Many countries experience gun crimes of which some results in the death of either the criminals or the victims of such incidents. In the United States, the high rates of death due to a high number of people possessing guns have been on the increase therefore necessitating the enacting of laws to reduce the mortality rates. Survey has shown that high availability of guns is directly related to the rise in firearm assault and crimes (Jeffrey, page 6). According to (Kalesan et al., page 1), over ninety people are murdered every day in the USA by use of firearms. With this statistics, the central questions are, will these gun laws reduce the crime and deaths that result from ownership of guns? Is it able to prevent you and me from being part of this worrying statistic?Many have claimed that the introduction of the laws has reduced the crime and deaths rates substantially especially some specific laws enacted at state and national level (Rudolph et al., page 9). According to (Kalesan et al.
, page 9), the implementation of background check, firearm acquisition, and identification laws have considerably reduced the mortality rates of people. However, the rules restricting the purchase of guns are found to reduce the death rate by about 10 -12 % more than those against ownership of the weapon. (Bloomberg, page 57). Possession would mean that during implementation, it will rely on the willingness of the owners to submit the guns or the effectiveness of the authority to disarm them. For the purchase, its blocks the opportunity to have a gun in the first placeAuthorLastName3hence denying the criminals the chance to perpetrate crimes using the weapon. Also according to ((Bloomberg, page 58), the implementation of the laws have led to undistinguishable substitution results to perpetrators concerning the choice of alternative weapon. The criminals’ primary weapon – the gun – when taken, leaves them with no option of a best alternative weapon that can replace the arm, which can result to a higher no of deaths and crimes.
I mean, how many people can they kill for example using a machete compared to a firearm? Very few. Therefore a lot of people lives are saved.The laws have helped avert the injuries and death incidence that children – whose parent have guns – are involved in. According to (Safavi et al., page 3), children in the USA are included in injuries and death associated with firearms compared to other developed countries.
In spite of that, since the enactment of the law, children at regions with stringent gun laws identified to be safer than those living in parts with non-strict gun laws, for example, kids living in Illinois are safe than those residing in Louisiana (Safavi et al., page 4). It must be noted that parents do all they can to protect their family. Some go to the extent of purchasing the guns. However, they don’t know the risk they put the children into since most of them due to the influence of movies they have watched, go an extra mile and use the guns in the absence of their guardians which is very fatal.
All these are reduced by the laws.A lot of homicide cases have reduced in states that have enactedAuthorLastName4the firearm law. Many homicide deaths occurred for a long time before the implementation of the law in the USA especially between people at the age of 15 to 34 years (Rudolph et al., page 2). According to (Rudolph et al, page 10), the implementation of PTP laws (Permit – To – Purchase, an act that necessities a willing gun buyer to have a permit before purchasing a firearm that is dependent upon successfully going through a background check) in Connecticut, has reduced homicide incidence by approximately forty percent. It has also reformed the procedure of acquiring a gun from licenced gun dealers. With this law, an aspiring handgun buyer would have to apply the weapon personally than pass through a dealer who sends his/her application information to the appropriate agency. These stringent measures enable the law enforcers to examine applicants at personal level hence it is easy to cancel those, who they believe, buy guns for criminals or those with evil intentions.
Some of the killings that have happened in the USA has been attributed to people with mental illness primarily the mass shooting reported across the country. The gun laws have resulted in few guns availability to such members of the society. According to (McGinty et al., par 21), the risk associated with carrying out of crimes by persons under treatment for mental illness is high with factors as an abuse of substance and past trauma. Firearms should not be at the disposal of such people, and there is no better way than through the strict implementation of gun laws. However other people in the society have a different opinion toward the claim thatAuthorLastName5gun control laws have reduced crime rates of deaths. They claim that even with the rules restricting the acquisition of guns only after background checks, they can still access firearms and perpetrate crimes. According to (Jeffrey, page 3), in an interview with criminals who are in prison, jailed as a result of crimes involving the use of the gun, over 95% of them claimed to have acquired firearms without being subjected to background checks.
Although laws are set so that everyone can be under it, there are always some people in the society who have developed a dubious mechanism to avoid such regulations. They can bribe officials or even blackmail them to have their way. Nonetheless, their numbers are not always high as compared to the situation whereby this law never existed.Others also argue that the introduction of the law didn’t reduce the crime since there was the right to carry policies. Also even with few guns being sold in the USA, the offenses about firearms remained steady. According to (Jeffrey, page 7), the statistics during the less selling of guns at a period when the implementation of guns law was adequate, the crimes were constant at the usual national average rate of 70%. In my view, some research has resulted in contradicting conclusions just because of inaccurate methodological procedure and analysis of results hence such kinds of insensible figures. It is hardly that there can be a law that doesn’t bear the intended purpose enacted in this world.
At least there will be a considerable positive change.Although there are those against this law, the law has proven to be beneficial since the crime ratesAuthorLastName6and the deaths have reduced in cities and states that have implemented the strict firearm law. The homicide level related to guns have also reduced substantially. With such positive outcomes am optimistic that we won’t be part of the gun crimes and death rate statistics.