Use of Guns in Us and It Impact Crimes.

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Thesis
Introduction
Reasons for use of guns
Gun control laws are always ineffective
Behavior is not determined by Gun measures
Controlling guns is not necessarily the answer to the problem
Black market
Statistics
Conclusion
References

Thesis

It has always been assumed that to reduce crime the best thing that could be done is to make it harder for the civilian society to have access to guns. Guns have been linked to many crimes in the US some resulting to cases of homicide. In certain cases innocent lives have been lost especially when shooting sprees have occurred in schools. However studies have continued to reveal that prohibiting gun use would not necessarily reduce crime.

Introduction

The United States is one of the countries with the highest rates of crime. The use and the availability of guns have been blamed for the increased rates of crime in most states. Some proponents have actually suggested that the government should put more strict laws to control the use of guns and also their accessibility (Jacobs, 2002, p22). However other advocates have opposed this notion claiming that the presence of guns has no correlation with the rates of crime in the US.

Acquiring a gun does not necessarily mean that one will be involved in crime. On the other hand there is no evidence that reduced guns in the public will automatically result to reduced crime rate in the society. Guns have been in the society since the early centuries and crime was still part of the society even without the accessibility to the guns. Crime is an act that is performed by the individuals and the presence or absence of certain weapons does not control its rate. This paper discuses the notion that having very stringent laws to control the accessibility or the availability of guns by individuals will not necessarily reciprocate to reduced rates of crime within our society.

Reasons for use of guns

Long before the colonial times guns were still present in our midst. The rate of crime was not as high as it is today and therefore individuals should not relate the high rates of crime to the number of guns within the public. Guns were initially used for hunting and for self defense but not for committing crime. However during the colonial period, this uses assumed a new direction as the colonial man used it against the blacks in order to keep control of them.

Guns were therefore used by those who were out to oppressing others. The use of guns had changed from hunting and defense to fighting. This is how the use of guns has been transmitted to be used to oppress others during crime. Putting measures to control the use of guns cannot reduce crime since individuals will still use them especially because they are criminals and law breakers. The presence of strict laws on the accessibility of guns will actually increase the crime rate since the criminals will take advantage that their victims are unarmed and therefore it would be easy for them to control them (Lott, 1998, p31).

Without the restrictions, everyone would be allowed to own a gun and this means that both the criminals and the victims will be afraid of each other. The criminals will not strike with so much confidence since they might turn out to be the victims themselves. If individuals are allowed to own guns they will be able to protect themselves better than when they are restricted from owning the guns.

Gun control laws are always ineffective

The laws that are affected by the state on the control of guns will not be effective in controlling the use of such ammunitions. The honest citizens within the country are the only ones who will abide by the laws that are laid down by the state. The criminals within any state are always criminals and they are well known to be law breakers. Even if the law insisted that people should not carry guns, the law breakers will still carry their guns around.

On the other hand it has been argued that the measures that are put forward to control the illegal guns are not constitutional since they collide with the 2^nd amendment of the US constitution which allows individuals to carry guns to protect themselves. When the measures to control the guns are effected, the crime rate is deemed to actually increase rather than reduce. This is because; the criminals will actually take advantage of their victims.

Its important to note that the only people who do not carry the guns are the law abiding citizens. In this case the criminals will easily strike their victims since they know that they are not armed with guns and therefore will not be able to fight back. They then use their illegal guns to take control of the crime seen since no people will have any guns around to protect themselves. The government should amend the laws that are put forward to control the accessibility and ownership of guns and concentrate on policies that are directed towards security rather that the control of who owns a gun (John, 2000, p17). Law breakers will always be present and therefore with or without law, guns will be part of the society.

Behavior is not determined by Gun measures

The fact that one owns a gun does not mean that this individual will commit crime. Respective individuals are responsible for their own crimes rather than the guns they hold. If the government puts measures to control the use and accessibility of guns it does not mean that those individuals who had planned to commit a crime would change their minds, they would still commit crime somehow. The possession of a gun does not influence the behavior of a person (Jacobs, 2002, p28).

An individual with some criminal tendencies is predestined to commit crime regardless whether he/she will use a gun or not. On the other hand the law enforcers are not very strict on how they handle such laws. This is because most of the guns that are in the market today were once very legal guns and there must be a loop-hole some where as to how they get to the hands of the criminals. Taking a gun away from an individual does not mean that you have changed the behavior of that person. The government should concentrate on the security of individuals rather than the policies of disarming the gangsters.

Controlling guns is not necessarily the answer to the problem

The government cannot solve the problems of high crime rate in the society by putting measures on the accessibility of guns. Controlling the circulation or even the availability of guns will not solve any problems that are related to crime. What the government can do is addressing the problem of crime and violence as it is but we cannot use guns to control the crime rate. There is no evidence that all crimes that are committed are done by individuals who are in possession of guns. Even if it was possible for all the guns to be eliminated, crime and violence would still be present within our society since guns are not the only tools that can be used to commit crime.

