Today in the United States it seems every other day there is a breaking news story on a homicide involving a firearm, or a mass murder.  As a direct result of the increased media coverage gun control and violence has became a household issue and argued about more passionately than ever.  While the violence in the United States may seem worse than ever before, that is not the case.  Violent crime, including crime involving firearms, has been on a steady decrease since the 1990's.  Which raises the question is gun control the answer to violence in United States?  While it may seem like a simple fix, take away guns and there won't be gun crime, gun control has proven time and time again to not only be ineffective, but raise the violent crime levels.

The problem of gun regulations and control is far from a new issue.  Since the second amendment was ratified in 1791, new laws and regulations have occurred throughout history.  The first federal gun control laws were enacted in 1934 under the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.  The purpose was to raise the prices and limit the availability of high powered firearms commonly used by gangsters during the prohibition era.  The following year the federal firearms act was passed by congress.  The FFA was enacted with the purpose of requiring all sellers to obtain a federal license, and record the information of all persons who purchase guns.  In 1968 President Johnson passes the gun control act in response to recent high profile assassinations.  The Gun control act of 1968 broadens the regulations of gun sales across state lines and sets stricter license requirements for an gun retailers.  Along with these changes it strictly prohibits the sales of firearms to any convicted felon and anyone deemed mentally ill.  This act has remained the staple of gun control to this day.  Bill clinton strengthened the gun control act of 1968 with comprehensive background checks of all gun buyers.

While the gun control act of 1968 and the expansion of background checks by Bill Clinton is the only gun control laws on the books remaining today, there have been multiple attempts on stricter laws and firearm bans.  The biggest bans being the federal assault weapon ban, the california assault weapon ban, and the D.C. handgun ban.  These acts began the severe divisiveness politically over gun control.  While these acts seemed like a simple cure to Mass shootings and gun violence, there was no effect as a result of the bans.  Christopher Koper, a criminology professor at George Mason University was brought to testify before congress in 2004 on the impact of the federal assault weapon ban.  Koper state "In general we found, really, very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect."  The ban expired that year leaving only the expanded gun control act of 1968, and the D.C. handgun ban left in effect. While the D.C. Handgun ban was praised by pro gun grabbers throughout the years it was in effect, the facts show it was a failure.  During the years of the ban the homicide rate in D.C. averages 78% higher than in the years outside the ban, while the homicide rate in the U.S. averaged 11% lower.  In 2008 the supreme court found the ban unconstitutional and it was overturned.  

While Gun issues are not a new topic, today the argument is more ferocious and dividing then it has been in history.  Under the Obama Administration the topic has been brought up constantly following recent mass shootings.  The issues today remain similar to those of the 80's and 90's.  Closing gun show loopholes, whether to bring back weapons bans, interpretation of the second amendment and whether or not availability of guns correlates to increased gun violence.  The problems have been deciding recent elections and been the center of battles on capitol hill.  

The reason this is such a big issue and why we can't just throw in the towel and take all the guns in the country away, is because of the importance of our constitution and the second amendment.  "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 infringed."  The bill of rights is what sets the United States apart from the rest of the countries in the world.  Rights of the citizens that cannot be infringed upon.  While many people think the second amendment was only important in the old days when there wasn't a strong police presence in many parts of our country, it is still relevant.  The whole purpose was to prevent a government from taking too much power and to prevent tyranny.  This may not seem like an actual issue today but the symbolism of it still is.  Not only is the symbol of the second amendment important but along with that the right to protect oneself is still relevant and unfortunately the need to will always be a possibility.  A gun can equalize a defenseless person with an overpowering intruder or any person who intends to harm.  One fact that is rarely talked about in the arguments for gun control is how many people are saved by guns each year, and on top of that how many people don't even need to pull the trigger to avoid an attacker.  According the National Crime Victimization Survey "for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm."  While that is a small number compared to the amount of victims of violent crime, it a very large amount of victims of violent crime avoided.  Many people say you will never want a gun, until you need the gun.  The right to defend oneself is essential and still relevant today. 

