Guns

Do they pose a problem?

By Weston Wood

The violence that spawns from guns doesnt represent the majority of legal gun
owners, just as a handful of radical extremists dont represent an entire religion. There
is a large variety of statistics to look at when the issue of gun control comes up.
However, the most prominent is homicide. Let me tell you something that the gun
control lobbyist and the NRA dont want you to hear. Guns, or no guns, the homicide
rates will not be largely effected. The Statistics overall are rather inconclusive on the
effectiveness of gun control laws and the correlation to homicide rates. Ireland and
Jamaica enacted gun bans back in the 70s, since then their murder rates have trended
up about 1 murder per 100,000 people. SEE HERE. Australia put their gun ban into
effect in 1996 and the number of homicide incidents has slowly trended downward. SEE
HERE. The UK enacted a hand gun ban in 1990 saw homicide rates go up then return
to their normal range SEE HERE. There is no substantial correlation between homicide
rates and gun control or the lack there of. This means that with or without guns roughly
about the same amount of people will probably be killed. Also there is no correlation
between the number of guns and the rate of homicides by state. SHOWN HERE. In fact,
it seems there really is not even a correlation between number of guns per populous
compared to homicides anywhere. SHOWN HERE.

Now, if we were to look at the number of guns to the amount to gun related
deaths or gun violence then there would be a better trend to look at. Australia has seen
a steady decline in gun related deaths since their gun ban SEEN HERE. Ireland number
of gun crimes has decreased over the last decade. SEE HERE. England and Wales has
also seen a decline in gun the number of fire arm offences SEEN HERE. Generally that
makes sense, less guns available less people shot. However, all these stats seem to
really indicate is that less guns through bans only means you are less likely to get shot
to death, not that you arent just as likely to die from other means.
So, when it comes to homicide, and guns the point is rather moot. The problem
with the statistics on the subject is that they are always over simplified. They almost
exclusively focus on a single causality factor. For instance, a statistic may show guns in
correlation to violent crimes. (AKA guns do or do not make violent crimes increase or
decrease.) Well that graph, statistic, chart or whatever you may be seeing as a
reference does not consider any other factors. Education levels, poverty rates, and
unemployment rates all have stronger correlations to violent crimes than guns, yet they
are not accounted for. There is a multitude of factors that play into these statistics that
are largely ignored, leaving a singular factor to be pointed to as the cause of a trend.
Sometimes it is unintentional, as adjusting for so many underlying or unknown
factors is very difficult if not near impossible. But many times statistics can purposely be
extremely misleading and formed around bias. The problem is that people tend to
decide on a side then seek to find, or create, only confirmation on their preexisting
opinion. As the saying goes, Figures dont lie, but liars do figure.

So does all this mean that gun laws/ regulations should stay the way they are?
No. Mass shootings are still a pressing issue.
It is the man, not the gun, who pulled the trigger. I completely agree, it is in fact
the persons fault. No sane person would argue that a gun by itself is dangerous. Just
as any other weapon they require interaction to become dangerous. People can be
extreme, insensitive, and indeed very dangerous. If not a gun, these type of people
would have used a bomb, if they couldnt get a bomb, it would have been a sword, if not
a sword a knife, ect... The logic makes sense.
Yet, would you be in support of letting people buy fully assembled bombs? By
using the same logic it wouldnt be the bombs fault if it blew up and killed people, it
would lie on the man lit who lit the fuse. And again, it absolutely would be that persons
fault. However, you would probably say no, of course I wouldnt allow a bomb to be
bought! That is too dangerous. I call this bomb logic. If we are using danger and as a
scale to which to allow weapons to be purchased, then surly just a step below a bomb is
a gun. What I am saying is regardless of the fault, allowing weapons designed very
specifically to kill, to be so readily available for purchase will absolutely lead to killing by
them. There really should be no surprise there. So again, is it the guns fault? No. It is in
fact the mans fault. But maybe, by using this bomb logic we should become more
weary of the process which determines who we allow this power to be wielded. Yes,
guns dont kill people, people kill people. It is not the fact that guns do or do not kill
people, it is the fact that they are rather effective at killing people while in a persons
hands. So when dangerous people can gain easy access to dangerous weapons a
cause for concern is raised.

