Ban Gun Control.

http://www.filedropper.com/researchreport-banguncontrolsanitized - Full version with Charts.






The Benefits of Gun Control: Fallacy or Fact?
Essential Communication Skills – COM1999
Professor Teymour Dowlatshahi
December 1, 2013













Abstract
	This paper examines the argument that restrictions placed upon the ownership and possession of firearms lead to a reduction in the level of violence. International data shows no correlation between gun legislation and reduced violence. Furthermore, data on defensive gun use by civilians in Canada and the USA shows ten times more lives saved by guns than taken by them, even accounting for suicides and accidents. Gun control is found to be an ineffective means of dealing with violence; countries with high levels of gun control, see most of their firearm homicides committed with black market weapons. Furthermore, civilian gun users are shown to reduce violent crime and gun control is found to be a fallacious argument which leads to an increase in violent crime and homicide. A strong correlation is found between low gun ownership and heightened rates of violence and homicide.










Introduction
Purpose
	 The purpose of this report is to investigate the impact gun control has on gun violence.
Research has been conducted to better understand what impact gun control has on gun violence and, whether it ultimately saves lives or endangers them further.
Scope
	This report looks at contemporary and historical homicide data internationally to find any relationship between an armed populace and armed violence in society. It also studies the defensive use of guns in the United States of America and Canada, and presents the argument that guns reduce crime and save more lives than they take. In these two countries, defensive gun use correlated with saving a life dwarfs the number of gun deaths by more than a magnitude of 10. This number does not include police or military personnel (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 28).
Background
	Despite overwhelming evidence that “where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings” gun control remains a very controversial and popular topic across the world today (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 7). This report will seek to examine whether an increase in the number of guns correlates with an increased level of violence. It will also explore the alternative line of thinking; that an armed society is a polite society and that armed civilians are the best deterrent against crime. In other words, the report will explore whether gun control is a factual argument or one that leads to an increase in violence and homicide.

Discussion
	Gun control has been and remains a controversial topic. Despite extensive evidence that it is a fallacy and does not work there are still people who advocate for it. This report will prove once and for all that gun control is false and actually increases the level of homicide and violence experienced by the civilian population.
We begin by noting that the former Soviet Republics have a murder rate three to four times higher than the modern United States. Contrasting the former USSR where “guns are scarce [so] other weapons are substituted in killings” the USA has high levels of gun ownership. Sixty percent of its population can actually carry concealed handguns wherever they travel (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 7, & 11).
Another example is Luxembourg, which has ten times the murder rate of Norway and Germany, despite a complete ban on handguns and minimal gun ownership overall. Meanwhile, both Germany and Norway have high levels of gun ownership and relatively little restrictions on handguns (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 6-7).
This correlation between far fewer guns and an increased level of violence is seen not only in modern countries but, throughout history and different areas of the same nation. In England the most gun dense areas have the lowest levels of violence (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 8) and while there was little gun control before WW1 "in the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold” (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 10). England’s violent crime rate topped the developed world’s in 2000, after a move to ban many types of guns in the 1990s (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 10).
	This trend can be seen in the ‘new world’ as well, particularly when comparing New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand’s homicide rate has declined to half the rate seen in 1986. Despite many types of firearms being unregistered and unrestricted it has a firearm homicide rate 30% lower than Australia’s (0.17 per 100,000 vs. 0.22) (Baker, McPhedran & Singh, 2011, p. 6 & 7).
	Australia on the other hand is relatively violent and sees 90% of its firearm homicides committed by black market weapons smuggled from abroad. A three year study found only two stolen firearms linked with homicide. Gun control in Australia has failed completely in its two stated objectives of reducing violence and the availability of firearms to would be murderers and criminals (Baker et al., 2011, p. 8-9).










Table 1 – Homicide Rates and Gun Ownership in Contemporary Europe

(Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 104)
As we can see from table 1, the countries with the highest rates of murder such as Estonia and Moldova have a very small number of gun owners. On the contrary the five countries with the lowest murder rates also have amongst the highest levels of gun ownership. It is to be noted that Austrian gun ownership is undercounted, as an Austrian license allows the possession of multiple firearms (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 105).


Table 2 – European Handgun/Gun and Violent Death Rate

(Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 101)
We see again with the case of Norway and Italy, that there is twice the gun ownership and half the rate of murder between the two. This proves once again that gun control leads to increased levels of violence and homicide.







A common argument for gun control is that restricted ownership, and reduced availability work together to reduce violence. This argument is proven false by the United States of America. From 1973 to 1997 there has been a 27.7% decrease in the murder rate, (9.4 to 6.8 per 100,000) along with a 160% increase in the number of civilian handguns. (36.9 to 94.9 million) Civilian gun ownership has increased by 103% overall (128 to 254.5 million weapons) (Kates & Polsby, 2000, p. 7-8).
	The 1 to 2 million concealed carry license holders are the most prolific and controversial American gun owners. However, through the 1980s and 1990s only one murder was attributed to them.  A mentally ill man whose permit was not valid in the state he was in, killed someone (Kates & Polsby, 2000, p. 12-13). He should not have been issued a permit, and with his single murder the murder rate for concealed carry licensees stands at 0.05 per 100,000 for that single year; it is absolute zero for every year otherwise.
This murder rate makes even Norway look like a diabolically violent warzone. Clearly unrestricted ownership and increased availability is what reduces violence. Concealed carry has also been shown to deter criminals from committing confrontational crimes. This caused the murder and violent crime rate to drop in states which have instituted it (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 12).




