An introduction
to Guns & Crime
Ever since their introduction as revolutionary
hunting weapons capable of effectually killing
from a distance, guns have yielded an intrinsic
essence of dread and power. It wasn’t too
long before guns began to be used in assault and
combat during warfare, and once the war (s) ended,
as exceptionally reliable weapons that could be
counted on for security and safety. It is, however,
important to here consider that it wasn’t
too long before the gun began to be used for immoral
and unethical purposes based on the instigating
of the bearer’s fatal superiority due to
his possession of the gun.
The essence of what can be termed as evil is,
after all, something that has been collectively
intrinsic to mankind practically since the existence
of man as naught more than a wandering primate.
And before long, it is rather unsurprising that
guns consequently began to represent one of the
more significant proponents of crime. Take into
further consideration the fact that historically
as well as within the era contemporaneously marking
the progress of the human race, crime represents
a proverbial ailment that has been one of the
more evident woes plaguing society.
The contemporary relevance of the guns
And the contributory relevance that guns yield
to crime is something that is made even more relevant
when considering it in light of the contemporaneously
exceptional integration of technology into the
industrial sector (s). This integration has made
for an ever-improving degree of efficiency in
concern to gun making, subsequently increasing
the fatal functionality of the weapon a hundred
fold. Unlike their latter day predecessors, contemporary
guns combine monumental convenience of shape,
size and functionality with such options as long
distance and silenced modes.
The guns of today make it possible for people
to target and shoot items at a distance even beyond
eyeshot and even in darkness that is practically
impenetrable to the human eye. The most significantly
contentious instance of development within the
gun industry, however, has been the conveniently
widespread availability of guns. Something that
has primarily been a result of mass production
of the weapons and their ammunition, the widespread
and exceptionally easy availability of guns is
a factor that most experts quote as the reason
due to the dramatic rate(s) of current crime worldwide.
The ideology that supports & propagates
Gun Control
Almost all crimes involve the use of guns, with
some cases simply involving a brandishing of or
the non-fatal use of guns, while more than a few
involving the fatal use of guns. This is the prime
reason due to which guns are contemporarily viewed
with such contentiousness and controversy, something
that is typically justified in as much as the
assertion that it is due to the introduction of
guns that the rate of crime has shot up so dramatically.
It is but a fact that domestic as well as global
crime and terrorism as primarily dependent on
debilitative ammunition and equipment of which
one of the most commonly evident components is
the gun, followed by such destruction devices
as grenades and bombs. It is for this reason that
the issue of legal gun control presently constitutes
one of the more controversial moral issues that
appears to be raging in the US as well as worldwide.
The contention is primarily based upon the existence
of two parties, one in support of Gun Control
or the elimination of all laws enabling the carrying
of guns and one party claiming that the rights
to carry a gun are essential to safety.
We will first be addressing the side that supports
gun control upon the pretext that a decrease in
the number of guns at the disposal of the public
[within given vicinity] would inevitably make
for a decrease in the rate (s) of crime. This
is the group that is strongly convinced that the
major cause of crime is the possession of guns
and thus, that gun control laws must be imposed
as fully and forcefully as possible (The Coalition
for Gun Control, 2001). In addition to crime,
moreover, it must be considered that gun control
supporters do not only propose gun control upon
the pretext of crime; indeed, they quote gun related
murder, suicides, accidental deaths, injuries
from suicide attempts, and accidental injuries
within their agenda as well (The Private possession
of Guns, 1999).
It is barely surprising, especially when considering
the contemporaneously soaring rate of crime that
involves a fatal shooting, that the benefit of
being the majority group belongs to this side
(Taylor, 2000). It would be relevant to consider
that another one of the more instrumental reasons
for the prevalence of support for this side of
the is that the robbery rate in the United States
increased six fold during the 1960s and 1970s
in addition to the murder rate being doubled.
This was closely accompanied by the rate of handgun
ownership, which nearly doubled within the same
period. Handgun possession and criminal violence
grew together in proportionate accord to each
other and the masses as well as the national opinion
leaders did not fail to remark on the coincidence.
Moreover, people who have lost near and dear ones
to the fatal discharge of a firearm would understandably
have an exceptionally adverse conception of the
granting citizens the right to be carrying guns.
The theorization that asserts opposition to gun
control laws
It is, however, equably essential to consider
the viewpoint of those in support of gun rights,
especially since there is more than just a grain
pos sensibility in the ideology that they ascribe
relevance to. In consideration to one of the most
adhered to vehicle of support that gun control
opponents turn to, for instance, it would be essential
to acknowledge the second amendment to the constitution.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution stated
that ‘A well regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
abridged’ (Freeman, 2004). It is quite apparent
that this amendment is reflective of the sentiment
that it is essential for the people of the free
state in question to have the right to carry arms
as an effectual vehicle of their safety. It is,
moreover, also quite apparent that, at the time
of the drafting of this amendment, this notion
was considered to be one that was much required
due to the political instability of the state.