Most of these mass shootings we experience are in fact from legally bought
guns. SEE HERE. Something needs to change with the legal process. Will all of the
shootings stop if we change gun laws? No. I doubt there is anything that we can do to
totally stop the problem. Especially if we are only looking at one causation. As
discussed earlier, less guns in gun ban countries generally leads to less gun related
deaths. Further, in the United States there is a correlation between the rigidness of gun
control laws and the amount of gun violence. SEE HERE. OR HERE.
So, ignoring other more pertinent socioeconomically factors that are more
relevant to solving the problem, the issue with guns seems to be more with accessibility
than the fact that guns are there. The question remains, why is it so easy to buy a gun?
Laws vary among the states, but for comparison, generally it is much easier to get a gun
then to get a drivers licenses. In many states any pissed off 18 year old can walk into a
sporting goods store, pick up a semi-auto rifle, walk out in 30 min, and if they so
choose, shoot whoever they want in fit of rage. Or they could just take it home and do
nothing with it, but now there is now the option. You cant even go to the DMV that fast.
This easy accessibility leads to the possibility of very rash decisions being made.
A longer more thorough qualification process to buy, and/or carry (state varying),
guns seem to be the answer. Take away peoples guns? No. Without even addressing
other issues like protection from the government, how expensive and complicated the
process would be, or the 2nd amendment at all, there seems to be no point. To reiterate,
there is no solid correlation of guns to homicide rates. So getting rid of guns doesnt
seem to make much difference. As for the mass shooting, even if the more effective
guns for these mass shootings were to be taken away, there would be little difference,

shooting from extremists would very likely persist. Those set on killing will get their
hands on guns or some other weapon by other means.
Given that, we shouldnt make it easy for them. I think that we can agree that
getting weapons is currently more difficult illegally than through legal means. Think
about it as a door and a lock on your house. If someone wants to break it down, they
can. But I bet they are less likely to try, and it wont be as easy to accomplish. So why
leave the door unlocked for them? A more thorough process to obtain a gun acts as a
safety mechanism. Why leave it so easy for them to pick out their weapons of choice to
kill? It is indeed easier to buy a gun in the US than to learn to build a bomb, and it is
easier to shoot a mass number of people than to stab them. Cant we agree to make the
purchasing process more thorough? We need to make it harder for extreme individuals
to get their hands on guns.
Even if we are excluding extremists and those with bad intentions, accidents still
happen. Even to those with good intentions. Wouldnt everyone benefit from more
requirements to purchase firearms? Options to decrease firearm accidents could
include legally mandated scenario training, written testing, sight tests, shooting
qualifications, mental screening, or more thorough background checks, among other
potential requirements to purchase a gun. Do you really want someone who potentially
has no training, no history with weapons, to be able to buy a gun and bring it home?
What if it is an open carry state? Do you want someone with potential 0 qualifications,
no respect, or knowledge on guns to be open carrying around you?
To say it is reckless to let people do this is an understatement. It not only very
potentially endangers them, but their loved ones, and those around them. If someone is

