Stiffer Sentences For Gun Crimes example essay topic

... is for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection... First, the decision involves a trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action. ' Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides!

This study (Arthur Kellermann et. al., 'Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,' The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) has been much maligned by the gun lobby, but despite repeated efforts to tar it as non-scientific, its publication in one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world is just one indication of its soundness. For a complete and vigorous defense of the study, please see this essay by Steve Kangas. Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' is silly.

What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.

Justifiable homicide A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Read published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police / courts to be justified (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). The evidence revealed in the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995).

Women's self-defense Women's self-defense implies that since women are physiologically weaker than men, guns are the great equalizer, and women can use them to protect themselves. I think perhaps it would be best to leave this discussion to the women, don't you? The following women's associations have come out in support of the Brady Bill, which mandates a waiting period and background check on firearms purchases: American Medical Women's Ass'n, General Federation of Women's Clubs, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, League of Women Voters of the United States, Nat'l Council of Jewish Women, Nat'l Council of Negro Women, Nat'l Organization for Women, Women's Nat'l Democratic Club, Women Strike for Peace, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Women's Int'l League for Peace and Freedom, YWCA of the U.S.A. If this many women, from a cross-section of society, support gun control, perhaps women do not perceive a need to own a gun, and male lawmakers and critics have no right to claim otherwise. The 'collective self-defense' The 'collective self-defense' argument is that if many Americans own guns, it is better for the general welfare of the country in case we are invaded by a foreign power. This is silly given the strength of the American military. Often, this paranoia is manifested in fears of a increasingly powerful United Nations, but this is even sillier, as the United States maintains veto power in the Security Council (and would thus have far more to lose by withdrawing from the UN, despite what some radical critics have said).

Thus, there is no present danger to the United States from foreign invasion of any kind, and if the danger arises, and arming the general populace becomes necessary, it should be done through the auspices of the US Military, where people will be guaranteed to receive training in marksmanship, and more importantly, gun safety. We can see how dangerous the 'collective self-defense' argument by looking at amateur militias in America. Although the majority of militia members, like the majority of Americans, are probably peaceful, law-abiding citizens, it is rather dangerous for citizens' groups that are not under any sort of 'well-regulated's upervision, and answering to nobody, to be conducting exercises that make them a potential paramilitary force capable of extreme damage. Such exercises are better left to those who are well-regulated, i. e., the United States Armed Services and the National Guard. The Lott report Recently, a study published by John Lott (a Law Professor at the University of Chicago) and David Mustard (a U. Chicago graduate student) has indicated that recently enacted laws in states allowing the legal carry of concealed weapons has reduced violent crime in those states.

However, there are numerous problems with this study that have not been addressed, even when directed to Professor Lott himself. For example, when asked under the rubric of causality, how the falling crime rates affects their study, Lott said 'The general changes in crime rates is not a problem for our paper since we control for individual year dummies which take out any year-to-year changes that are occurring in crime rates. ' What this ignores is that the year-to-year changes are precisely what is important, and if crime rates are already dropping, then adding the laws they defend and pointing to their success in lowering crime rates begs the question of causality, which they never demonstrate. Another difficulty in his figures is population motion. For example, he claims that Florida's violent crime rate dropped dramatically after the passing of CCW laws, but he does not take into account the enormous migration of the elderly and retirees into that state during his examination period. Such an influx of elderly citizens (not usually violent criminals!) would certainly push the crime rate down, as the population of law abiding citizens rose dramatically.

Furthermore, they admit right in their study that 'Using county level data has some drawbacks. Frequently, because of the low crime rates in many low population counties, it is quite common to find huge variations in the arrest and conviction rates between years. ' So, their solution is 'to limit the sample to only counties with large populations. For counties with a large numbers of crimes, these waves have a significantly smoother flow of arrests and convictions relative to offense. ' Thus, the limited sample also limits the accuracy of their study. They say that 'an alternative solution is to take a moving average of the arrest or conviction rates over several years,' but then go on to say that this 'reduces the length of the usable sample period, depending upon how many years are used to compute this average.

Furthermore, the moving average solution does nothing to alleviate the effect of multiple suspects being arrested for a single crime. ' These are real problems which Prof. Lott did not address, even when directly asked via e-mail. More criticism on the Lott report from Johns Hopkins University Professor Stephen Tere t can be found here. Other weapons 'People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?' From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000 -- about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., 'Robbery Violence,' Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987): 357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago.

The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes. (Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C. : National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, 'The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence. ' ) An offshoot of this argument is the old classic 'cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars. ' The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill.

Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck. A proposal for rational gun control Although I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible, I realize that this is not a politically realistic goal. Thus, I present my own plans for gun control that I would consider a valid compromise. Perhaps policy discussions can start from these. 1. A national system for registering guns and ammunition.

Part of the reason New York City has stiff gun laws and high gun death rates is that anybody can go from New York to a state with less restrictive laws, get a friend who lives in the state to buy the guns for them, and take those guns back to NYC. (Yes, I am aware this is illegal, but it happens.) First, a national system would prevent this by scaring those 'friends' into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable. Second, a national system would be more helpful in tracking crimes after they have happened, to bring the perpetrators to justice. 2. Instant background checks on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition. Brady is still patchwork, and does indeed have its flaws in tracking felons.

Felons and ex-cons should not have access to weapons, and many misdemeanors and juvenile crimes should also count against a person's record. 3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree. 4. Gun education.

Many guns are involved in accidents that could easily have been prevented by a little care or forethought. Perhaps gun purchasers should be required to take lessons in gun safety, at the purchaser's expense. Again, the NRA has long been a proponent of gun education. 5. General education. Study after study has concluded that there is a direct correlation between lack of education and violent crime.

Every dollar spent on education now will prevent countless dollars worth of crime damage in the future. Think of all the private and public funds used to pay for gun violence -- hospital bills, funerals, insurance bills, the actual cost of buying firearms. Now invest that money in education, and watch the crime rate drop. 6. Hand grip ID tagging. This is technologically probably still in the future, but it would be a good goal to work for.

The theory is, each gun is 'registered' to one's person palm prints (the legal purchaser of the gun), and only that person can fire that gun. If another person tries, the gun simply will not fire. Thus, stolen guns become useless, and cannot be used to harm anybody in the course of a crime.