This, however, tends to be an issue that is discredited
by gun control supporters upon the pretext that
the amendment emerged during an era of muzzle-loading
rifles, and is thus ignorant to ‘the killing
power of modern automatic weaponry’ (Freeman,
2004).
However, a more logical stance is apparent,
in consideration to this second group, when considering
the notion that the purpose that a particular
gun is going to fulfill is something that depends,
absolutely and completely, upon the user of the
gun. While it could save the lives of the holder
as well as his or her family and accomplices in
the case of a composed and stable individual;
it would be little more than a tool of bloody
massacre in the case of being wielded by a disturbed
and excitable individual. It must be taken into
consideration that though gun control laws may
indeed be able to save some lives, they divert
attention from the actual roots of crime problem,
which is basically evident within the communally
psychological tendencies within various societal
strata (Lott, 1999). The flow of guns to the public,
moreover, can never be fully stemmed, and the
enforcing of gun control would thus be indirectly
responsible for a drastic increase in the number
of individuals having illegal access and/or possession
to/of guns (Knox, 1996).
It is, moreover, ever important to keep in mind
that an absolute enforcement of gun control would
render citizens defenseless in the case of coming
up against a life endangering confrontation. In
the case of being confronted with a criminal demanding
money or sexual gratification under duress in
the form of a gun, for instance, a victim without
a firearm would stand no chance at all of defending
him or herself. Gun control is certainly not a
substitute for addressing the root causes of crime;
it is quite apparent that a lack of education
and of jobs, in addition to familial disintegration
induced by social inconsistency is more of a causal
factor for crime than the right to carry a gun
(Holzel, 1999). It is quite apparent, thus speaking,
that supporters of gun carrying rights utilize
the ideology of the element of safety as the most
relevant justification for their stance. One of
the more subtle disadvantages of gun control,
moreover, has been assertion of the exceptional
expenses of completely abolishing the possession
of firearms; The Cost of abolishing Firearms would
hypothetically amount to:
1. Between 1 million and 2 million more crimes
annually;
2. Increase in crimes committed by multiple assailants;
3. "New" types of crimes, such as home-invasion
robberies or car-jacking;
4. A shift in injuries and fatalities from the
criminals to the citizen;
5. A rise in "intimidation" crimes where
criminals intimidate people to give up their valuables
to avoid injury implied by the criminal's demeanor
(Extracted from Cooper, 2001: Taking on Gun Control).
Conclusion: an opinionated stance
on the discussion presented thus far
It is quite apparent, thus speaking, that the
enforcement of gun control laws is certainly not
something that must be looked upon as the idealistic
means of mitigating the crime toll within the
global society, as it exists today. This, in fact,
is something that can only be executed, effectually,
via harnessing the collective psyche of the human
race towards the understanding that crime is senseless
in as much as the fact that the long term negativity
of it eventually tends to affect even the criminal.
An enforcement of gun control would do no more
than encourage criminals with access to firearms
to take even more advantage of the fact that they
are in a position to intimidate and thus, get
whatever they want. In addition to this, moreover,
it is quite apparent that an enforcement of civil
gun control would tend to inevitably make for
a proverbial devolution of the political relevance
of the people within the particular state. That
is to say that the abolishing of gun rights would
put an uncharacteristic degree of power into the
hands of the government since it would be the
only entity able to legally possess and issue
firearms.
Contemporary society has provided a platform
upon which all planes of society, the good as
well as the bad, have been enabled to expand their
influence (s) with dramatic and widespread exceptionality.
This is something that is crucially instrumental
in concern to the current rise of crime stats
and must be dealt with in a systematic and progressive
way. These, however, are both elements that are
a far cry from the almost desperate sounding call
on the need for gun control. Even instances such
as the horrific terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center in the US on the 11th of September
2001 can be traced back to their causal origin
of illiteracy, misconception and ignorance. It
is quite apparent, thus speaking, that a global
effort in context to educating the masses would
have an exceptionally advantageous impact upon
crime and terrorism. It would be conclusively
apt to consider that, in light of all that has
been said and discussed, gun control laws appear,
at least to me, to be far from the solution of
the crime problem, which lies in addressing the
illiteracy inherent to the masses. This is since
addressing this illiteracy would clarify to the
masses that guns as well as other firearms are
for protection rather than intimidation.
|