carrying in public in order to protect those around them, including total strangers, then
they absolutely need to prove that they are competent and capable to actually do that.
Otherwise they simply pose more of a threat than anything else. It would be considered
unthinkable to allow police that didnt have training or any qualifying tests with their
weapons, to walk around trying to protect the public. So why in some states do we let
regular citizens? No thanks, I dont want a potentially unstable, untrained, or trigger
happy (even well intentioned) person standing behind me at the grocery store for my
safety.
You want to keep your guns? Keep them. You dont want any guns? Dont get
any. Truth be told you wont be any more likely or unlikely to be killed. You want a new
gun? Prove yourself worthy of wielding it. Back to bomb logic, you dont want someone
running around with a bomb, right? Well unless we can be sure someone is competent
with how to handle a gun, we shouldnt want them running around with a gun either. We
need to make sure everyone is tested to be competent, safe, and qualified if they so
wish to buy a gun, and even more so if they wish to carry.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21613303-disturbing-study-linkbetween-incomes-and-criminal-behaviour-have-and
http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinengland
andwales/yearendingdecember2015
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/examining-uk-gun-crime-15-years-after-firearms-ac
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinengland
andwales/yearendingdecember2015
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-fulldata?utm_source=viz&utm_medium=viz.referral&utm_campaign=viz.ref&utm_viz_id=jsD1MNVw
d8h&utm_pubreferrer=www.nbcnews.com%2Fstoryline%2Fsan-bernardino-shooting%2Fmore80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-massshootings-obtained-legally-n474441
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/#note-99-4
http://www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Ireland/Crime/Violent-crime#-history
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-3.pdf
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinengland
andwales/yearendingdecember2015
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/latest-statistics-show-increase-in-gun-crime1.2369732
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlationbetween-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
http://smartgunlaws.org/concealed-weapons-permitting-policy-summary/
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-do-u-s-gun-laws-compare-to-other-countries/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/06/barack-obama/obama-more-gunlaws-means-fewer-gun-deaths/
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-deaths-by-state
A Structural Model of Crime and Inequality in Colombia, Franois Bourguignon, Fabio Sanchez,
Jairo Nunez, paper presented at the Congress of the European Economic Association 2002
A Poverty Trap of Crime and Unemployment, Luciano Mauro and Gaetano Carmeci, Review of
Development Economics 2007
Crime and Poverty: a Search-Theoretic Approach, Chien-chieh Huang, Derek Laing, and Ping
Wang, International Economic Review 2004
Crime and Socio-Economic Context, Hugues Lagrange, Revue franaise de sociologie 2003
Crime, Urban Poverty and Social Science, Lawrence D. Bobo, Institute for African and African
American Research 2009
Crime, Transitory Poverty, and Isolation: Evidence from Madagascar, Marcel Fafchamps & Bart
Minten, Economic Development and Cultural Change 2006
Educational Attainment and Juvenile Crime, Ricardo Sabates, British Journal of Criminology 2008

Cost and Punishment: Reassessing Incarceration Costs and the Value of College-in-Prison
Programs, Gregory A. Knott, Northern Illinois University Law Review 2010
Income Inequality, Race and Place: Does the Distribution of Race and Class Within
Neighborhoods Affect Crime Rates, John R. Hipp, Criminology 2007
Inequality and Crime, Morgan Kelly, The Review of Economics and Statistics 2000
Low-Income Housing Development and Crime, Matthew Freedman, Emily G. Owens, Journal of
Urban Economics 2011
Market and Public Policy Mechanisms in Poverty Reduction: The Differential Effects on Property
Crime, Ralph C. Allen, Jack H. Stone, Review of Social Economy, 1999
Social Networks and Crime Decisions: The Role of Social Structure in Facilitating Delinquent
Behavior, Antoni Calv-Armengoi and Yves Zenou, International Economic Review 2004
The Effects of Neighbourhood Poverty on Adolescent Problem Behaviours: A Multi-level Analysis
Differentiated by Gender and Ethnicity, Dietrich Oberwittler, Housing Studies 2007
The Relationship between Lead and Crime, Paul B. Stretesky and Michael J. Lynch Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 2004
The Truly Disadvantaged, Public Assistance, and Crime, Lance Hannon and James Defronzo,
Social Problems 1998
Unemployment, Inequality, Poverty and Crime (Spatial Distribution Patterns of Criminal Acts in
Belgium), Marc Hooghe, Bram Vanhoutte, Wim Hardyns and Tuba Bircan, British Journal of
Criminology 2010
Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence from a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment,
Jens Ludwig, Greg J. Duncan, Paul Hirschfield, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2001