Here's a paper I wrote a while ago (High School?) that addresses the topic. I tried to find the attached bibliography, but couldn't locate it. For a good chunk of the data, I remember using a study done by the United Nations, as it appeared to be the most non-bias source that I could find.
Warning: It's pretty long and drug out (I think I was trying to get to the minimum page requirement and was running out of coherent thoughts). Reading it now, I can see that I was using some fuzzy logic, but it's still correct in regards to numbers.
The topic of gun control has long been the focus of political debate and divided public opinion. At a glance, the debate over gun control seems rather basic: for or against. The discussion goes much deeper however; both sides of the debate bring fourth clouded figures and special cases to advocate their views, which results in a rather uncontrolled mess. This paper will uncover the truths about public ownership of firearms and the laws restricting the ownership of guns. I will explore the relationship between guns and crime. In addition, the constitutionality of gun control will be addressed as well.
Is there really a serious problem with guns in the United States? Proponents are quick to point figures such as the ranking of the United States in firearm deaths. 14.05 out of 100,000 deaths are caused by firearms. Although a few other nations, such as Columbia (55.85 firearm deaths per 100,000 people) are worse off than the United States, there is a clear divide between the frequency of firearm deaths in the United States and other industrialized countries. Canada’s rate is 4.08 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, Germany’s: 1.47, the United Kingdom’s 0.48, France 0.67 (United Nations 106-107). Clearly we are at the head of the pack in this regard. However, a breakdown of these figures shows some very interesting facets. While most people usually consider homicides to be the leading factor in these figures, reality lies elsewhere. The leading cause of firearm deaths in the United States is from suicide. Only 44% of gun deaths in the United States are from homicides. The majority of deaths are inflicted by the perpetrator on himself. Critics point out that if the guns aren’t available, the suicide rates would drop in step with the homicide rates; after all, about 63% of all suicides in the United States involve firearms (United Nations 55). Won’t people find other means to kill themselves though, if guns aren’t available? One may argue that the ease and quickness of using a gun increases the occurrence of unplanned suicides, where the victim shoots himself in a brief moment of despair. Studies have shown however, that the vast majority of suicides are planned out, with at least a day of preparation or deliberation (LaFollette 60). In addition, it is quite apparent that suicide rates are not related to gun availability or firearm homicides. Germany’s suicide rate, 15.8 deaths per 100,000 people, is over 10 times as large as its overall homicide rate, but less than 8% of suicides involved firearms. Japans suicide rate, 17.95 deaths per 100,000 people, one of the largest among in industrialized nations, dwarfs its firearm homicide rate, 0.03 deaths per 100,000 people, by a factor of almost 600! Yet only 0.22 percent of those suicides involved firearms. France and Canada, and Australia all have relatively high suicide rates (greater than 13 deaths per 100,000 people), yet the number of these deaths resulting from firearms is below 20% (in France’s case, below 5%). Clearly, gun availability does not affect suicide rates in any meaningful way. Just because over 60% of suicides in the United States use firearms, does not imply in any way that the overall suicide rate would change if the guns were not available.
Let’s for a moment ignore the factor of guns and just look at the homicide and suicide rates of different countries compared to ours. The rate of intended human deaths (suicides + homicides) in the United States would be about 17 deaths per 100,000 people. For comparison Germany’s would be 16.2 deaths per 100,000 people, Japan’s would be 17.97 per 100,000 people, Canada’s: 13.5 deaths per 100,000 people, France’s 18.1 deaths per 100,000 people, Switzerland’s: 21.8 deaths per 100,000 people, Finland’s rate: 28.1 deaths per 100,000 people, the United Kingdom’s: 7.68 (United Nations 108-109, 112-113). Does the fact that the majority of these deaths in the United States involve firearms make our problem any worse than any of these other nations? Although America is considered by many to be much more dangerous and violent than other industrialized nations, the truth is, we are right in the middle of the pack. Guns do not create the problem; they are merely used more often in the United States because of their availability.
