Gun Control and Violent Crime

In the United States, the debate over the implementation of additional gun control laws remains heated and controversial. The arguments in favor of such laws are usually predicated on the notion that stricter gun control laws will reduce violent crime by making firearms more difficult from criminals to obtain. Such ideas seem to make sense, but when the actual impacts of gun control legislation are studied it becomes apparent that gun control legislation does nothing to limit the availability of firearms to criminals and has no positive impact on rates of violent crime. When examining the available data, a few truths emerge: high rates of gun ownership do not correlate with murder rates, the majority of criminals are already obtaining firearms through illegal methods, and guns themselves are only a small factor in violent crime as a whole. The above realities become apparent when the data is closely examined, and have led the US National Academy of Sciences to conclude that there is no evidence that gun control laws reduce violent crime, suicides, or even deaths due to gun accidents (Crooker, 2003). A similar conclusion was reached after a separate analysis was performed by the Center for Disease Control.

The central argument for increased gun control legislation is that restricting the availability of guns will reduce violent crime. When data about the correlation between murder rates and gun ownership are examined, however, it becomes apparent that reduced rates of gun ownership do not correlate with lower homicide rates. An example can be seen in Finland, which has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe, with 39,000 firearms owned for every 100,000 people (Jacobs, 2002). Given this information, it would be expected that Finland would have a higher homicide rate than other European countries with tougher restrictions on gun ownership. In reality, the opposite is true; Finland’s murder rate is just 2.2 per 100,000 people (Jacobs, 2002). To place this figure in context, Russia has a murder rate of 9.7 and the United States, often cited as an example of a very violent developed nation, has a homicide rate of 4.8 (Jacobs, 2002). Looking at these numbers from the perspective of a gun control advocate it would be expected that both the US and Russia both have a high rate of firearm ownership, yet Russia’s rate of gun ownership is just 4,000 per 100,000 people. Further evidence can be seen in Washington D.C., which passed sweeping gun control legislation in 1976 which both banned handguns completely and required that other types of firearms kept in the home to be unloaded and disabled by the use of a trigger lock. Surely, it was believed, such potent legislation would keep Washington’s murder rate in check. In reality, the opposite happened, Washington’s homicide rate increased by 73% as of 2006, even when rates of violent crime were on a downward trend nationwide (Hickey, 2006). Advocates of gun control cite the lax gun laws in nearby Virginia as a reason the ban has been ineffective, yet if there was a correlation between gun availability and murder rates it would be expected that Virginia would have somewhat comparable homicide rates. Yet as of 1999, Washington DC had a staggering murder rate of 46.4 per 100,000 people, while the total Virginia metropolitan area had a murder rate of just 6.1 (Jacobs, 2002).

Similar examples of the failure of gun control laws are abundant and provide clear evidence that alternative strategies for reducing violent crime should be pursued. Illinois, for example, has some of the strictest open carry laws in the United States and Chicago’s overall gun control regulations are similarly strict. Despite these laws, Illinois has a murder rate above the national average, and Chicago’s is over three times the national average (Utter, 2000). In the 1990s, England doubled down on its gun control policies with the addition of a complete ban on handguns. Despite this, England and Wales experienced a surge in violent crime rates, which exceeded those of the United States by the year 2000 (Linskey, 2013).

Further evidence of the ineffectiveness of gun control legislation can be seen in the fact that guns play only a small role in national rates of violent crime. Gun control advocates are quick to harness the anti-gun fervor that sweeps the nation following a mass shooting or similar tragedy, and with the sensational media coverage surrounding them, it’s easy to buy into the narrative that such events are increasing in damage and frequency. Rarely, however, are the emotional appeals surrounding such tragedies put aside in favor of an examination of the hard evidence. Mass shootings, defined as homicides in which at least three victims perished, made up only 0.8% of all homicides in 2008 (Linskey, 2013). Guns play a similarly small role in violent crime as a whole in the US, a 2008 study by the US Justice Department found that of the 5,340,000 violent crimes committed that year in the United States, in only 8% of them were the offenders visibly armed (Linskey 2013). What of the trend in overall gun violence? Rates of gun homicide in the United States have fallen 49% since 1993, despite a lack of sweeping gun control legislation since then (Crooker, 2003).

