Why Gun Control is not the Solution to Gun-Related Deaths? (Research Paper Sample)

GUN CONTROL NOT THE SOLUTION TO GUN-RELATED DEATHS
Name
Subject
Date
In December 14, 2012, twenty six people, 20 children and 6 adults, were brutally murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. The lone shooter, 20-year old Adam Lanza, had fatally shot his mother before driving to the Kindergarten, where he killed his victims then committed suicide. The incidence revived the controversial debate over gun control in the U.S., with many pro-control voices stating that limiting the number of guns and ammunition will certainly reduce gun-related violence and deaths. At a psychological and emotional level, this view is very appealing for it soothes society’s collective conscience that it is doing something to address the problem of gun violence. However, the call for gun control and stricter gun laws is nothing more than efforts by authorities to assuage public fears and hide the fact that they have failed to enforce the laws that will actually prevent or significantly reduce gun-related violence. The argument that it’s people who kill people (using guns) captures the futility of trying to save lives by eliminating just but one of the instruments that people use to kill. As long as people have the motive to kill, they will look for alternative means to carry out their motives. Restricting gun ownership, in this regard, is not an effective means of reducing violence-related deaths in the U.S. Gun control is ineffective not only because the killers will always use an alternative means, but most important, it makes the victims more vulnerable by taking away their means of self-defense, and encouraging criminals who will have easy targets in the form of defenseless targets.
History shows that enactment of prohibition laws rarely achieves their target goals, and often results in unintended consequences. A good example is the Prohibition between 1920 and 1933, which prohibited the production and sale of alcoholic beverages in the United States. Among the Prohibition’s goals were to improve health among Americans, reduce crime, end corruption, and lessen the tax burden that resulted from imprisonment of drunken law breakers. Like today’s quest for gun control, the intention of Prohibition was a noble one- to solve many social problems associated with drunkenness. However, it resulted in more serious negative consequences than had been anticipated by the authorities. It encouraged the growth of the black market and an increase in mob violence as cartels fought for control of distribution networks. The move to restrict gun ownership will likely have the same consequences as the Prohibition. Without legitimate means to purchase guns, citizens who are keen to own a gun for self-protection will turn to the black market for a solution. Gun traffickers will see a ready market and look for means to illegally import guns into the country, most of which will end up in the hands of criminals due to lack of background checks. Thus, the dreaded impact of gun control is that it will put more guns in the hands of criminals through the black market. In fact, the people who will be most affected by gun control laws are law-abiding citizens because they are the ones who follow legal procedures when acquiring guns. With or without restriction, criminals will acquire guns illegally, and have an upper hand over their potential victims who will be left defenseless as a result of restrictions on gun ownership.
The existence of legal means to acquire guns promotes responsibility among gun owners since they understand that the authorities can easily match their personal details with the guns. Consequently, they will ensure that their guns are not used in illegal activities or to commit murder. In contrast, individuals who acquire their guns illegally will easily use them to commit murder because they could have used fake names or someone else’s driving license to pass background checks. In any case, the motive of people who acquire guns illegally is not always for self-defense, but to use it to commit crime. In the event the gun is recovered by the authorities, there will be nothing to match it with the purchaser. In this regard, the solution to gun-related violence is not a blanket restriction on gun ownership, but restricting criminals from easily acquiring guns. It is worth noting that in most of the mass shootings that have rocked the country, the shooters were not licensed gun owners. This fact supports the idea that an intent killer will always find the weapon to kill regardless whether or not there are gun control laws. In addition, the shootings occurred in gun-free zones, suggesting that criminals will exploit situations where the target is not armed. It is debatable how many lives could have been saved if any of the teachers in the schools where mass shootings have occurred was armed. An armed teacher or security guard could have easily stopped the shooter and saved lives. In this regard, gun control will not necessarily reduce violence-related deaths, but most likely, remove the deterrence that will discourage potential killers.
The surest way to reduce gun-related violence and deaths is implementing effective universal background checks before issuing gun licenses to citizens. Considering that most of the guns used to commit violence are illegally acquired, or used by someone else other than the original purchaser, researcher studies project that comprehensive background checks will reduce the rate if gun-related deaths by over 90 percent . The authorities have not effectively implemented background checks laws to correctly determine that the problem is gun ownership and not allowing unqualified individuals to acquire guns. It is estimated that despite the Brady Bill legislation of 1993 that mandates authorities to carry out background checks on all gun buyers, more than 40 percent of all gun transaction in the U.S. are carried privately or illegally without background checks. These statistics suggest that the authorities will most effectively reduce gun violence by ensuring that only qualified individuals acquire guns, than denying qualified citizens the opportunity to own guns. Of particular interest is the “gun-show loophole,” which allows individuals to acquire guns from unlicensed dealers during gun shows without undergoing proper background checks. This could be one the privileges that criminals exploit to acquire guns. Thus, gun control will be more effective in terms of implementing stricter background checks than restricting the general population from owning guns. This will ensure that people with a history of violence and engagement in crime, substance abuse or severe mental disorders will not have access to guns.
Finally, statistics indicate that more than two-thirds of gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (over 21, 000 gun deaths). This indicates that the greatest risk that gun owners pose is not to other people, but to themselves. The prevalence of suicides shifts the focus to the cause rather than the means. It is logical, then, to argue that people who commit suicide do so not because they had a gun, but because they had a reason to take their lives. This will further suggest that even in the absence of a gun, a person willing to commit suicide will use an alternative means- the gun only makes the job easier. In this light, it will be more effective to address the social problems and situations that encourage suicides, such as financial strain, domestic violence and drug abuse.
Nevertheless, it is arguable that restricting gun ownership will reduce the rate of violence since the people who commit murders will lack the means to do so easily. The gun provides an easy-to-use and effective weapon to intimidate, overpower, and kill a target. It is possible that offenders in homicide cases are encouraged by the knowledge that they possess a weapon to easily carry out their plans. Accordingly, the argument goes, would-be murderers will be discouraged if they lacked the means to commit murder. This makes a good argument for restricting gun ownership among the general...