While the same gun control has been enacted in the U.S. for years and there have been few bans, there is some evidence to go off of to answer the question.  This also is not just an issue In the United States, many countries have put gun bans and extreme gun laws into action with more facts then we have in the U.S.  "Clearly, homicides increased substantially after 1997 (when the 1997 Firearms Act was adopted), reaching the highest-ever recorded peak at 1.79 homicides per 100,000 in 2002." (Mises Institute)  When the United Kingdom passed the ban of almost all firearms in 1997 the homicide rates grew.  While there is no evidence that this was a result of the ban there have been similar circumstances including the data from the D.C. handgun ban.  "Ireland has a long history of highly restrictive gun control laws, many of them justified on the grounds of combating the IRA and similar organizations. Gun control was stepped up in the early 70s when new legislation was introduced, accompanied by a large-scale gun confiscation operation that occurred when police asked for guns to be turned in "temporarily" for inspection. The guns were never returned by police.  Since then, the homicide rate in Ireland has increased significantly, and in recent years, Ireland has adopted numerous additional gun control laws in the face of growing homicide rates."  (Mises Institute)  Ireland has had continuous increase in homicide rates following their own large scale gun confiscation.  Arguably the best data on gun control failing in the U.S, is the city of Chicago.  With the strictest gun control laws being in place for years, it remains to have one of, if not the highest gun crime rates in the nation year after year.  Not only does it remain high but the number of murders involving handguns significantly increased after the ban on them.  "Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime." (Infowars)  While there is no 100% solid data that links an increase in guns to a decrease in violence, for some reason in the U.S. along with other countries, when guns are banned gun crime goes up.  Along with that the lowest gun crime neighborhoods in the United States, have the highest rate of gun ownership.  If I was a criminal and I knew a person likely had a gun, I would be much more hesitant to rob or victimize that person.  But for a criminal in Chicago there is almost zero chance that victim has a gun to defend themselves.  "Only 7,640 people currently hold a firearms permit in Chicago, but police seized 7,400 guns used in crimes in 2012 alone, the Washington Examiner reports." (Washington Times)  With police in Chicago seizing almost as many guns as there are people who own them, it proves another fact, Criminals don't follow laws which seems pretty self explanatory.  Even if a criminal comes across a gun owner in Chicago, that gun owner will have a low capacity magazine versus the criminal who may even have a fully automatic assault rifle. Illegal to any normal owner in the United States.  When you take away a person's right to defend oneself, it seems to create a bolder criminal which in turn leads to hundreds of homicides a year like Chicago consistently has. 

So even if we were to have a federal firearm ban, or a federal limit on magazine capacity, the only person that will be affected by this is the law abiding citizen.  Police consistently seize fully automatic handguns and rifles packing a considerable amount more firepower than the average law abiding gun owner will ever have access to.  "In several raids stemming from a single case in June, federal agents seized 91 MAC-10 submachine guns in California and Nevada alone. Another 198 were seized elsewhere, along with 196 illegal silencers and 246 silencer kits." (LA Times)  Gun Restrictions and bans only put a law abiding citizens fundamental right to defend themselves on the backburner.  "Scarborough said that about "3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns." Recent studies that look at prisoners who had a gun when they committed a crime found that between 3 and 11 percent purchased the weapon at a store or gun show." (Politifact)  So with a strict ban on guns at best we could stop around 10% of gun violence if not less.  But at a cost of that completely take away any law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves, which based off of past gun bans, might raise the gun crime higher than the 10% saved. 

