American Guns

            In America, the relation between guns and crime is a topic that is continuously being discussed. The National Rifle Association (NRA) argue constantly with pro-gun control supporters. Their argument is generally based on gun control laws and its direct relation to the violent-crime rates in America. The question is, does civilian ownership of guns and Right To Carry (RTC) laws contribute to more violent crime, or do armed citizens deter violent crime? It is rarely considered how many illegal firearms exist throughout the United States and that criminals continue to buy them to commit crimes. Some experts believe that stricter gun control laws would deter violent crime, others believe it is a myth. Authors like John Lott and Robert Levy produce convincing facts supporting RTC laws reducing crime. However, John Donohue III and Scott Medlock question the validity of their data and reveals tactics used by NRA supporters, which exploits the public irrationality that guns keep them safe. Lastly, in most states the current self-defense laws give more support to criminals than to victims.

            No one knows how many firearms are illegally brought into America each year, just as no one knows how many illegal immigrants slip past our borders each year. If we are unable to stop people from slipping into our country, then how can we be sure we are stopping weapons that could fit into a back pack from crossing the border.. Denise Garcia talks about the “abundance” of firearms in most parts of the world. She states, that the question should not be how many guns are in existence, but the ease of access. Also where there is a demand there will always be supply. For criminals that supply is through the “black market”. According to a police officer in Canada, “guns are as ubiquitous as cell phones”. (Garcia) I can assure you that criminals purchase firearms unlawfully because they can not purchase them lawfully.

Rhode Island law, § 11-47-5 and § 11-47-6 states:

"Possession of arms by person convicted of crime of violence or who is a fugitive from justice. – (a) No person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of a crime of violence or who is a fugitive from justice shall purchase, own, carry, transport, or have in his or her possession any firearm.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, no person convicted of an offense punishable as a felony offense under § 12-29-5 shall purchase, own, carry, transport, or have in his or her possession any firearm, for a period of two (2) years following the date of that conviction.

(c) No person who is in community confinement pursuant to the provisions of § 42-56-20.2 or who is otherwise subject to electronic surveillance or monitoring devices as a condition of parole shall purchase, carry, transport, or have in his or her possession any firearm. This subsection shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of (or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to) a crime of violence in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(d) Every person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not less than two (2) nor more than ten (10) years; and for penalties provided in this section he or she shall not be afforded the benefit of suspension or deferment of sentence nor of probation.

Mental incompetents, drug addicts, and drunkards prohibited from possession.- No person who is under guardianship or treatment or confinement by virtue of being a mental incompetent, or who has been adjudicated or is under treatment or confinement as a drug addict, or who has been adjudicated or is under treatment or confinement as an habitual drunkard, shall purchase, own, carry, transport, or have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm. Any person affected by the provisions of this section, other than a person who has been pronounced criminally insane by competent medical authority, after the lapse of a period of five (5) years from the date of being pronounced cured by competent medical authority, may, upon presentation of an affidavit issued by competent medical authority to the effect that he or she is a mentally stable person and a proper person to possess firearms, make application for the purchase of the firearm(s). Any person affected by the provisions of this section, in making application for the purchase of firearms and in executing the application, voluntarily waives his or her right to refuse or refrain from disclosing any confidential information, including, but not limited to, any information arising from the physician-patient relationship, pertinent to a determination by the proper authorities regarding the approval or disapproval of this application. Any person affected by the provisions of this section, in making application for the purchase of firearms and in executing the application, further agrees to allow the proper authorities to investigate any and all medical records of the applicant pertinent to a determination by the authorities regarding the approval or disapproval of this application. In the event that the application is approved, and if the person has no other disqualifying record, he or she will be allowed to purchase and possess firearms."

            These same laws are practiced among most states, and to ensure that the law is enforced it is accompanied with the following; waiting periods (cooling off period), registration, licensing, extensive background checks, and safety test. Bob Adams states, "The one week 'cooling-off period' would make it less likely they [that firearms] would be used in crimes of passion, suicide, or acts of violence that are often committed on impulse." Along with that John Stossel writes, "The Center for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth." Curious as to why gun control laws did not deter crime, Mr. Stossel decided to ask experts, those experts being criminals. One inmate placed in a maximum-security facility in New Jersey stated, "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun, so I could care less if they had a background check or not." Another inmate replied, "There's guns everywhere, if you got money, you can get a gun." It is clear to see that criminals do not obey the law, so stricter gun control laws only impact the majority of the population who can purchase a gun legally. This point can not be ignored; illegal firearms are in America, but pro-gun control lobbyists commonly overlook this fact. The Department of Justice funded a study which confirmed that criminals buy their guns "illegally and easily" (Stossel). I have yet to see a statement by pro-gun control lobbyists recognizing the fact that most criminals purchase illegal firearms with the intention to commit a crime. This fact was made even more visible with the recent showing of Dateline, To Catch a Car Thief which aired on April 10th 2007, where under cover police officers were offered AK-47’s “full auto and right out of the box”. The National Broadcasting Company (NBC) proved during the program that criminals are in the business of crime and laws do not stop them from owning firearms (To Catch a Car Thief).