Concealed carry permit holders are not the only ones striking fear into criminals and defending themselves however. There are 2.1 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses in America, and close to 100,000 in Canada each year (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 18) (Mauser, 1996, p.2, 4).
Out of these more than 15% of involve a serious belief that a life was saved due to the use of a firearm (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 18, 21, 26, 28, & 36). This means that close to 400,000 lives are saved each year by civilian gun users. The peak number of gun deaths in America due to any cause stands at 38,323. This includes all suicides, homicides, and accidents attributable to guns in the year 1991. This clearly means that guns save at least ten times more lives than they take each year (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 28).
Only 24% of defensive gun uses each year involve the defender firing a gun, and only 16% involve a defender shooting at a criminal. In the vast majority of cases, a mere brandishing of the gun or a verbal referral deters the attacker(s) (see Table 3). A ten state sample of incarcerated felons in 1984 reported that 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim” (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 18, 19, 21, 26, 28, & 36).









Table 3 – (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 36)

One thing to note, is that the 8% number for wounded or killed offender is an over-estimation. As seen here, (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 24-25) this indicates that rarely is even the attacker hurt in a defensive gun use situation. Just another reason why gun control and not guns themselves should be banned and forgotten about.

One need only to journey to America’s northern neighbor, to find the effect of a disarmed populace in bolstering criminals. Almost one third of Canadian households own firearms compared to almost half of American households. Crime statistics bear witness to this discrepancy (Mauser, 1996, p. 5, & 29).
Canada has a rate of forcible rape three times that of the United States (121 vs. 41 per 100,000) and a rate of burglary almost 50% higher (1414 vs. 1,099 per 100,000). Even the rate of violent crime is 52% higher at 1,132 violent crimes per 100,000 population compared to 746 in the United States (Mauser, 1996, p. 5, & 29).















Table 4 – (Mauser, 1996, p. 29)

As we can see many types of crime are much more common in Canada (Mauser, 1996, p. 5). There is a clear correlation between the higher levels of crime present in nations with lower levels of civilian gun ownership.










Conclusions
It is easy to see that firearms reduce violence, and that a lack of them leads to more crime. When comparing America and Canada it is easy to see which country is safer. America has 30% the rate of forcible rape, and less than half the rate of burglary and violent crime. The lower level of firearm ownership in Canada clearly leads to a higher rate of violent crime (Mauser, 1996, p. 5, & 29).
 This trend is again witnessed when comparing the former USSR and the USA. Luxembourg also follows this trend having ten times the murder rate of Norway and Germany despite banning firearms while they are more than legal in the latter two (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 6-7, & 11).
European countries with higher rates of firearm ownership trend lower in homicide as seen from Tables 1 & 2. England shines as an example of gun control causing violence, going from a low rate of violence to the highest in the developed world in 2000; after instituting gun control and banning handguns in the 1990s (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 8, & 10).
The divergent destinies of New Zealand and Australia bear witness to the fact that more guns equate less violence. New Zealand has a 30% lower rate of firearm homicide, despite relatively little gun control. In Australia criminals smuggle in guns to kill people at will, with gun thefts playing a negligible role in homicides; despite a large restriction on all guns since 1996 (Baker et al., 2011, p. 6-9).
  Data shows more people being saved by guns than being killed by them in America and defensive gun use rarely involving any shooting. Research also points out a large proportion of convicted felons who openly admit to an armed civilian stopping them (Gertz & Kleck, 1995, p. 18, 19, 21, 26, 28, & 36).

A drop in violent crime and a deterrent effect against criminals is also seen in places where there are armed civilians (Kates & Mauser, 2006, p. 12). Therefore it is only logical to conclude that gun ownership reduces the incidence of homicide and violence in society. Inversely, the data shows that gun control is a fallacious argument which leads to an increase in violent crime and homicide.

















References
Baker, J., McPhedran S., & Singh P. (2011). Firearm Homicide in Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand: What Can We Learn From Long-Term International Comparisons?. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 26(3), 348-359. doi: 10.1177/0886260510362893.
Gertz, M., Kleck, G. (1995). Armed Resistance To Crime: The Prevalence And Nature of Self-
Defense With A Gun.  The Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 86(1), 150-187.
Kates, D. B., & Mauser, G. (2006). Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A
Review of International Evidence. Bepress Legal Series. Retrieved from: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso
Kates, D. B., & Polsby D. D. (2000). Long-term Nonrelationship of Widespread and Increasing
Firearm Availability to Homicide in the United States. Homicide Studies, 4(2), 185-201. doi: 10.1177/1088767900004002004.
Mauser, G. A. (1996). Armed self defense: the Canadian case. Journal of Criminal Justice,
24(5), 393-406. Retrieved from: http://garymauser.net/pdf/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf