protect it at any given time, irrespective of whether the state has an effective and sufficient security system or not.

Major debate

In this article, it is argued that gun control should be embraced in the country and stronger laws ought to be drafted to stop unnecessary loss of life. Proponents of gun ownership suggest that certain groups should not be allowed to acquire guns meaning that controlling the distribution and ownership of these dangerous weapons should be supported.

For instance, the society would be unmanageable if criminals and the mentally challenged were allowed to acquire guns. Similarly, children should not be given an opportunity to own any form of a lethal weapon, including guns because they might use them to commit mass murder.

Since the 1970s, a number of legal and social reviews suggest that the rates of gun-connected felonies have gone up in the country as compared to other industrialized states, such as Britain and Canada. New York City implemented the gun control policies and the result was positive since cases of crimes went down.

The development of technological weapons poses a serious threat to the very survival in society, something that has forced legislators to reconsider their previous decision on gun control. Before the Supreme Court ruling in 1939, the constitution allowed several militias to own guns, as it was important in the preservation of the national and state security.

If not managed in the right way, arms, weapon technology, gun possession, and regulatory laws have the potential of damaging the society.

The establishment of the national gun registry could perhaps generate personal issues while utilization of invalid or ambiguous gun control rules could lead to loss of life and property. The truth is that a lasting solution to the issues surrounding ownership of guns is yet to be reached, but controlling the supply and ownership is inevitable.

Views of opponents

In the newspaper article published by Morris on April 21, 2013, it is noted that gun ownership is directly related to homicide in the sense that the community would be safer if only the government is given the responsibility of protecting the populace.

In fact, no one would be willing to start a fight once he or she realizes that there is no gun to rely on in protecting oneself. If each person is allowed to acquire a gun or any form of a lethal weapon, chances are high that individuals would be reluctant to cooperate with the authorities.

Each person has to depend on the government for protection and this explains the reason why an individual would first dial the police hotline once he or she is attacked in the house. This facilitates obedience and loyalty to the government leading to peaceful coexistence.

However, the case is different for the individuals with guns because they might end up rising against each other since they are fully armed. Allowing ownership of guns in the country would be taking the society back to the times when the social contract never existed whereby life was nasty, brutal, and short-lived.

At that time, individuals were highly appetitive and self-centered because selfish interests overrode communal or common interests. Based on the views of Hobbes, there should be a leviathan, which is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the interests of each person.

The government acts as the leviathan or the common authority that should offer protection to all people in the country, including the ruling class. Human beings are naturally brutal and aggressive and allowing them to own guns would be fuelling mass murder and crime.

The study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health revealed that ownership of guns and the persistent rates of homicide were inseparable. The correlation between guns and homicides is compared to the relationship between Nicholas Cage and horrifying films.

Additionally, a strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide exists. Planning a suicide mission is like strategizing on how to make a wedding successful since an individual has to sit down, figure out all the options, set the date, and execute the plan.

Since shooting is the most effective option, an individual would likely apply it, but the situation would be different if gun ownership is controlled. Data from various governmental sources as regards to suicide prove that a state with a high number of gun ownership has a higher suicide rate while those with gun control laws have low cases.

For the last thirty years, the US has experienced at least sixty-two mass shootings in several states. Criminals or illegal gun owners did not perpetrate the mass murders, but instead those licensed to defend their wealth using the weapons were the culprits implying that possession of guns is a threat to human life.

Official governmental data proves that licensed gun owners carried out forty-nine mass murders and the weapons used are believed to be high-capacity magazines. The government has all the reasons to control gun usage and ownership in the country if life and property is to be protected.

In case it is necessary to own a gun, then only short-guns should be issued out or be recommended to the applicants since they do not have the capacity to exterminate the lives of many people. In other countries, such as Australia, the government has been quick to take action once wrong usage of the gun is reported to the state security agencies.

For instance, the conservative premier moved in to take stern action in 1996 when mass shooting led to the deaths of over thirty-six individuals. In the crackdown, over six hundred automatic weapons were repossessed and destroyed while several short-guns and pistols were recovered from individuals.

Views of proponents

Proponents of gun ownership in the country support their claims by noting that the Second Amendment to the constitution permits free ownership of weapons, including all forms of guns. However, this is not true because the constitution was amended specifically to give the state militias some powers to defend their territories following the formation of the union.

It was felt that the union was weak and it could not have the capacity to protect the aggressor from harming the locals. Advocates of gun ownership simply quote the phrase “bear arms,” yet they neglect the key word, which is the militia (Morris, 2013). The US was going through several problems and conflicts since some regions were simply concerned with disturbing peace and security.

The government lacked sufficient structures and measures to deal with the rising cases of crime and loss of life through ethnic, racial, and religious clashes. The enemy would invade any time and the government would take sides meaning that a possibility of a genocide occurring was imminent.

The militias served the interests of the public because they would be deployed as the state army, but the current system of gun ownership simply fulfils the interests of an individual.

Based on this, the law should be reinterpreted the way the Supreme Court did in previous years to prevent individuals from owning guns in the country. Since the constitution appreciated the sovereignty of each state, the militias were justified to own guns.

References

Lavery, J., & Hughes, W. (2008). Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills. New York: Broadview Press.

Morris, M. (2013). 10 arguments for Gun Control. LISTVERSE. Web.

Introduction

Some Americans are inclined to accentuate their freedom provided in the democratic society with references to different aspects of the social life and legal policies. The possibility to have handguns to use them for protecting the property or life is also discussed in the context of stating the human rights and freedoms. However, the problem is in the fact that the real consequences of having handguns are in providing the threats for the other people but not in protecting themselves.

Gun assaults are typical for the American society, and they emphasize the controversial character of the question associated with appropriateness of providing the public with the open access to handguns. Today, many sociologists and politicians insist on developing the restricting laws for guns’ ownership or on the absolute control of the process.

Guns should be controlled or restricted in the country with references to the legal policies and laws because guns’ ownership is directly connected with the high rate of homicides in the USA, the availability of handguns affects the increase of suicide rates, provokes the growth of the children’s violence and intimate partner violence, and affects the increase of the violent attacks, using guns.

Homicides and Strict Gun Control

It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that the rate of homicides in the USA is rather high. The problem is in fact that the causes of the phenomenon are not only in increasing the atmosphere of violence in the society but also in the availability of the methods to realize the violent intentions. From this point, gun ownership can be discussed as one of the most provocative aspects associated with the criminal situation in the country.

According to Stell, “gun assaults are 5-7 times more likely to result in death than non-guns assaults … 70% of American homicides are committed with guns”, and moreover, “other countries with assault rates similar to America’s but with lower gun prevalence and with a commensurately lower percentage of homicide committed with guns enjoy homicide rates 50%+ lower than America” (Stell 38). It is possible to speak about the direct correlation between the availability of handguns and their usage as the means to kill the other person.

The fact that 70% of homicides in the country are committed with guns can have the inverse dependence, and it is possible to affect the rate of homicides with controlling the access to handguns and their usage. Thus, Stell states that “reducing the percentage of homicides committed with guns is the key to reducing America’s homicide rate” (Stell 39).

