Currently in the United States it seems every other day there is a breaking news story about a homicide involving a firearm, or a mass shooting.  As a direct result of the increased media coverage in the twenty-first century, gun control and violence have become household issues argued about more passionately than ever.  While violence in the United States may seem more prevalent than ever before, the facts suggest this is not the case.  Violent crime, including that involving firearms, has instead been on a steady decrease since the 1990's.  This then raises the question: is gun control the answer to firearm-related violence in United States?  While this may seem a logical fix at first (i.e. if there are fewer guns, there must be lesser gun crime), gun control has actually proven time and time again to not only be ineffective, but to raise the violent crime levels.

The discussion surrounding gun control and regulation has had a long-lasting presence throughout United States history.  Since the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, new laws and regulations have been instituted over time.  The first federally enacted gun control laws following the Second Amendment were introduced in 1934 under the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Their 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 to record the information of all persons who purchased guns.  In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Gun Control Act in response to recent high profile assassinations.  The Gun Control Act of 1968 broadened the regulations of gun sales across state lines and set stricter license requirements for all gun retailers.  Along with these changes, the act also strictly prohibited the sales of firearms to any convicted felon and anyone deemed mentally ill.  The 1968 act has remained a staple of gun control in the U.S. to this day. In the later 1990s, Bill Clinton strengthened the Gun Control Act of 1968 with the addition of comprehensive background checks for all gun buyers.

Johnson's Gun Control Act and Clinton's subsequent expansion of background checks are the only federal gun control laws remaining on the books today, though multiple national and state-level attempts have been made towards enforcing stricter laws and firearm bans.  The most aggressive attempts include the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the California assault weapons ban, and the D.C. handgun ban.  These acts marked the severe political schism over gun control in the U.S.  While these laws initially appeared simple fixes to mass shootings and other gun violence, there was no successful effect as a result.  Christopher Koper, a criminology professor at George Mason University, was brought to testify before Congress in 2004 on the impact of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.  Koper stated, "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."(factcheck.org)  The ban expired later that year, leaving only the expanded Gun Control Act of 1968 and the D.C. handgun ban left in effect. While the D.C. ban was praised by gun grabbers throughout the years it was in effect, the facts show it failed to lessen gun violence.  During the years of the ban, the homicide rate in D.C. averaged 78% higher than in the years outside of the ban; while the national homicide rate averaged 11% lower.  In 2008, the Supreme Court found the ban unconstitutional and it was overturned.  

While gun regulation is not a new topic, the argument today is more ferocious and dividing than at any other time in history.  The discussion has surged surrounding the recent mass shootings under the Obama Administration.  The issues today remain similar to those of the 80's and 90's: closing gun show loopholes, whether to bring back the weapons bans, interpreting the Second Amendment, and whether or not the availability of guns correlates to increased gun violence.  These problems have been the center of battles on Capitol Hill and key components in deciding the ongoing elections.

The reason the issue is so widely debated, and why we can't simply take away all the guns in the country, is because of its foundation within our Constitution and the importance of the Second Amendment.  The amendment states, "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."  (2nd Amendment) The Bill of Rights sets the United States apart from the rest of the world, as a set of clearly defined rights of the citizens that cannot be infringed upon.  While many people think the Second Amendment was only relevant in the old days, when there wasn't a strong police presence in many parts of our country. The second amendment is still relevant today.  The purpose of the amendment was to prevent the government from having too much physical power, along with preventing tyranny. Some argue this purpose no longer needs to be served, but the symbolism of this issue is still largely important.  This country has always prided itself on a balance of powers, the symbol of which the Second Amendment strongly defends on the level of the independent citizen. In addition, the right to protect oneself is still relevant and, unfortunately, will always be present.  A gun can equalize a defenseless person with an overpowering intruder or any person who intends to do them harm.  It is often overshadowed how many people don't even need to pull the trigger to avoid an attacker, as well as the sheer number of people that are saved by guns each year.  According to 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." (vpc.org) While that is a small number compared to the amount of victims of violent crime, it is a significant number of victims of violent crime avoided.  It is commonly said that one doesn't want a gun, until they need the gun.  The right to defend oneself is essential and a firearm can undoubtedly prove a strong protective agent for a responsible gun owner.

Despite highly publicized gun violence, owning firearms hasn't been banned in the U.S. due the rights engrained in our history, but also due to sheer facts that defend the pro-gun argument.  Other countries have easily banned firearms without a Second Amendment standing in their way. Yet, there has also been no significant correlation between the bannings and reducing gun violence. In the United Kingdom, " 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) While the evidence doesn't necessarily suggest that the increase was a result of the ban, there was certainly no success in reducing gun violence and homicides, as was the case with the D.C. handgun ban. Ireland also experienced a continuous increase in homicide rates following their own large scale gun confiscation. According to the Mises Institute,  "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)   