            If simply examining criminals and taking statements as to where or how they obtain their firearms is not enough, then lets reveal statistical data for support. LaRosa writes, “Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury.” Pro-gun control lobbyists claim that civilian gun ownership is the cause of high crime in America.(LaRosa) I find that statement hard to believe considering statistics show the opposite. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) showed that 4,100,900 violent crimes were carried out in 1981. In 1999 the NCVS showed a drop bring the total number of violent crimes to 2,529,100 (2005 Murder Rate in Cities). How did this happen? Well it certainly was not because Americans stopped buying guns; in fact it was just the opposite. According to the book, Firearms and Violence, A Critical Review, in 1980 Americans owned 167,681,587 firearms, and in 1999 the number increased to 258,322,465 firearms.

            When glancing at the past half century, it is obvious that criminal violence and guns have a negative correlation. Through the 1950s the murder rate in the United States was relatively steady, however the number of guns increased annually by about 2 million. The murder rate doubled though the mid sixties until the early 1970s and still roughly 3 million new guns were bought each year.  By the late seventies the murder rate was declining, even with the increase of 4 to 5 million more guns per a year. The introduction of crack cocaine in the late eighties brought forth an explosion of violent killings, however, it was followed by a sharp decrease in murder through the nineties, even as Americans purchased over 50 million guns. In short, from 1974 to 2003, the circulation of guns doubled and yet murder dropped by a third. (Levy, The Dirty Dozen 124)

            Even more surprising is the fact that every year "three thousand criminals are lawfully killed" by civilians", while police kill less than 1,000 criminals yearly (Levy 88). Guns are used more times for self-defense than for criminal acts. In fact, statistics show that when more armed citizens reside in a state the crime rate is lower. When Rev. Al Sharpton was asked how he felt about allowing qualified Americans to legally carry concealed weapons he replied with, "We'd be living in a state of terror" (Stossel). 32 states have laws allowing civilians to lawfully carry firearms. None of those 32 states have turned in to Dodge City or needed a Wyatt Earp type figure to enforce the law, in fact only one percent shoot their weapon in need of self-defense. Robert Levy makes a note of how harmful disarming civilians can be, and how there is no relation between gun ownership and crime rates. (Levy 88)

            When one looks outside the United States, at the United Kingdom and across Europe, it is easy to see that stricter gun control only increases violent crime. In the nine nations having 16,000 to 39,000 guns to 100,000 population, the average murder rate is 1.17 per 100,000 each year. In nations having 5,000 guns per 100,000 population the murder rate is 5.5 per 100,000 population, almost five times higher. Switzerland, Germany, Norway, and Austria are four European nations that allow handguns and have the lowest violent crimes. In Luxembourg handguns are banned and the murder rate is nine times higher than average, ten times higher in Lithuania, and twenty times higher in Russia where handguns are banned. (The Dirty Dozen 124)

            Joyce Lee Malcolm posted the following graphic in the book “Guns and Violence” on page 165. Please notice the trend in crime between the United Stated and England (including Whales). England has some of the strictest gun control in the free world, yet as they tighten the grip on gun control violent crime increases. (please refer to the graph above for data)

            It is also noted that, "in Australia, for example, the population was disarmed in 1998. Since then, homicides are up 3.2 percent, assaults up 8.6 percent, and armed robberies up 44 percent. In the preceding 25 years, armed robberies and homicides committed with firearms had declined. In Israel, gun ownership is 40 percent above the U.S. [United States] rate, but the murder rate is far lower. When all countries are studied, there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and murder rates" (Levy 89).

            Although Lott and Levy make a convincing argument, John Donohue III believes that Lott’s research is unscientific nonsense. According to Donohue, RTC laws do not reduce crime. He believes that there is statistical evidence that RTC laws increase crime. He begins by refuting Lott, stating that his data showed the impact of RTC laws in 10 states starting in the second half of the 1980s during the introduction of crack cocaine. As noted earlier, during this period violent crime spiked. Lott used data from states that introduced RTC laws yet had less of a crack problem. Therefore the data looks as if the reduction in violent crime was directly related to the RTC laws.  Donohue states, “Lott and Mustard thought to be the restraining effect on crime of RTC laws was more plausibly the product of omitted variable bias owning the inability to control for the criminogenic influence of the introduction of crack cocaine.”

