Brandy Lewis

Kaplan University

CJ490-03AU

Professor J. Price

October 28, 2009

Abstract

Recent tragic deaths committed by the use of firearms have begged the question of whether a ban on firearms, handguns in particular, may be a preventative tool in curbing the gun related violence in the United States. This research proposal is intended to provide information on what has already happened to other countries that have adopted the policy of banning most types of firearms and the negative effects that have occurred as a direct result of such types of bans.

It is believed by many that recalling guns and destroying them, will take the killing element out of the country’s inhabitants. Recent studies however, have shown that if this is type of gun control is allowed, it will leave those who fight for the justice of the people of the United States as well as many law abiding citizens vulnerable to attacks by armed criminals. As debate rages on about the destroying all registered and privately owned firearms, there are several completed studies that show the negative effects already taking place in some other parts of the world.

Negative Effects of Gun control on law enforcement and private citizens.

Theory:

Gun control laws may have a negative impact on law enforcement personnel and law abiding citizens.

Hypothesis:

Criminals still obtain weapons to use against law enforcement personnel and potential victims, leading to the fact that better education can help in protecting against armed criminals for both private citizen and law enforcement personnel.

Review of Literature:

To begin seeing these negative affects, research conducted by Professor Lott and David Mustard (1996) had the surprising outcome that criminals respond better to deterrence (such as armed citizens and officers) than criminals who face little resistance while committing their crimes. Lott and Mustard, having reviewed the FBI’s crime statistics for every county in the United States from 1977 through 1992, estimate that even with using very conservative numbers, almost 78,000 violent crimes may have been avoided had the victims in every state been issued concealed permits to carry firearms via “shall issue” laws. The states that do have shall issue laws actually had a decline in crime such as; murders went down 8.5%, aggravated assaults 7%, rapes 5%, and robbery 3%. On this study alone, one can easily see that taking the firearms out of the hands of those who defend themselves and private, law abiding citizens would be at a huge disadvantage if extreme gun control laws were passed destroying the protection and deterrence already in existence.

The tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech University is also brought to light in a study conducted by John Stossel. On a fateful day at Virginia Tech University, one gunman killed 32 people and himself, but Stossel states that it would not have diminished what occurred by gun control having been in place. As an example, Stossel compared a similar situation to Virginia Tech that had taken place in Dublane, England where 16 kids were shot and killed in 1997. The latter tragedy led the United Kingdom to rigorously pass one of the strictest laws in the modern world concerning gun control. Citizens in the U.K. were banned from owning handguns, making it illegal to own them. Since the ban was enacted and citizens turned over their firearms to be destroyed, gun related crimes have almost doubled and are on a steady rise. It is thought that gun crimes are on the rise as there is not as much to deter the criminals who have illegal weapons in their possession despite the fact that the U.K. has a handgun ban in effect. (John Stossel et al 20/20 et al ABC News, April 26, 2007)

According to recent research done by Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2006, gun crimes reported to police have declined to an 8 year low. Using The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) of 600,000 crimes using firearms from 1973 through 1993, gun crimes were most prevalent in 1993 but, have radically dropped and have only slightly fluctuated. 1993 shows that the UCR was at its highest in the 20 years prior and 13 years since to 2009. (Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) et al. Office of Justice Programs (OJS), et al. United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), 2006).

In a study conducted by Reynolds of Texas A&M University and Caruth of National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), 15 common myths are answered through their research and were proven to be incorrect. The following four myths are deemed most vital to the questions of gun control, law enforcement, and private law abiding citizens in this paper;

Myth: “Gun control laws reduce crime.”

“The nation already has 20,000 gun control laws and the police arrest 220,000 people a year on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all time high…”

Myth: “Guns are of little help in defending against criminals.”

“Guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from 2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000…”

Myth:  “Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns.”

“In surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they had owned a handgun. But less than one in six guns had been purchased from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions.”

Myth: “People don’t need guns for self-protection because they can rely on the police.”

“About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. Considering that, effectively, there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people… ” (Reynolds and Caruth, 1992, executive summary section, p. 2-3)

LaPierre, CEO of the NRA and author, argues that it was the first President of the United States of America, George Washington, who stated: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined.” (LaPierre, 1994, p. 8 ) If the Founding Fathers believed that U. S. citizens should bear arms against atrocities such as occurred during the Boston Massacre, when unarmed citizens were shot by the British soldiers in 1770, why is there any question about the second amendment rights today? Being unarmed did not protect the citizens on that fateful day, nor has it in many other instances that continue through today.

Research design:

Quasi-experimental design would be best suited for further research into the study of the effects of gun control on law enforcement and the citizens of the U.S., and criminals/crime committed using firearms. Comparative evaluations from countries such as England and Sweden lends very valuable information related to this study along with states in the US that use policy such as “shall issue” also known as concealed carry permits.

