Gun Control Debate: Arguments for Regulating Firearms

Introduction: The Gun Ownership Debate

Public ownership of guns has been the subject of much-needed debate for quite some time. Various organizations and advocacy groups have taken pro- or anti-gun positions on whether citizens should be allowed to own and carry a firearm on their person or their property. Many people who own guns do so for hunting, self-defense, or collecting. However, there have been countless cases in which gun use has resulted in the death of another person. The issue of gun control pertains to the laws and regulations that would limit the number of people able to purchase firearms and thus control their distribution so that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

Violence, no matter where it occurs, is usually a traumatic and tragic event. When it happens in schools and affects children, it is an extraordinarily shocking occurrence. An emotional reaction might be to demand an immediate ban on all firearms. Some may feel compelled to push for legislation that makes it seem as though something is being done, but such measures may accomplish little — or, worse, could cause more harm than good.

Pro-gun advocates disagree with the limitations that gun control would impose on their lifestyle. Some believe regulation should be absolute, with all arms remaining legal. Others among the pro-gun community argue that heavy military equipment such as tanks and bazookas should be illegal, while reasonable controls on items such as automatic machine guns are acceptable. At the same time, many people believe that even owning a simple handgun should be illegal, and that strict regulatory controls should apply to anyone wishing to purchase a firearm. Many advocates argue that guns should remain legal to purchase and that citizens should not face excessive hurdles in acquiring one.

The Case for Gun Control Legislation

People should set aside raw emotion and carefully examine what the problems are, their extent, and then weigh the advantages and disadvantages of various policy options. Unfortunately, the problems are numerous. Sadly, no matter how sound our economic and political policies become, or how enlightened a society we grow into, evil will always exist.

Guns should be more regularly and carefully monitored. The act of buying a gun should be formalized into a legal process in which a person must pass various checks and careful scrutiny before being permitted to purchase and own a firearm. There should also be strict restrictions on the types of weapons a person may own. The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure another person.

In Jeffrey A. Roth's Firearms and Violence (February 1994), he points out the obvious dangers: approximately 60% of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 — about 12,000 people — were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985, the cost of shootings — whether by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents — was estimated at more than $14 billion nationwide, accounting for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she carries another weapon or is unarmed. An accidental gunshot is also frequently lethal.

Obviously, there are different types of gun-related murder. First-degree, premeditated murder is one category, in which the gun made the killing easier, but the perpetrator likely would have acted regardless given time to premeditate. Beyond that, there is murder in the course of another crime, acquaintance murders in the heat of passion, and criminal negligence. There are also the many non-lethal injuries caused by firearms. These non-lethal injuries have actually been declining recently — not because the number of shootings has decreased, but because emergency medicine and hospital trauma care have become better equipped to treat gunshot victims (N.Y. Times News Service, 1996).

Firearms and Homicide: Statistical Evidence

Although much attention is given to the tens of thousands who die from gunshot wounds, far less is said about the countless others who are injured. As hospital emergency rooms grow more effective at treating gunshot wounds, deaths from shootings decline. For this reason, looking at gunshot deaths alone is misleading and represents only part of the overall picture (Kleck). Residents of homes where a gun is present are five times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns (Kellermann et al., pp. 467–472). Regardless of one's views on the morality of suicide, the fact remains that a gun makes it easier to act on suicidal impulses in a moment of rage, depression, or impairment from drugs or alcohol.

Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence as to whether any method substitution occurs. A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police or courts to be justified (Zimring, F.E., 1991). The evidence from the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered — 13,980 with handguns — yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns.

Contrary to popular myth, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens who suddenly lose control because a gun was within reach. Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate that people with prior criminal records commit the overwhelming majority of murders. Domestic homicides, too, are typically preceded by a long history of violence. The so-called "crime of passion" homicide is the exception rather than the rule. In 1998, firearms were used in 65% of homicides, and 52% of all homicides involved a handgun (FBI).

Conclusion: Should Gun Control Be Implemented?

While the debate over gun policy will continue, the statistical evidence surrounding homicide, domestic violence, accidental death, and suicide all point toward the same conclusion: widespread civilian gun ownership creates more harm than it prevents. Stricter controls, or the elimination of civilian firearms altogether, would represent a meaningful step toward reducing preventable deaths in the United States.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. "Uniform Crime Reports." 1999. www.fbi.org (Accessed March 20, 2002).

Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997.

Kellermann, Arthur L., MD. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327 (1992): pages 34–36.

Anonymous. "An Improvement in Emergency Medical Services and Hospital Trauma Centers, So That Many Gunshot Victims Who Might Have Died in the Past Are Now Saved." New York Times News Service, New York, 1996.

Roth, Jeffrey A. "Firearms and Violence." February 1994. (Accessed February 20, 2002).

Zimring, F.E. "Firearms, Violence, and Public Policy." Scientific American, 1991, p. 48.

Anonymous Researcher. "A Study on Guns." Beaconhouse Informatics Study Program, 2001.