Although our problem with homicides and suicides may not be as pronounced as some would make it out to be, the question at the core of the debate remains: would fewer guns in circulation in the United States lower overall crime rates? Historically, murder rates in the United States have varied quite extensively. Estimates of murder rates before the 1920s range from between 1-6 people per 100,000; however, there is wide consensus that the rate peaked in 1933 at about 10 per 100,000 people. The rate decreased progressively until just after World War II, when is rose slightly. It declined again until it hit a low point in 1958 at about 4.5 per 100,000 deaths. The murder rate remained steady until about 1965, where it began to rise rapidly. By 1972 the murder rate had risen to around 9/100,000. The rate remained virtually flat until 1982, when is declined marginally until 1986 where it rose again. By 1991, United States murder rate stood at 10/100,000. Soon thereafter the rate declined, this process has only accelerated with time. By 1998 the homicide rate stood at 6.3/100,000 down 30% from the 1991 rate (Vizzard 13). Explanations of this recent decline in murder rates overflow. Gun control advocates state the Brady law; on the other side, opponents credit the decline to relaxed restrictions on carrying concealed weapons. California politicians cite their three strikes policy. Police chiefs nationwide are quick to mention innovative police department strategies. It is of interest to note that this decline applied to almost every part of the country as well as Canada, hinting that a single factor would not explain the homicide rate reduction (Vizzard 16).
Anti- gun control lobbyists focus on two main reasons not to ban or further restrict firearms: self defense, and the second amendment. First let’s take a look at self defense. In 1975 a study by four Cleveland physicians concluded that the risk to a person housing a gun exceeded any benefit derived from the self defense provided (Cothran 34 ). The gist of this argument is that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used in accidents or suicides rather than against crimes. The problem with this assessment remain quite apparent; while suicide statistics and firearm accidents numbers are reasonably reliable and easy to access, the data of guns used in self defense remains quite elusive. Attempts to estimate the number of incidents where firearms are used disrupt crime have yielded a wide range of results. Estimates of defensive gun uses (DGU) annually range from 50,000 up to 2.5 million annually. Given the wide range of estimates, it’s quite difficult to estimate firearms effectiveness in stopping violent acts. Using the figures given by the Department of Justice in its National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), we can place a rough estimate on the extents of DGUs. The survey estimates that between 64,000 and 85,000 DGUs take place per year in the United States. The survey found that 15.7 percent of the respondents reported that the DGU “almost certainly” prevented the attacker from killing them or any person; an additional 14.2 percent said the DGU “probably” saved their life or a life of another. Using the low end figure of 64,000, we can estimate that approximately 30% of DGUs almost certainly or at least probably save the life of the victim. That comes out to a bit over 19,000 lives possibly saved per year from defensive gun uses. With about 23,500 homicides per year in the United States, this number is quite significant (Vizzard 17-19). While gun control advocates respond to these figures, stating that respondents are quick to categorize the DGU as life threatening, when in fact, it isn’t. Even if this claim is partially true, it is quite apparent that DGUs play a significant role in interrupting violent crimes. Furthermore, most studies have a much higher estimation of the number of DGUs annually; it’s quite hard to ignore the fact that the 19,000 lives possibly saved per year could quite well be a low end figure.