That is why, the only way to reduce the rate of homicides is the provision of the restricted laws and policies to control the usage of handguns by the population. From this point, “carefully-crafted, well-enforced firearms control policies can contribute to marginal reductions in criminal violence” (Stell 38).

Thus, the rate of homicides depends on the fact of the spread gun ownership among the US population, and to affect the negative tendencies in increasing the rate of homicides, it is necessary to focus on the restricted laws with the help of which it is possible to control who uses the gun and for what purposes. The following figure demonstrates the correlation between the number of victims and the weapon used to murder. Thus, handguns are used more often than any other type of weapon in the USA.

Figure 1: Homicide by Weapon Type, 1976-2000 (Stell 43).

Dependence of the Suicide Rate on the Gun Ownership

The rate of suicides in the USA is also based on the fact of availability of handguns, and the problem can be solved with references to the gun control policies and laws. Stell claims that “more than 30,000 Americans commit suicide each year, putting suicide in the top ten causes of death. Guns’ “market share” in suicide is 50% – not as large as their market share in homicide…but the body count is nearly twice as high” (Stell 39).

It is rather difficult to determine from this perspective it is necessary to refer to the problem of committing suicide, and there is the question whether it is possible to control the rate of suicides with the help of restrictions in relation to gun ownership.

However, the correlation between gun ownership and committing suicides with the help of handguns exists, and people should pay attention to this fact. Thus, it is possible to expect that, restricting the gun ownership, the governors will contribute to the decrease of the suicide rate in the USA.

Suicides can be discussed as the reflections of the social situation in the country, but the suicides committed with using the handguns are also the reflections of the inappropriate laws operating in the country which allow people the minimally controlled access to the firearms.

Children’s Violent Actions and the Usage of Handguns

The next negative consequence associated with the lack of control in the sphere of regulating the access to handguns is the interdependence between having guns and expressing violence. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that, realizing the availability of handguns and being affected by the violence in the media, children are inclined to perceive the violent actions as the ordinary situation in the real life.

There are many ways to explain the actions of the children who shoot their classmates and teachers, and the lack of the strict gun control is discussed among the causes for the tragic events. Thus, in their research, Lawrence and Birkland discuss the causes and consequences of the tragic situation at Columbine High School in 1999. The researchers state, “in April 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado shot and killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves” (Lawrence and Birkland 1193).

There were a lot of decisions made, and much attention was paid to the influence of the pop culture on children, to the availability of handguns, and to the necessity to develop school programs and security measures (Lawrence and Birkland 1196). The event shocked the public and made the society and politicians concentrate on the problem of gun control and the necessity of the restricted laws which should be stricter than the current regulations.

Strict gun control is the policy which is actively discussed by the politicians who take the opposite positions and cannot choose between the necessity to provide the public with the access to handguns as the way to protect themselves and the necessity to provide the strict laws and policies to control the usage of handguns in the society. To resolve the salutation and accentuate the necessity of control and restrictions, the tragic event at Columbine High School in Littleton was used as a trigger to intensify the discussions.

According to Lawrence and Birkland, when the tragic event opens a window of “opportunity for policy making, policy entrepreneurs can easily link a preexisting policy idea with a ‘‘new’’ problem”, and the situation at school in Littleton just provided such a possibility for the supporters of the restrictions to develop discussions and hope for adopting the necessary changes in laws (Lawrence and Birkland 1201).

Shootings at schools are the controversial events which make the public rethink the approaches to handgun policies. Nevertheless, the active reactions of the public subside, but the problem remains to be unsolved. Nevertheless, it is necessary to provide the strict gun control and restrict the usage of handguns to guarantee the secure environment for children.

Homicides and Violence at Home

The public’s violence is the problem of the American society, and it is also correlated with such an issue as the domestic violence. Children suffer from the violent actions of their classmates at school, and many persons suffer from the violent actions of their partners at home. The question becomes more controversial when its discussion is supported by the evidences and statistics related to the rate of the homicides performed with the help of handguns.

Thus, Vittes and Sorenson state that intimate partner violence results in 1500 deaths in the country and intimate partner assaults “involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force”, and moreover, firearms “are the most common weapon in intimate partner homicides” (Vittes and Sorenson 828).

The problem can be discussed from the perspective that, understanding the availability of handguns, people are inclined to forget about the limited situations when it is possible to use the handgun legally.

All the problematic situations, conflicts, and discussions cannot result in using handguns as the main argument in the negotiation process. Vittes and Sorenson accentuate the positive impact of restrictions on the considerations of people about the possibility to have and use handguns.

Thus, those persons who are under some restraining order are not inclined to buy handguns because they are prohibited to have such an opportunity, “they may have been aware that they were legally prohibited from doing so; the prohibition is clearly stated on the restraining order itself” (Vittes and Sorenson 830).

This example can be discussed as the evidence to support the statement that definite restrictions and laws can become effective methods to change the situation in the society and prevent the active usage of handguns. Today, a lot of people are at risk to experience the threat of being killed with a handgun because of the lack of restricted laws. The US population should be disarmed, and only specific groups of people (e.g. police officers, military officers, and private security guards) should be allowed to carry licensed guns.

The Opposite Opinion

However, there is also an opinion that restricted laws and policies cannot be discussed as the effective means to control the rate of homicides and suicides in the country, and it is important to pay attention to the other social causes of the problem instead of developing the strict gun control policies.

Thus, Kates and Mauser state that “if the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death” (Kates and Mauser 661).

The researchers focus on the example of the Continental European nations and claim that the homicide rates in these countries are not dependent on the fact of the gun ownership that is why it is impossible to accentuate the parallels between the gun ownership policies and rates of homicides and suicides (Kates and Mauser 661).

Thus, the authors pay attention to the fact that the controlled gun ownership as the ultimate solution to diminish the guns’ misuse remains a debatable issue. Moreover, the absence of the access to handguns cannot be discussed as the effective measure to prevent criminals from committing violent crimes.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to look at the problem from the other perspective. The lack of the government’s actions to restrict the gun ownership and provide the definite control can contribute to the increase of the homicides’ rates in the future. The absence of the actions toward the problem’s resolving affects the situation in the society negatively.

It is important to guarantee that the persons at risk are in the list of those ones banned from holding the licensed guns. The problem is in the fact that carrying a gun does not necessarily mean that a person will use it for self protection only as it is initially intended by the licensors or the gun owner.

Moreover, losing control due to the circumstantial confrontations, persons may use their handguns to kill the others because of the impossibility to resist the emotions. Violent attacks are causes for many homicides with the help of handguns among children and the family members.

The situation can be resolved only with references to implementing the definite laws that is why the gun control can be realized successfully only at the government level. The United States government can impose controls on gun manufacturers and licensing organizations, indicating the procedures to be followed when providing guns to the public. Controlling guns policies mean that only definite people are able to have the access and own a handgun.

Conclusion

Definite restricted policies and strict gun control are necessary for the US society to regulate the problematic situation and make all possible to prevent the rate of homicides and suicides committed using handguns. Controlling gun ownership policies also mean that only police officers, members of the armed forces, private security guards, and the limited number of the other people can receive the ability to possess handguns legally.