There are other ammunitions that can be used to commit crime such as machetes, swords, knifes among others. The issue of crime is an accorded behavior in the individuals and therefore removing or controlling the accessibility of guns does not eliminate the criminals from the society. The government should rather concentrate with measures that improve on security in the society to protect the innocent citizens rather than dealing with the ammunitions that are used by the criminals to commit crime (Lott, 1998, p36). The problem in the society is not the guns, the problem is the crime itself and unless the individuals committing the crime change, the absence of guns will not solve the problems of insecurity posed by criminal gangs in the society.

Black market

The laws that are laid by the government normally concentrate with the controlling the individuals who can purchase the guns, posses or own guns. This is done by controlling the ownership of guns through measures such as licensing. This usually curbs the youths or the teenage gangs from purchasing guns from the dealers. However, the government has assumed the fact that the criminals can access the guns from the black market.

Criminals always are given to commit crime regardless of the measures or laws that are instituted, its their nature to commit crime. In the black market just like the illegal drugs, the illegal guns will be smuggled through the market and the criminals will be able to access the guns at even a cheaper rate and more easily (Seitz, 2004, p46). It should also not be forgotten that the criminals are also able to steal the guns from the individuals who legally own the guns. Even if such guns have locks the black market has every means to unlock the guns. Therefore enforcing laws that are directed to control the purchasing of guns by the society does not deter the criminals from getting access to the guns.

Statistics

In the states that there exist laws on the control of guns, there is extremely no evidence to show that their rates of violence and crime rate has reduced (John, 2000, p29). People still commit murder; there are cases of rape, child trafficking, drug trafficking, among other crimes. Such crimes are still done by individuals who are in possession of the guns and also those who do not have any guns.

It is a very tedious task for the government to try and ensure that every one is not carrying a gun since you cannot always inspect every one in the streets. Researchers have indicated that it is also a very big challenge for the government to effectively measure the effect of the gun control on the rates of crime since what is captured as illegal guns is just a small fraction of all the guns that are circulating freely within the society. Such States like Florida lack any form of gun control laws and the carrying of guns is not prohibited. Surprisingly enough the rate of crime here is not as high crime and violence as would be expected.

People have acquired guns not for committing crime but for self defense. This is quite contrary to such cities as New York and Washington D.C that have gun control laws. These are some of the cities where the guns are many in circulation illegally and where the crime rates are actually high. A statistical evidence carried out in the 1990s on the correlation of different types of crime such as robbery, assault, burglary, car-jacking among others failed to provide any evidence that being in possession of guns increased the rates of these crimes (Kleck, 1993, p56).

The control of guns within the state is dependent on the political system that is in place. If the government believes that the presence of guns is the one that is responsible of the crime rates, then it is most likely that they will seek policies that will address the control of guns. This however has failed to work in most states and the most effective method is dealing with crime itself without relating it to the ammunitions used.

The mind of the criminals is programmed for crime and disarming them does mean you have changed their mind about committing the crime. They always have their way and will still commit crime irrespective of the laws that are put in place. Most of the control measures are actually addressing the purchasing and the ownership of guns by the individuals. This is done by checking the qualifications of a person to own a gun.

However controlling the purchase of guns would not mean that criminals would not have access to guns if they are in need of any making such controls redundant. Therefore such measures are not effective. In the U.K there are very strict laws on gun possession yet they reported an increase of 40% of gun related crimes. The research further indicates that the control of guns in the U.K has not been effective in reducing the rates of crime in the country. It is therefore clear that measures to control the possession of guns reduce the crime rate in the society (Lott, 1998, p45)

Conclusion

In conclusion, laws that are laid in place to control the availability and accessibility of guns in bid to control the crime rate in the society are not effective. Crime is a personal behavior and disarming a criminal does not mean that such individuals will not commit crime.

Likewise any person in possession of a gun is not necessarily a criminal. The purposes of owning a gun may be different such as self defense. The fact that the government controls the ownership of guns actually increases the rates of crime and violence in the society since its risks more individuals to the hands of the criminals. Criminals will not be afraid of the laws that are put in place to control the accessibility of guns.

Even if the government controls the purchase of such ammunitions, the criminals can still get access to them from the black market (Murray, 2001, p43). Stealing the guns is also another option for the criminals and making the guns from home would be a possible alternative.It is therefore recommended that the government should focus more on the policies that are concerned with improving security rather than disarming the criminals since this will not address the problem of crime and violence in our society.

References

Jacobs, 2002. Can Gun Control Work? New York. Oxford University Press.

John R, 2000. More guns, less crime: understanding crime and gun-control laws. Oxford University Press.

Kleck and Patterson, 1993. The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates. Prentice hall.

Lott, J. R, 1998. More Guns less Crime. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Murray, D. R. 2001. Handguns, Gun Control Laws, and Firearm Violence. McGraw-Hill Publishers.

Seitz, S. T. 2004. Firearms, Homicides, and Gun Control Effectiveness. United States. Journal of Legal Studies.

Click Here To Order Now!