ProCon. org recently featured an article that studied gun control. “Stricter state gun laws associated with fewer gun deaths, study finds. ” The article discussed gun control laws in states with stricter laws tend to have lower rates of gun related homicides, and a suicide (ProCon para. 1) Gun control in the United States is becoming a wide spread issue and is becoming a problem everywhere. Although I am living in a city with uprising crime that has been skyrocketing over the years, I wasn’t aware of this being an issue all over the United States.
I decided to do some research to find out whether I am in favor of Gun control laws or not. After reviewing many articles for and against gun control, I found out that I do in fact agree with gun control laws. It became difficult to determine my side of the controversy due to there being a lot of negative and positive opinions about the issue.
I feel like gun laws should be in place to restore our countries gun related crime rates in the U. S. The ProCon article argues that states with the strictest gun control laws have lower rates of gun related homicides and suicides.
The argument for gun control laws revolve around the statistics of gun control laws being stricter in certain states verses states with not so strict gun control laws. According to ProCon, “the most restrictive gun control laws have an average of 6. 64 fewer deaths per 100,000 people per year than those with the least restrictive laws” (ProConpara. 1). ProCon continues on to discuss the study “Firearm Legislation and Firearm Related Fatalities in the United States,” that was studied by different researchers that measured the association between the “legislative strength of state gun control policies” (ProCon para. ).
The researchers then began to study the five categories used to create the legislative strength score which included laws designed to: curb firearm trafficking; strengthen background checks on purchasers of firearms beyond those required by Brandy Handgun Violence Prevention Act; ensure child safety; ban military style assault weapons; and restrict guns in public places (ProCon para. 1). The researchers then ranked all 50 states from 0 to 28 based on their score (ProCon para. 2).
“The higher the score, the more restrictive the gun laws n that state,” stated the researchers (ProCon para. 2). “This study is a very important addition to our understanding of the connection between gun control and gun violence,” said John Roman, a PhD, senior fellow. “In addition to the general relationship between gun safety laws firearm deaths, also suggests that increasing the number of gun safety laws increases the reductions in firearm related deaths. So the benefits just get bigger with more laws” (ProCon para. 3). After reading the ProCon article, I found myself agreeing with the researchers.
I can see different levels of gun related crimes all over the United States. Just by living in Fort Wayne, IN where there has been a peak in gun related crimes and deaths gives me proof that their study was indeed accurate. If more states had stricter gun control laws they would start to have lower rates of gun related homicides and suicides. Next, I went to an article by Chuck Baldwin, an American Politician, who disagreed with gun control laws: “Here we go again. We have another mass shooting at yet another “gun free” zone.
Not only was the location a “gun free zone, it was located inside the nation’s capital, which has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the entire country,” Stated Chuck Baldwin, (Baldwin para. 1). Mr. Baldwin clearly has a strong disagreement about gun control laws in the United States. In the title of the article, he stated, “Guns don’t kill people; gun control laws kill people” (Baldwin para. 1). Mr. Baldwin then proceeds to talk about people basically abusing gun control laws and that they are useless because people are still using guns in “gun free” zones. Mr.
Baldwin argued, “I thought gun-control laws and “gun-free” zones were supposed to protect people from gun violence” (Baldwin para. 1). Mr. Baldwin proceeded to argue that “Gun-Free” zones are actually “Free Killing” zones (Baldwin para. 1). He then went on to explain how “This is the second time in recent memory when some wacko shoots up a military installation” (Baldwin para. 2). I feel like Mr. Baldwin’s logic behind gun control laws is kind of persuasive because even though there are gun control laws, and “gun free” zones, doesn’t mean that people are going to stop committing gun related crimes in places where there are laws in place.
I expected that I might be swayed by Mr. Baldwin’s information, but I was not. I am definitely in favor of gun control laws. I also think that Mr. Baldwin’s argument was kind of true and he had a lot of good reasoning, but I still think that by enforcing gun control laws helps a lot of states to lower their gun related crimes. However, I did not see anything on Chuck Baldwin’s article that proved gun control laws were good or bad. The final article that convinced me of my position came from the Congressional Digest.
The article, “Prevalence of Gun Use and the Regulatory Response” doesn’t focus on one side of the issue. Instead, it focuses on the different reasons gun control laws could or could not be effective. Some argue that the low violent crime rates of other countries have nothing to do with gun control, maintaining instead that multiple cultural differences are responsible (Gun para. 1). “Through the years, legislative proposals to restrict the availability of firearms to the public have raised the following questions: “What restrictions on firearms are permissible under the Constitution?
Does gun control constitute crime control? Can the Nation’s rates of homicide, robbery, and assault be reduced by the stricter regulation of firearms commerce or ownership? Would restrictions stop attacks on public figures or thwart deranged persons and terrorists? Would household, street corner, and schoolyard disputes are less lethal if firearms were more difficult and expensive to acquire? Would more restrictive gun control policies have the unintended effect of impairing citizens’ means of self-defense? ” (Gun para. )
This article provided a lot of questions that I asked myself and I answered “yes” to more than half of the previous questions. I had not considered these questions until I read the Congressional Digest. I think that if the government really cracked down on gun control laws, people would actually see a change in gun related crimes. I feel like yes, more restrictive gun control policies have unintended effect of impairing citizens’, and yes different cultural differences have nothing to do with gun control issues.
After reading these articles on gun control laws, I am now more informed and can still say that gun control laws still should be enforced. I am surprised at the different views this issue has received. I found out that I do in fact agree with gun control laws. It became difficult to determine my side of the controversy due to there being a lot of negative and positive opinions about the issue. I feel like gun laws should be in place to restore our countries gun related crime rates and fatalities in the U. S.
Cite this Gun Control Research
Gun Control Research. (2016, Sep 14). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/gun-control-research-essay-2/