            Kovandzic and Marvell gathered data to strike down Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” theory once and for all. They collected data within Florida on crime and concealed handgun permits from 1980 to 2000. Their conclusion, “we find no credible statistical evidence that increases in permit rate growth leads to substantial reduction in violent crime, especially homicide.” Donohue later said that he believes that more RTC permits may in fact increase crime. (Donohue)

            Another argument in favor of gun control is that the NRA exploits the irrationality of the public. After the terrorist attacks of September 11th the FBI reported that it conducted more than 455,000 background checks for gun buyers in the six months following the attacks. A handgun is entirely ineffective against anthrax or Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), yet people marched out by the thousands and purchased guns in hopes of gaining safety. I would argue that not only does the NRA exploit the irrational fear of the people, but the national media feeds it. Higher security threats, a failing economy and a possible nuclear Iran is constantly being poured into our minds through all sources of media. Lets not forget shows like “Dooms Day Prepares” or the even more fascinating “Dooms Day Bunkers”. I believer that Americans are functioning in ways similar to that of the “Cold War”.  Medlock states, “numerous studies show that the presence of a firearm in the home increases the likelihood of violence against family members.” Even “armed” with this knowledge gun ownership is on the rise. Furthermore, roughly 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year, and yet the firearm industry is the least regulated.

            Another argument that is continuously made is loopholes within the system when purchasing guns. In 1999 two teenagers killed 12 students and a teacher before taking their own lives. The guns that they used were purchased at a gun show through a loophole. Guns are often sold at gun shows without having to conduct background checks. Closing the loopholes is necessary to the safety of the general population.

            Aside from statistics and the irrationality of the human psyche, lets look at guns and self defense laws. Another conflict between the NRA and pro-gun control lobbyists are laws regarding self-defense. NRA have pushed to repeal the "duty to retreat" laws and replace them with the "stand your ground" laws. The NRA clearly points out that "duty to retreat" laws punish victims for defending them selves, while providing protection for criminals. Whereas pro-gun control lobbyists push for stricter self-defense laws, claiming that relaxing the "duty to retreat" laws will only result in a "shoot first, ask later" mentality. (Self-Defense Laws, theory)

            John Lott writes,“People who defend themselves may indirectly benefit other citizens... Cab drivers and drug dealers who carry guns produce a benefit for cab drivers and drug dealers without guns...  Homeowners who defend themselves make burglars generally wary of breaking into homes. These spillover effects are frequently referred to as ‘third party effects’ or ‘external benefits.’ In both cases criminals cannot know in advance who is armed.”(More Guns, Less Crime 5)

            Duty to retreat laws state that a person's primary form of defense is to retreat. If a person chooses to defend themselves before exhausting all other options, and in the process injures or kills their attacker, they can be found guilty for either assault or manslaughter charges (Duty to Retreat). In order to avoid criminal charges, a victim must prove to the court that he or she had no other choice but to defend themselves. In other words, if a criminal wants to steal your car, money, or rob you, you should simply step aside and let them. In many ways the duty to retreat laws give more rights to the criminals than to the victims. A few years ago in New York, a man named Aiken felt threatened by his neighbor named Badgett. Aiken struck Badgett while standing in his doorway. Badgett was killed. Although Badgett had stabbed Aiken two times and had repeatedly threatened to kill him prior to the incident, Aiken was found guilty of manslaughter. According to New York State, the victim has a duty to retreat. The New York Court of Appeals decided that a doorway was a "hybrid public-private space in which a person doesn't have the same reasonable expectations of seclusion as in a home" (Cramer). A reference back to Dateline, To Catch a Car Thief, there were several victims held at gun point with illegal guns. The thieves told the victims that they would be shot if they did not get out of their car.

            Steve Pudlo addresses gun control and self-defense laws in another way. He discusses how laws make it easy to be a criminal. He believes that strict gun control laws disarm honest citizens and lower the occupational hazard of criminals. He states:

            "By taking that ability [the ability to use firearms in self defense] away, you embolden the criminal, lower his occupational risk, lower the cost of getting in the business and you open the field of criminality to more participants. If you make it easier, less costly, to become a doctor, then more people can and will become doctors. If you make it easier [and] less risky to become a criminal, then more people will become criminals. More criminals require more victims to support them, which means more crime. More crime results in the government calling for more gun control, which takes away more people's ability to defend themselves, which lowers the risk and cost of becoming a criminal, and you don't have a symbiotic relationship, but a vicious cycle" (Pudlo).