The other side of the argument is just as passionate about their proposed changes as the anti gun control people are about keeping their full rights.  Some of the arguments used in favor of more gun control revolve mainly around what civilians really need, suicide, and accidental deaths.  One of the most common wants of the pro gun control people is a ban on high capacity magazines and on "assault weapons."  Their argument is that a high capacity magazine or an assault weapon isn't necessary for hunting or self defense.  While that isn't an entirely false claim, the only difference between a semi automatic "assault" weapon and a semi automatic rifle are purely cosmetic and comfort upgrades.  The most commonly used "assault" weapon is the Ar-15.  The Ar-15 shoots one of the smallest rifle rounds on the market.  Packing significantly less punch than your average deer hunting rifle.  The difference is the look.  The Ar-15 looks like a military weapon because of the pistol grip, picatinny rails and adjustable stock.  All used for the convenience of a sport shooter.  Adjustable stock and pistol grip for comfort while shooting, and the military looking rails for ease of changing out scopes and sights. The Ar-15 is less deadly than most semi auto hunting rifles.  On top of that, "assault" weapons make up for less than 2% of gun crime.  It is again just a law that will hinder the law abiding citizen and sport shooter.  One of the most commonly used arguments is about the accidental gun deaths in the United States.   Which is true there a decent amount of accidental shooting deaths in the United States but not as serious of a number as people like to say.  According to the numbers you are more likely to be poisoned then killed by a gun and 21.5 times more like to die from heart disease. (ProCon.org)  Gun deaths result for 1.3% of deaths in the United States including homicides.  The best way to combat Accidental gun deaths which is the smallest portion by a lot compared to homicide and suicide is to make sure gun safety is taught.  There will always be irresponsible people which is unavoidable, that problem is not worthy enough to warrant more gun control.  Especially considering many of those people will still be able to legally buy guns, regardless of the fact they are irresponsible.  And the last argument seen a lot is just the claim more gun control will equal less gun deaths.  And as I stated earlier between 3 and 10 percent of gun homicides are with legal guns.  Which will be the only avoidable homicides if you were to ban all guns from law abiding citizens.  More gun control would do nothing to stop that, just more of an invasion of privacy still leaving guns available and those deaths unavoidable.   

So since gun control is not the answer to gun violence what is?  There are steps that can be taken and have reduced violence in the past.  Saying guns are responsible for murder is saying knives are responsible for stabbing murders as well.  I have never heard anyone want knife control.  Many americans think violent crime is on the rise but that just is not the case.  Violent crime has been in a steady decline since the early 90's, but many would agree there is still work to be done.  The main problem criminologists have is identifying what has caused the decline in crime.  There are many theories, some more far fetched than others.  Some of the most plausible theories include stricter sentencing laws, decline in the number of youths in the high crime age, and the war on drugs.  Whether or not these theories can account for the decline one thing is scientifically backed and that is that there is a significantly much higher crime rate in poor neighborhoods.  This creates a sort of trap and revolving cycle.  Children from single parent households live at a rate of 45% under the poverty line, and on top of that are more likely to commit crime.  71% of high school dropouts are fatherless and single parent children are much more likely to engage in sexual activity at an early age.  "A study using a sample of 1409 rural southern adolescents (851 females and 558 males) aged 11  --  18 years, investigated the correlation between father absence and self-reported sexual activity. The results revealed that adolescents in father-absence homes were more likely to report being sexually active compared to adolescents living with their fathers." (National Center for Fathering)  All this and a lot of other factors creates a trap for a lot of kids in poor neighborhoods.  My solution to violent crime is to address the societal issues of people because at the end of the day people commit crime not guns.  They way a kid is raised and how he or she is parented ultimately determines whether or not that kid will commit crime.  If a kid is exposed to rap music at age 5, which glorifies crime and gang life in the first place, isn't disciplined and looked after, or taught morals and the difference between right and wrong, chance of crime is higher. You combat societies decline of morals, which in turn combats poverty and crime.  Guns are just a tool, same as knives, bats, etc.   Someone needs to be on the other end of it pulling the trigger.

At the end of the day the amount of decrease in crime since the 90's is significant and something to be thankful for.  But just now has gun control become an everyday, household issue.  The problem was never guns.  The problem is people.  Something that expanding background checks or taking away guns that look certain ways will never stop.  There are still ways to decrease crime farther.  Guns always have been and will continue to be a right of the law abiding American citizen, one that is still essential and relevant today.   Is gun control the answer to violence in United States?  While it may seem like a simple fix, take away guns and there won't be gun crime, gun control has proven time and time again to not only be ineffective, but raise the violent crime levels.  The answer is no. 