The second focus of the anti gun lobbyists is the 2nd Amendment, which reads: “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.” Many people insist that this was put in place to defend America from foreign invaders. The colonies after the American Revolution did not have a large standing army, and even in the war, depended quite heavily on militias. It’s quite apparent that this was not their intention. Democracy: rule by the people, the ultimate form of democracy is the security of the rights of the people by the people themselves. To oppress a people and rule a people uncontrolled, it is essential for a government to strip the people of its power, in this case quite literally. Our founding fathers, realized that the Revolutionary War, a war to overthrow an unjust government, would not have been won if the colonists were unarmed. Noah Webster wrote: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops..." He went on "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." (You Debate) James Madison stated, regarding the 2nd Amendment, The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "A militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms.” (You Debate)
It is quite apparent that we were granted our right to keep and bear arms not merely for recreational use but to fundamentally protect or freedoms. In this manner, the Brady Law and others laws of its nature are directly infringing on our right to protect ourselves. Banning weapons that could easily and effectively kill others seems like a good measure, by the founding fathers were not talking about guns used for recreational use. Until the 20th century it was perfectly legal and accepted for a citizen of the United States to possess any weapon that was available. Citizens were not restricted to out of date weapons. The citizens of America had to be able to protect themselves and their freedoms. Why should we be restricted to less lethal firearms today? Was that not the intent of the Second Amendment: for the people to literally protect themselves from federal intrusion? One could take that point to the other extreme though. Because our right to keep and bear arms should not be restricted, should citizens then be allowed to house weapons of mass destruction? Even the most active gun lobbyist would agree that this should not be the case. There are limitations to our personal freedoms, and the right to keep and bear arms is included. Where is the line drawn? I would argue that the citizens of the United States should be able to own automatic weapons. It is almost impossible to argue that a group of people only armed with hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns would be able to adequately defend themselves against a modern army. Of course, it is very improbable that gun control laws already in place will be invalidated. Furthermore, the public as a whole, does not see the need to protect themselves from the government as critical or even important. While the colonists in the late 1700s saw governments oppressing freedom loving people, we do not see this as ever happening in America. Public support for banning automatic weapons remains stable at over 85%. In a recent survey 82% of those polled supported mandatory police permits before any gun is purchased (Smith 159). People today see the need for the authorities to regulate and restrict firearms, while Americans living in the 18th and 19th century were fighting against that very thing. Does this change the applicability of the 2nd Amendment; is it safe to nullify or disregard the 2nd Amendment because our concerns and thinking are not the same as those who wrote the Bill of Rights? Should we alter something as fundamentally basic as the Bill of Rights, or do we accept the deaths from the firearm shootings as the price of the freedom? Freedom does have a price. For free speech the price is political dissent. Like flag burning, the freedom of religion allows the toleration of beliefs that differ from the masses. The right to assemble means that the neo-Nazi and clans can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. The price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like when a crime is committed with a gun. Reasonable laws can help limit these occurrences. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. Is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom (Gun Debate) ?
Public opinion towards gun ownership is often swayed by tragedies; school shootings are often the clearest reminder of what firearms can do in the wrong hands. The killings at Santana High School in Santee, California, and Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, illustrate the impact that guns have on our communities. Springfield, Oregon; Fayetteville, Tennessee; Pomona, California; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Paducah, Kentucky; Bethel, Alaska – gun control advocates cry out for justice (Graff 2). Is this merely the price of freedom? About 16,500 Americans die annually from firearm homicides, is that too many people to just brush off as the price to pay? Twice as many people die each year in car accidents (Vehicle Index). Over 13,000 Americans die each year from falling. Almost 15,000 die annually from drug and alcohol abuse (Safety Council). Are gun related deaths just another statistic that should be accepted as a fact of life? As callous as it sounds, in a large part, yes. That may not be too comforting to a mother who just lost a son in a school shooting, but it’s the truth. Guns have always been a part of American life and always will be. In 1968 it was estimated that there were 90 million firearms in private hands in America. By 2000 that number had grown to between 193 million and 243 million, and approximately 50% of households hold at least one gun (Vizzard 23).
This is not a phenomenon of the 20th century either. Guns were extremely prevalent in early America. In fact in 1650 Connecticut passed a law that required every man above the age of 16 to own a good musket or other gun fit for service. Likewise Massachusetts passed a law that fined a person five shillings for failure to own a gun and ammunition. Rhode Island ordered “no man shall go two miles from his town unarmed, either with Gun or Sword; and none shall come to any public meeting without his weapon.” A five shilling fine was instituted for failing to comply. Several colonies also passed laws that ordered every male to carry a firearm to church. Some militiamen leaders were even ordered to go door to door to make sure the inhabitants were well armed (New England). Clearly gun control was not on the minds of the colonists; on the contrary, it is very clear that gun ownership was deemed very essential.
Programs and laws can and should be instituted that do not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Restricting firearm sales to felons, firearm safety programs, age requirement for gun ownership, and concealed weapon permits are all good examples of promoting firearm safety and awareness without infringing on the right to own guns. However, basic gun ownership in America is not a problem and does not need to be addressed. It is our basic right to own guns, and fundamentally important in protecting our freedoms; as Patrick Henry asked, "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense (Bass 11)?”
' The only guns that you would have that the state would not be aware of are the private trades outside of the paperwork trail... or taking grandads 30/30 as a memento when he dies.