Sampling:

Information from several states in the United States and comparison not only of existing policy on “shall issue” laws, also whether said states have lower or higher crime rates compared to states in the union that do not use concealed permits. Criminal and statistical databases such as United States Department of Justice Statistics and the FBI’s UCR will be used to conduct more studies. The aforementioned research has revealed that less than 400,000 crimes committed per year over a 36 year period is the median for violent gun related crime overall. In a country with 307,000,000+ citizens, violent gun crimes amount to less than an 8% estimate of the total population versus gun crimes per year. When viewed in these terms, the firearm crimes are relatively low.  (United States Census Bureau, 2009)

Proposed Solution Theory:

Given the amount of research placed on all of these previous studies, there is a vast amount of negative statistical effects that have been shown to have a dramatic impact where gun control is concerned. An evaluation of similar policy and procedure already in place will help to determine the effects that have transpired. Research has also been done outside of the United States that has had similar results to the studies listed in this reading. Perhaps more policy such as “shall issue” laws in each state and better education of how to use firearms effectively and safely may be a more appropriate solution. Rather than making firearms illegal to all citizens in the United States, it may be possible to promote mandatory education before gun ownership to help close the chasm that is still in existence. Also having mandatory safety permits for personal firearms gives better options for gun control laws and policies to be implemented by governing agencies.

Conclusion

Had firearms not been invented, there would be no need for research on this subject. The reality is that guns do exist, however. Disarmament does not seem as if it will truly protect law enforcement or the hundreds of millions who reside in the US. Having seen the statistics and data collected on gun crimes versus gun control, the citizens and law enforcement personnel seem much safer than would be for potential crimes committed against those who fight for a truly free country. Guns, ammo, firearms, etc. are an affect of life and the world; they will also remain so. Taking the element away as a defense has possible catastrophic effects.

The push for gun control by governing officials may be ill advised when considering getting firearms out of the hands of all citizens. Taking firearms out of the hands of our law enforcement agencies and average citizens will not remove the guns out of the hands of criminals; it will just leave the rest vulnerable and less able to defend their self. Violent crime using firearms has gone down without stripping law abiding citizens of the second amendment. The United States can control gun related crimes while still maintaining personal liberties, safety, and protection of law enforcement officers.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics, (January 25, 2008) Crimes committed with firearms, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), et al Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and et al United States Department of Justice (USDOJ). Retrieved on October 28, 2009 from: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

LaPierre, W. (1994). Guns, crime, and freedom. Washington, D.C.: Grenery Publishing, Inc.

Lott, J.R. Jr., (1996) Professor University of Chicago Law School, More Guns Equal Less Violent Crime, L.A.R.G.O.-Lawful And Responsible Gun Owners, Retrieved on October 28, 2009 from http://www.largo.org/Lott.html

Reynolds, M.O. & Caruth III, W.W., (December 1992), Myths about gun control, NCPA Policy Report No. 176, ISBN 0-943802-99-7, retrieved on October 28, 2009, from National Center for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

Stossel, J., (April 26, 2007), Gun control isn’t crime control, Stricter Gun Control Laws Wouldn’t Have Prevented Va. Tech Tragedy, ABC News 20/20, information retrieved October 28, 2009 from http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

US & World Population Clock, October 28, 2009, U.S. Census Bureau, Retrieved on October 28, 2009 from http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Some similarities between juvenile and adult justice systems are; both have penalty systems that range from mild to severe punishments depending upon the type of crime committed. If a problem child runs away over and over, then counseling or trying different foster parents may be a few methods that are used. Most children will not run away over and over from a happy home. On the other hand, an adult who runs away from their obligations will also be made to face the problem head on to try and correct it. The same applies for both juvenile and adult offenders who are violent; more severe and longer lasting punishment will result. When sentencing a juvenile, their age and lack of maturity or understanding of the ramifications still needs to be taken into account however, therefore making the need for adult and juvenile justice systems exist. The laws have made some leeway of keeping the differences for severe punishment of juvenile and adult offenders separate in that the death penalty no longer applies to any persons under the age of 18. The maximum sentence that can be given to a juvenile offender is life without possibility of parole. While this sounds less harsh than the death penalty, to the mind of the child with a life sentence, knowing that they can never get out into the sunshine or to have children or get married or anything a normal teenager should be looking forward to, becomes too much to bear and they will or will attempt to commit suicide while incarcerated. It is a harsh reality to bear to somebody who “just did something dumb one night when they were 15.” There are no easy ways to deal with such violent offenses from juvenile offenders, but they must also be made to pay for crimes of such a severe nature.  As long as children remain more innocent and less capable in the minds of society, there will always remain a need to have separate justice systems. The need for separate justice systems remains to this day, as it should. There is a far greater chance for a juvenile offender to stop the cycle of recidivism than a hardened criminal would.