            Pudlo talks about how to increase the risk of being a criminal. There are two relatively obvious ways to do this; increase the penalties of getting caught, or increase the occupational risk of being a criminal. Increasing the penalties may work for the few criminals that are caught, but that would require the government to catch them. The majority of criminals rarely ever consider getting caught. If they thought they would be caught they most likely would not be criminals. Also increasing the penalties requires more money, which would mean budget cuts or increased taxes. Hard working American citizens already believe the government is wasting tax dollars on a useless war, they do not want more money taken from their paycheck to fund another useless idea. The second way is to increase the occupational risk of a criminal. This is relatively straight forward. Increase the risk of being either injured or killed and most, if not all, criminals will reconsider being a criminal (Pudlo). According to John Stossel a study proved that felons fear armed citizens more than the police or prison. A New Jersey maximum-security inmate said, "when you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them" (Stossel).

            By eliminating the duty to retreat laws attackers would have the right to defend themselves and use deadly force if necessary without the risk of being charged with a crime. It would also raise the occupational risk of being a criminal. Criminals would think twice before committing a crime. The current self defense laws enable criminals to perform their job easier (Self-Defense Laws).

            Lets not forget the shooting at Virginia Tech. University (VT). The gunman claimed 33 victims before taking his own life. Although this tragedy has happened recently and new evidence is being released daily, had the campus police been able to carry firearms the results may have been different. The time wasted waiting for police to arrive gave the gunman more time to attack with minimal opposition. Steve Newton, a former police chief, states, "As a former police officer, I would actually feel safer knowing we had trained civilians who could help me when I needed it."

            In conclusion, stricter gun control and self-defense laws do not deter violent crime. Criminals will continue to buy illegal firearms because they can not get them any other way. Until the United States can completely control its borders illegal firearms will be available to criminals. Statistics have shown in favor of RTC laws, that there is absolutely no relation between a high crime rate and high gun ownership.

         Also, the duty to retreat laws allows criminals to continue because civilians are afraid to defend themselves. The current self-defense laws decrease the occupational risk of being a criminal, therefore criminals have less fear of being injured or killed by a victim. Lastly crime has decreased through the years as gun ownership has increased.

To have a different perspective click the link below
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/07/three-problems-with-american-debate-on.html

Works Cited

"2005 Murder Rate in Cities." Infoplease. 2000-2007 Pearson Education,

            publishing as Infoplease. Web. 2 Apr. 2007.

Adams, Bob. "Gun Control Debate." CQ Researcher 14.40 (2004): 949-972.

            CQ Research Online. CQ Press. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.

Cramer, Clayton. "Duty To Retreat." Shotgun News 1 June 2005. Web. 3 Feb. 2012

Donohue III, John J. “The Final Bullet In The Body of More Guns, LessCrime Hypothesis.” Criminology      &             Public Policy 2.3 (2003): 397-409. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 21 Feb. 2012

"Duty to Retreat." Encyclopedia Wikipedia Online.Web. 21 Feb. 2012

Garcia, Denise. "Determining Ease Of Access To Arms Methodology And Coding."Crime, Law & Social        Change             51.5 (2009): 451-461. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

LaRosa, Benedict D. "Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 1." Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 1.       Oct.             2002. Web. 09 Mar. 2012. <http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp>.

Levy, Robert A. "Gun Ownership Deters Violent Crimes." Gun Violence, Opposing Viewpoints. Ed.    Margaret Haerens. New York: Thomson Gale, 2006. 86-92

Levy, Robert and Mellor, William. The Dirty Dozen. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute (2009) 108-126.          Print.

Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1998) 1-51. Print.

Malcolm, Joyce Lee. Guns and Violence, The English Experience. Massachusetts and England:Harvard           University Press (2002) 165. Print.

Medlock, Scott. "Nra = No Rational Argument? How The National Rifle Association Exploits Public             Irrationality." Texas Journal On Civil Liberties & Civil Rights 11.1 (2005): 39-63.

            SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Newton, Steve. "Concealed Weapons Make Society Safer."

            Gun Violence, Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Margret Haerens. New York: Thomson Gale, 2006. 98-101.

Pudlo, Steve. "America Does Not Need Stronger Gun Control Laws."

            Gun Violence, Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Margaret Haerens. New York: Thomson Gale, 2006.            105-110

"Self-Defense Laws." Issues & Controversies On File 8 Sept. 2006. Issues & Controversies @ Facts .com.      Facts On File News Services. 21 Feb. 2012 .

"Self-defense (theory)." Encyclopedia Wikipedia Online. 14 Feb. 2012

State of Rhode Island General Laws. "Title 11, Section 47, Paragraph 1-62" Rhode Island General     Laws.Web.18 Feb. 2012

Strossel, John. "Myths About Gun Control." Real Clear Politics 19 Oct. 2005. Web. 25 Feb.2012

"To Catch a Car Thief." Dateline, NBC. Episode 1555. NBC 10 Apr. 2007

Wellford, Charles, Pepper, John, and Petrie, Carol, eds. Firearms and Violence, A Critical Review.      Washington D.C: National Academies Press, 2005