It is important to use the complex procedure in order to determine the persons’ suitability to possess weapons because of the risks of such a decision. Thus, the absence of the necessary control is the first step to increasing the rate of homicides because of the violent attacks. Furthermore, it is important to focus on the correlation between the gun ownership and rates of suicides.

Moreover, the tragic events involving children at school are also the results of the extended availability of handguns. Thus, the gun ownership is among those reasons which are discussed in relation to the US homicide and suicide rates. In order to reduce the probable causes of such deaths, it is necessary to develop and implement the policies and laws which control or restrict the gun ownership in the USA.

Works Cited

Kates, Don, and Gary Mauser. “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Domestic Evidence”. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 30.2 (2007): 649-694. Print.

Lawrence, Regina, and Thomas Birkland. “Guns, Hollywood, and School Safety: Defining the School-Shooting Problem Across Public Arenas”. Social Science Quarterly 85.5 (2004): 1193-1207. Print.

Stell, Lance. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32.1 (2004): 38-46. Print.

Vittes, Katherine, and Susan Sorenson. “Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Abusers: Handgun Purchases and Restraining Orders”. American Journal of Public Health 98.5 (2008): 828-831. Print.

American society has been arguing for years about the need to control weapons or ban them, and cases of mass shootings only provoke greater debate. Part of the population is sharply opposed to carrying weapons, while another is confident that this step will not solve the problem. However, although the abolition of the Second Amendment will not be able to solve the problem of shooting entirely, tighter control over the possession of weapons is necessary to ensure greater security for citizens.

Mass shootings, a high level of murders, and suicides with the use of weapons are a concern of citizens since, in combination with the fact that the US has over 300 million guns in circulation, this demonstrates free access to firearms (Fairchild, 2017). However, it is not the accessibility of weapons that forces people to use them, but internal causes, such as malice, mental illness, extreme level of stress, and others. At the same time, some US citizens feel more secure if their guns are stored at home as it gives them a sense of security.

Notably, a complete ban on the carrying and storage of weapons is a decision that will very limitedly affect the level of shooting in the country in general. Criminals do not care about the law anyway, so they can get weapons on the black market; a person who decides to commit suicide or a terrorist attack can also find other ways to fulfill his or her plan. At the same time, a ban on the sale of weapons by legal stores and purchases by citizens will only give impetus to the growth of the black market.

This restriction will also affect the national budget since legal traders will stop paying taxes. In addition, cases of injuries and deaths due to poor-quality weapons can become more frequent since unlicensed goods do not have quality guarantees and most often come from dubious places.

Nevertheless, according to Wozniak (2017), the majority of the population advocates the prohibition of semi-automatic weapons, which inflict more severe injuries, and the introduction of stricter control over all other types. Restrictions related to the purchase and possession of firearms are necessary since it prevents people with mental illnesses, drug or alcohol addiction, and a history of domestic violence from owning it. The described population groups have a higher risk of using weapons to harm themselves or others due to instant impulse or loss of control over themselves, so possession of firearms by such people should be strictly limited.

For this purpose, the government can adopt a law on licensing and testing each person who wants to buy a gun. This test has to include an analysis of the mental state and a study of the past of a person to find cases of domestic violence, cruelty, or crimes. This manifestation of bureaucracy can not only decrease the sale of weapons to unreliable individuals but also reduce the desire of all citizens to make such a purchase since the whole process will take a long time.

Moreover, the state may adopt a law requiring weapons companies to make their goods safer to reduce the number of accidental gunshot injuries. An incident of this kind occurred in Clay in 1989, when one teenager accidentally killed another boy, since he thought that the gun was unloaded because there was no clip in it, but the bullet was in the weapon itself (Spitzer, 2015). If the bullet had not remained inside after removing the clip, the incident would not have happened. Such a case is one of the many: numerous people had accidentally inflicted injuries on themselves or others due to improper handling of the weapon or the absence of parts protecting it from an accidental shot. For this reason, additional safety checks and verifications of firearms are also a necessary limitation to ensure the protection of citizens.

Furthermore, a measure that is not directly related to weapons but reduces the risk of their harmful use is providing mental health care programs for citizens. According to Fairchild (2017), Serious Mental Illness is the primary cause of gun violence. People with psychiatric disorders may not understand their actions and cause harm to other people. A person in a state of severe stress and public pressure can also intentionally aim to harm his or her offenders, as this happened in many cases with school shootings. However, the most common manifestation of an undiagnosed and untreated mental disorder or depression is suicide with the use of a weapon. For this reason, the government needs to take measures to improve the mental health of citizens, as well as develop psychiatric tools to prevent gun violence.

In conclusion, gun control in the United States implies improving the quality and safety of firearms and a restriction of their sales to people who have not passed the test for their possession. A complete ban on weapons can lead to minor positive changes, but the harm from such a decision will be much higher. The state should direct its efforts to eliminate the causes of gun violence but not weapons since if there is a problem, people will always find another way to harm themselves and others.

References

Fairchild, H. (2017). Gun Violence in America. In (Re)Solving Violence In America (2nd ed., pp. 19–26). Delhi, India: Indo American Books.

Spitzer, R. J. (2015). Politics of Gun Control (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Wozniak, K. H. (2017). Public Opinion About Gun Control Post–Sandy Hook. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(3), 255–278.

The gun control debate in the United Stated is decades, if not centuries, old. This is why this issue was deemed important enough to be included in the Second Amendment of the United States’ constitution. Currently, the debate has been heightened by a series of events that have occurred in the country in recent times.

The movie theatre shootings in Aurora and the more recent school shootings are examples of events that have contributed to the increased gun-control debate. This debate is the subject of a recent opinion piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal. The article appears in the February issue and it is jointly authored by Rivkin and Grossman. In the article, the authors contribute to the debate on gun control from a constitutional standpoint.

According to the authors, the current president seems uncomfortable around guns. This issue was recently spoofed in a fabricated photo that portrayed President Obama being shot by Skeet in the State House. Other than a president who is against guns, the authors note that this debate has only two major groups on opposing sides.

There are those who feel that guns are necessary as tools of self-defense against criminals or political uprisings. The opposing group considers this view as “archaic and subversive”. However, this article dismisses these two groups and focuses on what the country’s constitution states about this issue.

According to Rivkin and Grossman, the constitution clearly gives American citizens the right “to keep and bear arms”. A right that was cemented in a 2008 ruling by the Supreme Court in the matter of Heller v. District of Columbia (Rivkin and Grossman 3).

The main argument in this article is that the government cannot deny citizens their constitutional right and continue to justify itself using weak and selfish arguments. This paper agrees with Rivkin and Grossman’s argument that there is no justifiable argument that warrants gun control.

The reason why the gun control debate has increased is because its proponents seem to have State House backing. Recent utterances by the president indicate that he is in support of gun control. It is not clear whether the president views gun control as a viable solution or like many other gun-control proponents he is just uncomfortable around guns. Recent tragedies involving guns are also acting as another source of fuel for this debate.

Last year in July, a gunman entered a fully packed movie theater in Aurora, Colorado with a gun and shot indiscriminately at the crowd. In the process, 12 Americans lost their lives and 58 more suffered gunshot related injuries. Before that, there was the Tucson mass shooting in which six people were killed and fourteen more wounded.