Arguably the best data against gun control in the U.S. was from the city of Chicago.  Despite some of the country's strictest gun control laws having been in place for years, the city still holds one of (if not the highest) gun crime rates in the nation, year after year.  Not only did the crime rate remain consistently high, but the number of homicides involving handguns significantly increased after the ban on them.  In fact, after the ban took effect, " the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns [was] 40% higher than before the ban, and [had] spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime." (Infowars)  Protestors can attempt to disclaim this correlation, but whatever the cause may be, the evidence shows that gun crime goes up when guns are banned.  In addition, data shows that neighborhoods with the lowest gun crime 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.  To a criminal in Chicago, there is a very small chance that a potential victim might have a gun to defend themselves with.  "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) The extremely high number of guns being seized after crimes indicates the disproportionately high number of guns that must be owned illegally in Chicago, suggesting why a ban on the legal owning of guns does not solve the violence. Also, a legal gun owner will have a low capacity magazine, versus the criminal who could theoretically 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 themselves, it seems to create a bolder criminal, which in turn leads to hundreds of homicides a year like Chicago consistently has. 

Consequently, a federal firearm ban or limit on magazine capacity would largely only affect 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.  According the LA Times, "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) These kinds of collections from gun raids are far from unusual. Therefore, gun restrictions and bans largely only put a law abiding citizen's fundamental right to defend themselves on the backburner.  MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said that only about "3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those gun." And, of prisoners who committed crimes while possession guns, "between 3 and 11 percent purchased the weapon at a store or gun show." (Politifact)  At the very best, a strict ban on guns could stop around 10% of gun violence.  Yet, the costs of such would completely strip away any law abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves.  Given the results of previous gun bans, both foreign and domestic, such a ban would likely increase the gun crime higher than the 10% that might have been prevented. 

Both sides of the argument are equally as passionate about their respective views, but believe in different solutions to a common end: what's best for the people of the United States.  Those in favor of more gun control largely address what firearm use is appropriate for civilians, the occurrence of accidental deaths, and the problem of suicides.  One of their most common demands 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 differences 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. It shoots one of the smallest rifle rounds on the market, packing significantly less punch than your average deer hunting rifle.  Yet, the weapon is referred to as an "assault" because of its cosmetic features.  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.  The adjustable stock and pistol grip provide comfort while shooting, and the military looking rails provide ease when changing out scopes and sights. Still, 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 all gun crime.  Therefore, a ban on "assault" weapons is just another proposal that would only significantly hinder the law abiding citizen and sport shooter.  But, those arguing in favor of increased gun control also commonly address accidental gun deaths in the United States.   Though there are a noteworthy amount of accidental shooting deaths in the United States, the number is not as serious as most people might suspect.  By the numbers, you are far more likely to be poisoned than killed by a gun, and 21.5 times more like to die from heart disease than by gun. (ProCon.org)  Gun deaths account for only 1.3% of deaths in the United States even including homicides.  The best way to combat accidental deaths, a much smaller portion of gun deaths than homicide or suicide, is to ensure that gun safety is properly taught.  There will always be irresponsible people, but that problem is not worthy enough to warrant more gun control.  This is especially true considering that the proposed solutions to gun violence would not disclude these irresponsible buyers, the true sources of the problem.  Still, the third most common argument used by the pro-gun control side 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.  While suicide is a tragic problem in the United States, there will always be a way.  If someone is set on harming themselves, they will.  There is no doubt that suicides need to be addressed, but guns again are not the issue or solution. There will always be people who believe guns are useful and do more harm than good.  The famous saying goes you will never want a gun until you need one.  

So, if gun control is not the answer to gun violence, what is?  There are steps that can be taken and that have proven to reduce violence in the past.  Holding guns accountable for murder also implies that knives and other weapons should be held accountable, but no one demands control over those. Many Americans think violent crime is on the rise, but that simply isn't the case.  Violent crime has been in a steady decline since the early 90's, but many would agree there is still some 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, a decline in the number of youth of the high crime age, and the War on Drugs.  Whether or not these theories can account for the decline, it has been scientifically proven that significantly higher crime rates correlate with poorer neighborhoods than those with wealthier neighborhoods.  This creates a sort of trap and revolving cycle. The National Center for Fathering, an organization that investigates and supports the situations held by children of single parents, conducted studies that showed 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless and that single-parent children are much more likely to engage in sexual activity at an early age. They conducted one study with "a sample of 1409 rural southern adolescents (851 females and 558 males) aged 11  --  18 years, [and] 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) Additionally, 45% of children from single-parent households live under the poverty line, and they are statistically more likely to commit crime.  Some of these situational factors create a trap for a lot of kids in poor neighborhoods.  My solution to violent crime is to address the societal issues that affect our country's people, because is is the people who commit the crimes, not the guns.  They way a kid is raised or how they are 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 isn't taught morals and the difference between right and wrong, the chance they'll commit crime is higher. We must combat societies decline of morals, which in turn would combat poverty and crime.  Guns are only a tool, just like any other, and it takes a certain kind of person to be on the other end of it pulling the trigger for the wrong reasons.

At the end of the day the amount of decrease in crime since the 90's is significant and something to be thankful for.  If it was not for the mainstream media perhaps people would have a better understanding of the progress made.  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.  It has never worked in the United States or other countries.  There are still ways to decrease crime farther, not through gun control.  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. 
