Gun control is an extremely complicated and controversial subject that has people on both sides of the debate fueled for a fight based often on emotion with little critical thinking involved. When we take out the emotion and do some hard research on the subject it is ultimately discovered that gun control is logical on the surface but ultimately is an extremely expensive and effective way to have absolutely no significant effect on crime rates. A comprehensive study by John C. Moorhouse and Brent Wanner looks at thirteen of the most of the popular studies on the efficacy of gun control laws in the United States and then conducts an extremely comprehensive study of their own that looks at the efficacy of gun control laws testing and compensating for the myriad variables and outside factors that can otherwise effect the outcome of their study. Their study found that there was no evidence linking stricter gun control laws and lower crime rates nor was there any evidence that lax gun control laws lead to higher crime rates (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006).
Since strict gun control laws are ineffective at reducing crime, they are actually causing more harm than they are good. Looking at the issue from a purely economic standpoint, there are untold millions of dollars of taxpayers money that have been wasted in the implementation of strict gun control laws. All of the gun control laws that have been passed were written, debated, rewritten, and implemented all using taxpayer money through the legislative process; dollars and hours that could have been spent elsewhere and on more pertinent issues such as education so that less children turn to crime in the first place. Countless taxpayers dollars also have to be spent on the enforcement and regulation of these laws. According to the California State Budget for the Department of Justice, just over three million dollars per year is spent on the “Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund” (FSESF) with a proposed increase for the 2010-11 fiscal year to $3.5 million from the previous fiscal year's $3.2 million (California Department of Finance, 2011). That $3.5 million dollars is only the amount that is allotted specifically to the FSESF and does not include amounts utilized from the general fund or other areas of the budget for the running of background checks and the utilization of government employees to enforce these superfluous strict gun laws. In a time of economic crisis, it would seem logical that programs that have been proven to be ineffective by multiple studies would be able to be cut from the budget, potentially alleviating millions of budget dollars to be utilized in another areas, but instead there has been a proposed increase in the funding for the FSESF of $300,000.
While many gun control laws are ineffective, the underlying concept is not in itself bad. The primary idea of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or other people who should not possess them. According to the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) their goal “...is to prevent terrorism, reduce violent crime, and protect the public. With respect to firearms, ATF works to take armed, violent offenders off the streets and to ensure criminals and other prohibited persons do not possess firearms.” (ATF 2005). In essence, gun control is designed to protect all of the citizens of the United States from those people who should not have firearms in an effort to lower crime rates. Controls such as waiting periods for background checks are exactly what they say they are, controls in order to keep guns out of the hands of felons, the mentally unstable, those restrained by protective orders, and other such people. The problem comes from one underlying fact of life: laws and protections can only go so far because by definition criminals do not follow laws. Why should law abiding citizens be punished by strict laws that have little to no effect on crime rates? Guns will always be available on the black market, which is the quickest, cheapest, and probably the easiest way to acquire a gun in the United States. If criminals want guns, they are going to get them, whether it be on the street or getting them legally. Background checks can only go so far, as a common police saying goes, “just because a person hasn't been convicted of anything doesn't necessarily make them law abiding, it just means they haven't been caught yet.”
From 1998 to 2009 there were just over 109 million approved firearms transactions that were processed through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (FBI, 2009). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the United States in February of 2011 is approximately 310 million people. Based on these statistics there was one firearm purchased for every three Americans in the past eleven years. Those numbers do not reflect the unknown number of firearms that have been legally purchased and transferred in the last hundred years. According to the BJS, in 2009 27% of the approximate 2.5 million violent crimes and robberies that occurred in the United States used firearms, meaning that there were approximately 688,000 violent crimes and robberies that were committed with firearms. Making the greatly underestimated assumption that the 109 million firearms purchased in the last eleven years are the only firearms in the United States, then only .6% of all guns in the United States were used in violent crimes and robberies in 2009. NOTE: this figure would not include any firearms purchased on the black market or legally purchased prior to 1998. While the fact that approximately 27% of all crimes are committed with firearms, it seems unfair to impose strict regulations upon the 99.4% of gun owners simply to control the theoretical .6% of gun owners who likely did not purchase their firearms legally in the first place.
References:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services, Firearms Programs Division. (2005). Federal firearms regulations reference guide (ATF P 5300.4). Retrieved from <http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf>.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, (2011). Background checks for firearm transfers, 2008 - statistical tables Retrieved from <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.cfm>.
California Department of Finance, (2011). Department of justice (0820). Retrieved from <http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/GovernorsBudget/0010/0820.pdf>.
Federal Bureau of Investigations, Criminal Justice Information Services Division (2009). National Instant Criminal Background Check System: Operations 2009. Retrieved from <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2009-operations-report>.
Moorhouse, J. C., & Wanner, B. (2006). DOES GUN CONTROL REDUCE CRIME OR DOES CRIME INCREASE GUN CONTROL?. CATO Journal, 26(1), 103-124. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
No comments:
Post a Comment