This year, a teenager entered a classroom with a gun and shot indiscriminately at teachers and school going children in one of the bloodiest mass shootings witnessed in the country. While all these events need to be addressed, gun control is not the answer. The authors maintain that these are just unfortunate events that do not warrant an alteration of the constitution.

In addition, acting now is tantamount to making a “symbolic” change because there is need to for “something to be done” (Rivkin and Grossman 2). Indeed something has to be done, but changing legislations seems like overkill. What is worrying is that no alternative solutions are offered. The government should present at least two or three viable solutions to the mass-shooting problem.

Previous rulings by the highest court in the land have been in favor of the opponents of gun control. In a 2008 case, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no other “interpretations” to the Second Amendment (Krouse 24). The judges upheld that the constitution states that “the right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed”. Shortly after this ruling, another case pitting McDonald v. Chicago was presented before the Supreme Court.

This case sought to seek clarification on whether the Second Amendment applies to individual states. The court ruled that no state has the jurisdiction to deny an individual the right to bear arms. These rulings among others indicate that the matter of constitutional interpretation in relation to gun control is clear. The constitution means what it says, American citizens have the right to bear and keep arms.

Politicians on the other hand have no say in the matter of the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights makes it impossible for politicians to carry out self-interests in the issue of gun control. The authors of the constitution foresaw the importance of the citizens’ right to own guns and therefore ensured it was secure from groups and politicians with self-interest on the matter. As the Supreme Court has upheld time and again, gun control is not an issue that favors the rights of the minority.

In addition, the Second Amendment is not ambiguous as many gun control proponents argue. The constitution is clear on the issues of gun control. Therefore, there is no room for gun control as far as the constitution is concerned. Those advocating for gun control should look for other avenues to further their agenda other than the constitution.

According to Rivkin and Grossman, any changes to the constitution should not be influenced by emotions and mass hysteria. The current debate on gun control seems to fall under the category of mass hysteria. This is because almost all those proposing for gun control seem to refer to the recent increase in mass shootings.

The reason for doing this is to try to appeal to the current mass hysteria. Currently, there are government advisories directing citizens to be on the lookout for mass shooters. In addition, some schools have enforced stringent weapon screening measures to control weapon entry in schools. All these are signs of a society that is in panic mode.

Therefore, the president and other stakeholders should not be quick to amend the constitution on account of this “panic”. The authors claim that there should be a “legitimate interest” before any legislation is changed or made (Rivkin and Grossman 3). There is no need to interfere with a constitutionally granted right in an effort to make a symbolic gesture that is meant to calm the citizens down.

The constitution provides that any changes to the legislation be accompanied by a legitimate interest and the resulting alteration should be as little as possible. An example of this stipulation is a recent decision by the Supreme Court to delegitimize a federal ban that prohibited depictions of animal cruelty.

In the ruling, the court found that the ban interfered with free speech. This ruling indicates that the rights of the individual are always a priority over the rights of the government. The same argument can be applied to the debate against gun control.

The article argues that all the proposed modes of gun control are unsatisfactory. For instance, several states are proposing gun insurance. This insurance is supposed to cover for any damages that an individual’s gun may execute just like in vehicle insurance. This move is not likely to benefit the public in any major way.

This is because this insurance is only supposed to cover accidents and not intentional crimes. The move is just an effort to make it difficult for citizens to own guns. Moreover, some states are proposing a high tax on bullets. These excessive taxes are supposed to limit the use of guns. All these measures are just a clever way of circumventing the Second Amendment.

However, the courts are likely to fault these proposals on the grounds that they interference with the Second Amendment. The regulatory stance of these proposals is similar to regulating free press by making newspapers very expensive. When the government increases the price of bullets, it is the same as increasing the price of ink just to limit newspaper circulation.

The president also has made a proposal to ban guns that can be categorized as “assault weapons”. The weapons that fall under this category bear different features such as enhanced grips or threaded barrels. While these guns seem super-dangerous, their mechanisms are almost similar to those of other weapons.

For instance, the guns may look different but they still have the same magazine sizes and firing mechanisms that ordinary guns have. In cases of gun misuse, both “assault” and ordinary guns are equally dangerous. Therefore, banning particular types of weapons does not guarantee public safety in any way. In some instances, gun controllers might ban some types of guns based on their personal preferences.

The authors note that some aspects of gun control are permissible. According to the article, checks and balances to ensure that gun ownership is not abused are necessary. For example, there should be strict background checks before citizens are allowed to own guns.

However, the government still has no right to curtail the freedom of law-abiding citizens to own guns. In addition, the government should restrain from enforcing measures that infringe on this right indirectly. Some of these measures include imposing registration fees, taxes, and insensible waiting periods for gun ownership.

The authors of this article add their opinions to a debate that has dominated the airwaves for the most part of this year. The arguments forwarded by the authors are quite solid. The authors point out the contribution of the current president in the debate against gun control. The article argues that the president’s contribution is ill advised and propelled by mass hysteria. The authors lean on the constitution when they are giving their opinion.

Rivkin and Grossman are both law practitioners in Washington and they see the necessity to consult the constitution in the ongoing debate against gun control. Their argument dwells on the probability of undermining the Second Amendment or the Bill of Rights by enacting gun control measures.

According to the article’s argument, all the proposed gun control measures interfere with the Second Amendment in one way or another. The authors are of the view that the existing gun control measures are enough to combat any crisis. The need to exempt passion and emotions from the gun control debate is also emphasized by this argument.

Works Cited

Krouse, William. “Gun Control Legislation”. Congressional Research Service 7.57(2012). 1-118. Print.

Rivkin, David and Andrew Grossman. “Gun Control and the Constitution”. The Wall Street Journal 2.4(2013): 2-5. Print.

Kristof is a liberalist and politician interested in convincing gun lovers and other politicians on restrictions that may effectively reduce gun violence. Gebelhoff is an assistant editor for Washington Post’s opinions who writes an article on six solutions that could effectively curb gun violence. Gun violence has been a challenge that needs to be addressed and has resulted in the deaths of people through murder, suicide, and accidents. Kristof (2022) states that there are approximately 45,000 deaths annually due to gun violence (para.17). According to Robert, more guns have resulted in more deaths. Some who oppose gun reforms have stated that nothing can be done to stem this challenge of gun violence. Consequently, Gebelhoff (2022) states gun enthusiasts quoted that “now is the time for mourning, not politics, for national grief rather than polarizing debates about firearms” (para.1). Both of the Authors agree that banning guns is not the best solution. However, implementing gun policies and restrictions can be more effective in dealing with the challenge. Weapons of war such as semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines should be banned as they cause more deaths and damage, unlike automatic rifles and shotguns. Both Authors suggest that firearms should be restricted to people below 21 years, and safe storage laws should be implemented where parents should safely store guns in places the children do not reach (para.12). The researchers believe that limiting the number of guns one can buy at once can reduce the gun flow in the nation. Background checks should be made more severe for dealers and every gun owner. Individuals’ mental health should be considered to be qualified to be the possession of a gun. Red flag laws are also significant where individuals at risk of harming others or themselves can be given court restraining orders. In addition, policies such as gun license and safety training are effective in preventing gun violence and keeping records of gun owners. Both authors have indicated the dangers that possession of guns poses to the nation. Both of them agree that gun policies and restrictions can be effective in the prevention of gun violence.