While firearms aren’t a factor in most violent crime, there is evidence that the possession of firearms by law-abiding people can be an effective deterrent for such crime. A 1982 survey of prisoners found that throughout their criminal careers, 40% had previously decided on at least one occasion not to commit a crime because they either knew or believed that the would-be victim was armed (Crooker, 2003). The same study found that 69% had personally known at least one other criminal that had been shot at, wounded, or captured by an intended victim who was armed (Crooker 2003). More quantitative research backs up such surveys and shows that firearms are frequently used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the United States. Estimates for firearm discharge in self-defense vary depending on the methodology used to calculate them, but mid-range estimates suggest between 250,000 – 400,000 instances per year (Utter, 2000). These figures dwarf the overall rate of firearm homicides in the United States, which has been estimated by the Center for Disease Control to be roughly 11,078 in 2010. Many proposed forms of gun control legislation invariably would make it more difficult to acquire firearms by legal methods, reducing this deterrent effect. Some advocates for gun control dismiss the need for firearms as a tool for self-defense in the United States, and state that the police are more than adequate protection against crime. The belief that police have a duty to protect citizens against crime is a common misconception and is a standard that the police have gone to court to avoid. In Warren v. District of Columbia, a judge ruled that the police have no duty to provide police services to individuals, even if an emergency dispatcher promises that help will be on the way. Legal possession of a firearm is a necessary tool for survival for many law-abiding citizens, especially those living in some of the most dangerous areas. In Detroit, for example, response times to 911 calls often exceed 50 minutes. While well-intended, gun control laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring a firearm and have little impact on the ability of criminals to do so.

A belief closely held by advocates of further gun control laws is that they will have the intended effect of limiting the ability of criminals to acquire firearms. This notion also evaporates under scrutiny, however. The total number of firearms in the USA is estimated to be between 270,000,000 and 310,000,000. With a population exceeding 300 million, that means there is close to one firearm for every US citizen. (Goss 2006) Despite the strict penalties for illegal possession, such a large supply has led to a thriving black market for firearms in the US. A report by the office of US Senator Chuck Schumer found that in only 13% of crimes involving a firearm was the offending weapon acquired through legal channels (Goss, 2006). Theft of firearms is widespread, and one Department of Justice study found that an estimated 230,000 guns are stolen each year from homes and businesses (Utter, 2000). Purchasing a firearm on the black market is also extremely easy for any motivated individual. Mike Bouchard, the former assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, has stated that purchasing a gun on the black market is so cheap and easy that “If you talk to any criminal, they can find a gun within an hour or two. Cheaper guns that were stolen can be sold for $50. On the street, a typical good handgun will run you $200 to $300" (ABC News Radio, 2013). When these facts are examined, it becomes clear that contrary to their intended effect, gun control legislation that makes it more difficult to acquire firearms through legal methods will further shift the balance of criminals being well-armed while law-abiding members of society have a more difficult time obtaining a firearm.

Most attempts at passing gun control legislation come from a sincere desire to save lives and reduce violent crime, yet large swaths of support for such legislation comes from appeals to emotion rather than facts. The available evidence shows both that firearms play a rather small role in the entirety of US violent crime, and that there is no correlation between rates of gun ownership and murder. There is a large and vibrant black market for firearms in the United States, and it is already extremely easy for a motivated criminal to acquire one. Further gun control legislation only serves to make it more difficult to legally acquire a gun, making it more likely that a criminal will be armed while an intended victim is not. Reducing violent crime is an extremely important endeavor, but methods used to do so should be rooted in reality and chosen based on the available evidence.

References

ABC News Radio. (2013) ‘Hot’ guns fueling crime, US study says. ABC News Radio. Retrieved from http://www.eastidahonews.com/2013/01/hot-guns-fueling-crime-us-study-says/

Crooker, C. E. (2003). Gun control and gun rights. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Goss, K. A. (2006). Disarmed: The missing movement for gun control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hickey, T. J. (2006). Taking sides. Dubuque, IA: Contemporary Learning Series/McGraw-Hill.

Jacobs, J. B. (2002). Can gun control work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linskey, A. (2013, September). Mass shootings fuel fear, account for fraction of murders. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-17/mass-shootings-fuel-fear-account-for-fraction-of-murders.html

Utter, G. H. (2000). Encyclopedia of gun control and gun rights. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.