References

Gebelhoff, R. (2022). 6 Solutions to gun violence that could work.The Washington Post. Web.

Kristof, N. (2022). These gun reforms could save 15,000 Lives. We can achieve them. The New York Times. Web.

The attitude of the majority of U.S. citizens towards firearm possession is one of the reasons why legislation related to gun control is usually highly contested. The rifle culture is deep-rooted in the history of the United States (Alvarez & Bachman, 2019). The American Revolution and the American civil war were won by guns; therefore, it is not surprising that U.S. citizens perceive being secure as a synonym for firearm possession (Ray, 2018). The relatively high figure of gun owners increases the number of gun-related crimes. Trying to mitigate this type of crime involves undermining the supply of guns to civilians, which would be met with fierce opposition as it goes against the provisions of the Second Amendment.

The United States’ history regarding gun culture makes it different from its industrialized counterparts. Even though other countries such as England provide similar privileges to those offered by the Second Amendment, the U.S. records the highest number of civilian-owned guns (Alvarez & Bachman, 2019). This shows that there are more factors other than legal liberty that influences the high demand for firearms in the United States. The culture of conflict resolution by violence is a common theme in the history of the U.S. This culture could be one of the reasons why the U.S. records one of the highest numbers of private gun owners and consequently a high number of gun-related crimes and violence. Culture plays a huge role in the propagation or curtailing of violent tendencies.

The subculture of violence offers insight and influences one’s view on U.S. gun topics. According to the subculture of violence, individuals assume that the other person will become violent in the event of any strife (Alvarez & Bachman, 2019). This mentality leads to increased tension and almost always aggravates the situation to violence. This provides a reason why Americans have such a strong desire for guns.

References

Alvarez, A., & Bachman, R. D. (2019). Violence: The enduring problem. Sage Publications.

Ray, L. (2018). Violence and society. Sage Publications.

Abstract

What would you feel if approached by a man with a gun having insane appearance and full of decisive spirit to apply his gun anywhere, in any direction, on any person or moving object just to cope with his bursts of anger? This moment one of the very first ideas to come into one’s mind is connected to gun control, and the necessity to change the policies controlling these matters. In fact, the policies existing in the United States regulating the rules of gun control can be evaluated as sort of frivolous and, thus, causing a row of problems for people’s safety. Nowadays the debate around gun control is gaining momentum in the United States. The most common ideas discussed within a framework of this debate are connected to the issues of permission to keep firearms at home, having them while visiting public places and a total ban on the use of firearms by any person rather that the representative of policing organizations. Judging on a row of critical issues which are rife with the problem of gun control, it seems that a better solution for this problem may come out of stricter rules for keeping firearms by civilians.

Introduction

With regards to a variety of problems which are rife in connection to gun control, it should be stated that too many issues are behind this matter. First of all, this is the issue of safety in society; and it is no wonder especially taking into consideration innumerable cases when guns were applied by insane shooters against civilians. According to Sugarmann (par. 45), “handguns are the number one weapon for both murder and suicide and are second only to auto accidents and leading cause of death due to injury”. In addition, “roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms” (Agresti apr.39). Further, according to Agresti (par. 43),

Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

This sad statistics shows how important it is to restate regulations concerning keeping firearms by civilians. During a few last decades people came to have more and more psychological and psychic problems. As a result, more and more cases of cruel shooting happens when someone wants to express one’s feeling of bitterness, anger and disappointment with the others. More than this, the cases when insane individuals shot at peaceful civilians on a random basis come to strike the minds of people more and more often. The reports in news about some mad man who started sudden shooting in some public place being motivated by nothing but a desire to entertain himself appear on TV on a regular basis. All in all, these disappointing statics is a sure reason for adopting new policies concerning gun control.

On the other hand, one more important issue is connected to personal safety of individuals; this concern may be connected to the desire of people to have means for personal protection which they see in firearms. With regards to this, guns are, of course, important as they guarantee an opportunity to stand up for oneself (Thomas 45). Facts show that firearms do play their critical role in offering people a way to protect themselves: “a 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year” (Agresti par.56). This point of the problem of gun control definitely makes it much more difficult for solving as people have not invented any better way for self-protection by now. It appears that this contractor issue connected to gun control is the most difficult in the whole course of the problem.

Proposal

Evaluating innumerable evidences along with endless chain of sad occurrences, it seems that there exists no better solution for the problem of gun control as adopting the most strict rules which are possibly practicable. Of course, there exists a big group of people who will have a different position as to having more strict rules on firearms possession. Such people will claim that criminals do not care whether there exists law on gun control or not; they would claim that their very nature is in breaking the law, and that will definitely be the truth (Halbrook 36). And still, if the regulations for gun control will be made more rigorous the problem of finding firearms for criminals will be more difficult, and this problem will also appear even more challenging for ordinary civilians having no connection with unlawful mechanisms of getting things including firearms.

What is more important, in such case children who are often reported as injuring or killing themselves as a result of free access to guns will be more protected as firearms will not be in their free admittance. In so many other countries of the world the problem of gun control is not that critical, and this is explained by more severe rules on firearms ownership. It also seems that American people should change something in their mentality as the idea to solve every problem by means of a gun can be probably evaluated as the main problem behind this whole situation. How many wise people including Jesus said that all those who take the sword would perish by it (Lester 52). With regards to this strongest idea existing in the world for thousands of years, it seems that American nation came to a point when its values including the love to firearms should be reestablished. All in all, the proposition to adopt the policies which will be as strict as possible in the area of firearms possession appears to be the most sober minded, judicial and sensible.

Conclusion

Concluding on all the information related above, it should be stated that the issues that are connected to gun control are extremely complicated, and require deep understanding along with a wise and sober minded approach. In particular, there exist a lot of doubts about the scale of restrictions on firearms ownership. The opponents of severe restrictions claim that gun is the best means for self-defense, and, thus, is not to be forbidden for free ownership. The proponents of strict gun control regulations argue that so many cases of shooting at peaceful civilians for no reason along with casualties happening to children is the reason for adoption policies which would lessen the opportunities to have a gun to a minimum.

Works Cited

Agresti, James. 2010.Gun Control Facts. 2010. Web.

Halbrook, Stephen. That Every Man be Armed, Albuquerque: University Of New Mexico Press, 1984. Print.

Lester, David. Gun Control Issues and Answers, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1984. Print.

Sugarmann, Josh. 2009. Keeping Track of Killings by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders–85 Dead So Far.2009. Web.

Thomas, Andrew Peyton. Crime and the Sacking of America: The Roots of Chaos, Washington: Brassey’s, 1994. Print.

Introduction

The topic of gun control tends to cause controversy in the country every time someone mentions stricter laws. There is an assumption that the purchase of guns for leisure activities such as hunting continues to be a mainstay part of society today. Unfortunately, guns have gained more notoriety recently as they have become key to committing crimes and causing others harm. Guns are a nuisance to those who own them and those who do not have firearms, and society would be better off with fewer of them in distribution (Moyer, 2017). Despite the fallacious belief that it infringes on the Second Amendment, greater gun control is a good idea because it means less crime plus fewer gun-related injuries, and makes firearms access strict, thus reducing the risk of violence. Furthermore, it supports the eradication of selling high-powered guns.

Discussion

Firstly, the idea of greater gun control emphasizes that guns should never end up in the hands of the wrong people. The argument that more guns in society mean lower crime rates is a common misconception that incompetently justifies owning a gun. Furthermore, research on the clinical forefront shows that states that adopt stricter gun laws manifest fewer gun injuries (Jehan et al., 2018). With stricter gun ownership laws, legally purchased guns would be the only ones in circulation, making it easy to trace perpetrators, thus reducing the crime rate.

Secondly, the data shows that fewer lives are lost in states with stricter gun laws. It leads to the deduction that more stringent gun laws make it harder for altercations to escalate into violence involving a gun. Popular culture today has normalized gun violence for society and the ease with which it can occur (Jamieson & Romer, 2021). Stricter gun control laws aim to reduce gun-related violence by creating a bottleneck in gun ownership and reducing incidences by connecting the issue with access to mental health services (Smith & Spiegler, 2017). The combination of the two approaches facilitates preventing firearms from ending up in the hands of the wrong people, such as temperamental youths.

Lastly, stricter gun laws promise a renewal of the ban on assault weapons and high-powered magazines, which are commonplace in mass shootings. With a spate of shootings in public areas making headlines recently, the 1994 ten-year ban impact has been revisited, and studies show a reduction in annual gun-related deaths (Morford, 2022). Despite those ten years featuring the most prominent mass shooting in history, the numbers were less than after 2004, when the ban expired. Following the law’s expiration, mass shootings ensued with more propensity and continue to fuel the need for stricter gun laws.

Counterargument

Those who stand against stricter gun laws suggest the new decrees infringe on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment stands for the rights of a “well-regulated militia” to wield arms as a necessity for the security of a free state (Neuman, 2022). The controversy surrounding the clause on bearing arms continues to feature in the argument against gun control laws while, in fact, the Supreme Court debunked this fallacious understanding (Giffords Law Center, 2020). The new interpretation supports the need for lifesaving gun safety laws and refutes that the Second Amendment is a defense for gun ownership in today’s America.

Conclusion

Greater gun control offers numerous benefits compared to the negative impact firearms have had on society. With more guns in circulation, the crime rate has been high, mass shootings have happened more regularly, and accidental gun-related injuries have increased. A stricter legislature on guns in society means that people with and without firearms can live with the guarantee of a safer community that reduces gun access to unwarranted personnel. Although gun education offers more than gun control, fewer guns have proven the most effective approach. In ten years of banning assault weapons sales, gun-related violence rates fell and increased again after 2004. Gun control is a good idea to fulfill the goals of less crime, violence, and fewer accidental injuries.

References

Giffords Law Center. (2020). The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment. Web.

Jamieson, P., & Romer, D. (2021). The association between the rise of gun violence in popular US primetime television dramas and homicides attributable to firearms, 2000–2018.PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0247780. Web.

Morford, S. (2022). Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us. The Conversation. Web.

Moyer, M. (2017). More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows. Scientific American. Web.

Neuman, S. (2022). The ‘Gun dude’ and a Supreme Court case that changed who can own firearms in the U.S. NPR. Web.

Pandit, V., Jain, A., Tai, S., Khan, M., O’Keeffe, T., & Tang, A. et al. (2018). The burden of firearm violence in the united states: stricter laws result in safer states. Journal Of Injury And Violence, 10(1), 11-16. Web.

Smith, J., & Spiegler, J. (2017). Explaining gun deaths: gun control, mental illness, and policymaking in the American states.Policy Studies Journal, 48(1), 235-256. Web.

Empirical Analysis

Introduction

This analysis involves investigation the factors that affect the existence of gun related crimes. The data is collected for 49 states in the United States to help in this investigation. The data collected include the total number of fire arms in the US, the number of people living in poverty, number of people consuming alcohol, population between 18-24 years, and unemployment rate. The number of fire arms is the dependent variable while all the others are the independent variables. We seek to investigate if the independent variables have any significant effect on the dependent variable. The variables relate by the following model:

Cr_t = f (AC_t, P1824_t, PR_t, UE_t, )

The model can be expanded to give the following equation

Cr_t = β₀ + β₁AC_t + β₂P1824_t + β₃PR_t + β₄UE_t + €_t

This can also be represented by the following equation:

Y = β₀ + β₁X₁ + β₂X₂ + β₃X₃ + β₄X₄ + β₅X₅ + €_t

Where Y/ Cr_t is crime rate in year t, X₁/ AC_t

is alcohol consumption in year t, X₂/ P1824_t

is population between the age of 18 and 24 in the year t, X₃/ PR_t

is Poverty rate in the year t, X₄/ UE_t

is Unemployment rate for the year t, β₅X₅ is Brandy score/gun control and €_t is the error term.

Regression Analysis

The analysis will be done using regressions analysis which will be done with the help of Eviews statistical software. The Eviews output were obtained as follows:

The estimated regression equation is represented as follows:

Y = -4.436524 + 2.38E-05 X₁ – 9.18E-07 X₂ + 0.000149 X₃ + 0.092357 X₄ + 0.158743 X₅

S. E. = 13.14918 4.70E-05 3.54E-05 3.90E-05 0.169786 0.554915

t- Statistic =-0.337399 0.507321 -0.025964 3.810283 0.543962 0.286068

T-Test

To test whether each of the independent variables is an important determinant, we use t-test. The t-test for the sample of 49 elements will be done at n – k = 49 – 5 = 44 degrees of freedom. We test at 95% confidence level. The value of α = 5% which is the significance level. For this test, the critical value of t at df = 44 and α = 5% is 2.0154. The decision criterion for t-test is that if t- Statistic is greater than t-critical, we reject the null hypothesis. The hypothesis being tested is as follows

The null hypothesis is H0: β = 0, meaning that the independent variable is not an important determinant of the dependent variable

The alternative hypothesis is H1: β ≠ 0, meaning that the independent variable is an important determinant of the dependent variable.

We test every independent variable at a time

For X₁, the t- Statistic < t-critical. In this case, we do not reject the null hypothesis. The conclusion is that X₁ representing alcohol consumption is not an important determinant of Y (Crime rate).

For X₂, t- Statistic < t-critical. We, therefore, do not reject the null hypothesis. This shows that X₂ (population between the age of 18 and 24) is not an important determinant of Y (Crime rate).

For X₃, t- Statistic > t-critical. The null hypothesis is thus rejected. We reject the alternative hypothesis and conclude that X₃ (Poverty rate) is an important determinant of Y (Crime rate).

For X4, t- Statistic < t-critical. For this case, we do not reject the null hypothesis based on the decision criterion for t-test. We therefore reject the alternative hypothesis. This means that X4 (unemployment rate) is not an important determinant of Y (crime rate).

For X5, t- Statistic < t-critical. This means that we do not reject the null hypothesis. We conclude that X5 is not an important determinant of Y.

Interpretation of R squared and adjusted r squared

The value of R², the coefficient of determination, is 93. 5355%. This means that the 93. 5355% of the variation in the dependent variable is explained jointly by the independent variables included in the regression. The R² is said to have some problems that may lead to exaggerated results. The value of R² increases with increase in the number of the independent variables even if they are not important. This means the results may be exaggerated and misleading. To solve this problem, adjusted R² is used. In our case, R² is 92.7838%. This means that 92.7838% of variation in Y is jointly explained by X₁, X₂, X₃, X₄, and X₅.

F-test

This is a test of overall significance of the independent variables. The test aims at determining whether the variables are jointly insignificant. The null hypothesis tested he is as follows: H0: β₀ = β₁ = β₂ = β₃ = β₄ = 0. The alternative hypothesis, therefore, will be

H1: β₀ ≠ β₁ ≠ β₂ ≠ β₃ ≠ β₄ ≠ 0.

It is computed using the following formula:

F = (between – group variability) / (within – group variability )

In our case, F- statistic = 124.4334 which is the one computed as per the formula above. To validate the test, we obtain F- critical from the F- table at K-1 and N-K degrees of freedom. K is the number of samples in the system while N is the sample size. K-1 = 6 – 1 = 5. N – K = 49 – 6 = 43. The value of F in this case at α = 0.05 is 2.4322. The decision criterion is that if obtained F is greater than the critical F value, we reject the null hypothesis. In our case, F- statistic = 158.8357 and F- critical = 2.4322. Therefore, F- statistic > F- critical and we reject the null hypothesis. The conclusion in this case is that all independent variables jointly have a significant impact on the dependent variable. That is, β₀ ≠ β₁ ≠ β₂ ≠ β₃ ≠ β₄ ≠ 0. The variables are not jointly insignificant.

Correlation matrix

Correlation is a statistical measure of relationships between two random variables. A correlation matrix is used to determine correlation coefficients where there are several variables in the model. For our case, the correlation matrix is stated as follows:

The correlation coefficients show that there are high degree relationships between variables. All independent variables are highly correlated with the independent variables. The correlation coefficients are over 0.9 meaning there is high correlation. This can be seen from the first column in correlation matrix above. The independent variables are also highly correlated with one another. For instance the correlation between X1 and X2 is 0.869810, X1 and X3 is 0.923163, X1 and X4 is 0.976301, X1 and X5 is 0.567789, X2 and X3 is 0.957522, X2 and X4 is 0.924903, X2 and X5 is 0.389256, X3 and X4 is 0.959688, X3 and X5 is 0.411871, and X4 and X5. Perfect correlation occurs when the correlation coefficient is equal to 1. This means that the independent variables are highly correlated because the correlation coefficients between them are close to 1, apart from those related to X5. This shows there is a problem of Multicollinearity that must be dealt with. This will be discussed in the next section.

Multicollinearity

This problem arises when there is a violation of the assumption of Ordinary Least Squares method of estimation. The assumption being violated is that there is no high correlation between independent variables that are used in the regression model. In our case above, we have seen that there is high correlation between the independent variables X₂, X₂, X₃, X_4, and X₅. This means that Multicollinearity exists. In reality, this problem always exists but what matters most is the degree or magnitude. It should be minimized as much as possible. This problem arises because of improper use of dummy variable, using a variable in the model that is computed from other variables, including the same or almost the same variable twice, or just cases where variables are really and truly highly correlated. Our data suggests presence of Multicollinearity. Firstly, there are four independent variables but only one of the t-ratios of the coefficient is statistically significant. The irony is that the overall F-statistic is significant. Secondly, the t-ratios are too small and the value of R² is high. There is also high correlation between the independent variables. To substantiate further the issue of Multicollinearity, we compute tolerance of the independent variables which helps us to calculate the Variance Inflation Factor, normally abbreviated as VIF. This concept is discussed in the section below.

VIF’s

The VIF shows the effect of Multicollinearity on the variance of the estimates in a model. It is computed by finding the reciprocal of the tolerance of the independent variables. Tolerance is compute as follows

Tolerance = 1- r² Where r² is the correlation between any two variables in the model. This is a good measure of Multicollinearity. A tolerance close to one means that multicollinearity is not a threat. If close to zero, multicollinearity is big. VIF = 1/Tolerance = 1/ (1- r²). There are computed in the table below:

From the correlation matrix below, we shall compute the tolerance and VIF.

From the above table, the values of tolerance are close to zero, meaning that there is high multicollinearity. We may also compute the VIF value for all the variables jointly as follows:

In this case, R² is the coefficient of determination. Our R² = 92.7838%. VIF = 1/ (1 – 0. 927838) = 13.858. The rule of thumb is that VIF > 5 means that multicollinearity exists and is of high degree. For the individual variables, it is clear that there is multicollinearity because all the values of VIF are greater than 5 apart from all correlations withX₅.

Solution to multicollinearity

Existence of multicollinearity leaves the OLS estimates still unbiased and BLUE (Best Linear Unbiased Estimators). However, when it is high, the values of standard errors tend to be too small. This results to very small values of t-statistic. The danger in this case is that due to small t-ratios, the null hypothesis might never be rejected. It means the coefficients of the independent variables will have to be large enough for the null hypothesis to be rejected. There are a number of ways of solving multicollinearity but for this case we choose to remove some of the variables that are related. The variables that need to be removed are the one that is theoretically not sensible. Theoretically, the number of people living in poverty is believed to be a major determinant of crime rates. This has the same effect as the issue of unemployment in a country. When the level of unemployment is high, the number of crimes also increases. The gun control (X4) plays a role in reducing gun crimes. The population between 18-24 years does not necessarily mean that there are gun crimes. The same case with those consuming alcohol, they may not necessarily affect crime rates. We then remove two variables X2 and X1. We then have to run regression again and test the significance of the remaining variables. We, thus, regress Y against X3, X4, and X5. The Eviews output is as follows:

Y = β₀ + β₃X₃ + β₄X₄ + β₅X₅

Y = -1.898519 + 0.000146X₃ + 0.159076X₄ + 0.225918 X₄

S.E. = 12.07316 3.01E-05 0.099653 0.530858

T-Statistic =-0.157251 4.838890 1.596308 0.425572

The t-critical at 46 degrees of freedom and α = 0.05 is 2.0129. Based on this statistic, the t-statistic for X₃ and X₄ is greater than the critical value. We then reject the null hypothesis. Then we conclude that X₃ and X₄ are important determinants of Y. The t-statistic for X5 is less than t-critical. In this case, we do not reject the null hypothesis. Then we conclude that X5 is not an important determinant of Y. The F-test is done at α = 0.05 and 4-1 = 3 and 49 = 4 = 45 degrees of freedom. F-critical = 2.8115. F-statistic = 215.4167. F-statistic is greater than F-critical and thus we reject the null hypothesis. We conclude that X₂, X₃ and X₄ are jointly important determinants of Y. The value of adjusted R² is 93.0373 %, meaning that 93.0373% of variation in Y is jointly determined by X₂, X₃, and X₄. We thus conclude that poverty and unemployment rates are significant determinants of crime rate. Brandy score is not a significant determinant of crime rate.

Introduction

A fierce and continuous debate on gun control has recently been prompted by the increasing rate of incidents of school gun massacre in the United States. In particular, the recent Newtown incident that left several children dead has prompted the need for gun control policy in the country. In her February 14 2013 article “With Guns, Killer and Victim Are Usually Same” on The New York Times, Sabrina Tavernise draws the reader to the bigger picture of firearm abuse.

In her argument, Tavernise (1) has constructed the article in form of a conventional Wall Street Journal for featured stories. In the article, the author argues that although most cases of shooting in the past have involved massive shootings, most gun victims are actually using these firearms to commit suicide. She indicates that there are many victims of suicidal shooting than the cases of massive shootings. This statement has been supported by statistics from official agencies.

With sufficient information, Tavernise’s article possesses a great deal of credibility and persuasiveness. By employing an effective use of rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) and tone, the author has effectively developed an argument that persuades the reader to understand the need for reducing cases of suicidal deaths by blocking the access to firearms through a gun control policy.

Rhetoric Analysis

Tavernise tries to deviate the public focus on gun debate from mass shootings to she use of guns in suicides. She unveils that the majority of gun-related deaths in America are suicides. Throughout this article, Tavernise manages to present a balanced argument, with opinions from both sides directly involved and interacted.

The author does not seem to suggest the most appropriate method of reducing the problem. However, she employs logos to persuade her readers by providing more than one suggestions, but leaves it out to them to apply logics in examining the best way to control suicidal deaths involving firearms in the United States.

One prominent characteristic of this article is its effective structure. Presented in the style of a feature story, it starts and ends with an anecdote. The tragic story of the Reichert family adds human interest and draws readers’ feelings and attention. In this anecdote, the author draws the readers to a real-life experience of Reichert family in Dayton, Wyoming.

Mr. Reichert and his wife lost their son, Kameron, through a suicidal shooting. Using ethos, the author has drawn the readers to understand the situation brought by the access of guns to the young people in the United States using the case of Kameron. Here, the author draws the reader to develop emotions by describing how Kameron, then only 17 years old, was found dead on the floor of his room. Despite the father having experience in emergency training, he could do little because the son was already dead.

In addition, the reader invokes a sense of sympathy among the readers by describing the grief that affected the family, especially the father who felt guilty for not keeping the 911 dispatcher away from his son’s reach. According to the author, Mr. Reitcher regrets “…I beat myself several times for not having kept the guns out of his reach” (Tavernise 1). Evidently, the authors instil emotions in her readers by applying the anecdote in the article.

The author seems to be effective in using logos in her article in order to make the readers embrace logical approach to the analysis of the gun problem and cases of suicide in the United States. For example, the author discusses the aspect of gun and their involvement in suicide.

She provides a discussion death related guns in 2010 alone, where she indicates that over two-thirds of those deaths were suicides. Therefore, suicidal attempt with guns should be given enough attention, besides mass shootings. The impact of the use of logos in this case is to allow the readers perceive the problem from facts. Therefore, the author is successful in applying logical approach to attract the attention of the readers and make them understand her argument.

Then the body part of this article cited data and research findings, and quoted from experts to present the argument that gun possession are related to homicidal deaths. Following this, the third part is more details about the life of Kameron Reichert to reveal the cause for his suicidal behavior.

The fourth part, involves a discussion on the general causes of suicidal attempt, which is a temporary surge of rage or despair. The author argues, therefore, that guns are lethal and people who are trying to kill themselves with guns available to them usually do not get a second chance.

This is evidenced by statistical indication that more than half of all suicide fatalities result from firearms. With the introduction of another anecdote of the death of Kyle Wells, the fourth part concludes that reducing access to the lethal weapons will make it possible to control the number of suicidal deaths. By telling the story of Kyle, the author intends to contend that suicidal person are suicidal not because of the guns, but because of themselves, as it quotes Kyle’s grandmother “It’s not the guns. It’s the person (Tavernier 1).”

Lastly, in its fifth part, the article gives more specifics about the Reicherts. It shows how family members deal with trauma and their perspectives on guns. The other striking feature about the article’ structure is that both pros and cons are balanced, in addition to being interwoven throughout. For example, after citing literature and experts that suggest the presence of guns increases homicidal death, it immediately jumps to argue against the statement.

In addition to this effective and persuasive structure pattern of argumentation, it also employs all the three rhetorical appeals, ethos, logos and pathos. This article also applied assertion, allusion, analogy, anecdote, and authority. The author makes several assertions, in the article.

For examples, she says, “The national map of suicide lights up in states with the highest gun ownership rates”. She then analyzes this assertion by providing academic evidences from the Harvard centre. With such evidences, the author is trying to convince audience by invoking the findings of an organization with the authority to deal with research.

When quoting B. J. Ayers, a suicide prevention specialist, it uses allusion when it argues that the politics put gun owners on the defensive. For example, the author says “You just bump up against that glass wall, and barriers go up and the conversations break down” (Tavernise 1). In this article, the author has used analogy in a number of instances. For example, the author tries to illustrate that reducing access to lethal weapons works to control cases of gun-related deaths.

She cites the examples of countries such as Israel, where soldiers were prohibited to take guns back home during weekends. This initiative helped reduce the suicide rate among the soldiers and the relatives by more than 40%. For another example, guns are compared to time bombs brought into a house. Rather than protecting you, there is a high possibility that the gun will harm the people in the household.

By invoking data provided by such bodies as the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, health department offices in Wyoming, North Carolina and Missouri, the author attempts to show her ability to collect information from reliable sources. In fact, this indicates her ability to apply pathos to create credibility of her argument.

In this way, the author seeks to convince the readers that her arguments are justified by the fats provided by the relevant bodies that have the authorities to conduct credible research. Moreover, she attempts to convince the readers by employing her credibility as a journalist with the capacity to outsource information and present it in a dignified manner.

The pathos used in this article is can be seen in the fact that it is a feature story. In its third part, for example, significant efforts have been contributed to the description of the environment and setting of the place where Kameron used to work. The detailed nostalgic description provokes in the hearts of readers a sense of sadness.

Moreover, the tone of the article helps in developing a more appealing and persuasive narrative. Use of certain words such as “shocked”, “heartbroken”, “her voice, breaking” tends to raise sympathetic support. In addition, when referring to the mass shooting in Sandy Hook, the word “massacre” is used. These examples are widely infiltrated throughout.

Conclusion and reflection

Overall, I find the design of the structure, arguments, rhetorical appeal, diction, and tone of this paper to be very mature, making it very interesting and convincing. The way the argumentation is derived, discussed and analyzed guides readers to reflect on the rationale for gun control. The article seems to argue that gun control will not just aim at control mass attacks, but also prevent the large number of gun-related suicides in America. In fact, the author says that the number of such deaths is close to 20,000 per year.

Works Cited

Tavernise, Sabrina. “With Guns, Killer and Victim Are Usually Same.” The New York Times, Feb. 14, 2013.