Gun Control Won’t Make Mass Shootings Less Likely to Happen, Academic Says

  • Affirmative Argument Week 3

By: Joseph Ng

An article by Christopher Goins titled, “Gun Control Won’t Make Mass Shootings Less Likely to Happen, Academic Says,” contains support from author John Lott who wrote “More Guns, Less Crime,” that debunks common beliefs concerning gun control. Too often people are quick to blame the presence of guns for the violence and mass shootings that occur through the United States. Goins and Lott address popular issues and explain why it is not necessarily the guns that people should be worried about, but rather how people are using them. A lot of arguments have appeared since the shooting in Aurora, Colorado in a movie theater. First, the movie theater had a “no guns allowed” policy. However, this did not stop the act of violence and Lott argues that regulations and rules “actually make them (mass shootings} more likely to happen. They don’t stop those events from occurring.”

The main argument of the article is what Lott just mentioned. There is belief that more strict gun regulations and rules on guns may make mass shootings more likely to happen. Goins and Lott explain that gun control is not the answer. Lott continues to explain that “laws that restrict gun ownership do nothing to deter someone who’s decided to fire on fellow citizens,” rather it was already pre-meditated or a decision was made before they opened fire.

The next argument states that even if a location is a gun-free zone, it will not stop the shooter from breaking the law. Almost all cases of public shootings have taken place where concealed handguns are not allowed. It is publicly known that carrying a gun around, even a handgun, if you are not a police officer is seen as deviant behavior, as in it is not commonly acceptable. However, when someone makes the decision to shoot innocent citizens, they have taken their place as a law-abiding citizen out of the equation.

Later, Lott explains that any argument that makes guns bad and easier for people to kill others, there is an argument for people to use guns for self-defense. The counter to ban all semi-automatic weapons is that they can benefit someone who needs to defend themselves. In relation to self defense, there is an issue with killings occurring in a gunowner’s home which comes from the claim that guns are more likely to end up killing someone you know. Lott picks apart this argument by recognizing that “if you own a gun in the home and you died from a gunshot that it was that gun that was used in the death.” The data shows that the majority of killings occurring in a home have occurred from weapons being brought from the outside.

Another argument is guns being used as part of suicide attempts. Lott provides statistics that “14 percent of the deaths that were being attributed to guns being in the home could actually be attributed to those guns in the home” the remaining 86 percent were from weapons brought from outside. Instead of looking at each scenario on a larger scale, it is important to observe each situation as its own. As a whole, guns look bad because of acts of violence and crime, but each situation is different.

The final topic that Lott argues is the ease of obtaining guns and using them to kill other people. Lott claims that the “cities that have the highest murder rates, they are the ones that tend to adopt the strictest gun control laws.” This statement piggybacks  off the idea that most crime involving guns happens from a weapon that is brought from the outside.

While this article did not provide many statistics, it gave a new perspective and outlook on gun control. Lott’s explanation and counter arguments to gun control emphasized how important it is to look at the individual situation rather than gun violence as a whole. The media portrays guns as the problem, but Goins and Lott target the individuals who commit the crimes and create the mayhem of mass shootings. If someone is willing to murder others, the law does not register in their mind.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gun-control-won-t-make-mass-shootings-less-likely-happen-academic-says

Increased Guns, Less Violence

By: Mona Zaini

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation?page=1

Graph from Motherjones.com

This Mother Jones article attempts to correlate the increasing amount of guns in the United States with an increasing number of mass-shooting victims annually.  The trend in the chart is immediately noticeable but also obvious is the bold inclusion of famous mass shootings that have happened within the past 8 years(Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Virginia Tech) and one from 15 years ago (Columbine). Conspicuous reminders of notable mass shootings from 1982 to 1998, an additional 16 years, are intentionally left off the chart.  In 1991, 23 people were shot and killed in a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. In 1984, 21 people(including five children) in a California Mcdonalds. Several other shootings are never mentioned, despite having more victims than Columbine.

Another problem with the article is that it fails to account for differences in population. In 1982, when the graph begins, the population of the US was roughly 230,000,000; in 2012, it was around 313,000,000. Of course more people would equate to more shooters and naturally, more victims. But even those conclusions are not cohesive—in 1984, there were around 28 mass murder victims, this is even more than the 18 victims seen in 2011 despite a substantial increase in population. 2012 is an outlier with nearly 80 fatalities and skews the appearance of the trend in the graph. I’m not denying that a slight increase can be seen regardless of that end-year, however when considering the total population increase, the inconsistent data (1999 had over 40 victims, yet the subsequent five years have astonishingly low victim counts), the use of numerical victims instead of rates, and the unusual addition of injuries to obscure results, the articles argument comes off as a bit far-fetched. The questionable nature of the trend is even further reinforced when considering homicide rates over the years. In 1982, the homicide rate was 9.1; in 2012, it was 4.7. With these statistics, a legitimate trend contradicts the dubious trend in the Mother Jones article—the rate of homicides is steadily dropping each decade, despite an increasing number of guns.

The biased article makes outlandish claims that there will soon be significantly more guns in the US than people. The article tries blame “Republican-controlled statehouses” for allowing people to carry concealed weapons, suggesting that this somehow could be responsible for mass shootings. People aren’t “allowed” to murder, yet they do it anyway. Someone who has the intent to murder innocent people is not worried about the legality of carrying a concealed weapon. Again, there is little correlation. Republican states with relaxed gun laws do not necessarily have the most mass murders. California, a Democratic state, has had an overwhelming amount of mass shootings. Similarly, the New England states from New York to Maine have had a substantial amount of mass shootings, despite being largely Democratic. Republican states such as Louisiana and Alabama have never had a mass shooting.

Screen Shot 2014-12-03 at 7.32.30 PM

This article has some decent points yet falls short at proving the supposed trends beyond coincidence. Perhaps more guns could mean more murders, however it is likely that if a shooter wanted to acquire a gun, they will do so(and have done so) irrespective of the abundance of guns. The fact remains that majority of the guns in the country do not get used for mass shootings or even murders and that mass shootings have been committed regardless of firearm abundance and laws.

Additional sources:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

http://myfox8.com/2014/08/29/26-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-us-history/

Department of Justice Study Declares Gun Possession as a Crime Deterrent

Affirmative Argument

By: Sam Bourassa

A study conducted by professors of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, provides strong evidence in opposition to this common belief that less guns will equal less crime. This study, funded by the Department of Justice, allowed the researchers to interview 1,874 convicted felons in 10 different states about how they felt victim’s gun possession would affect their decisions to commit crimes. The results were indisputable:

81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed

74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot

57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police

40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.

57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.

34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.

It should be noted that these researcher’s original belief was that strict gun control would prevent crime, however the evidence was conclusive enough to change both researcher’s beliefs.

Screen Shot 2014-12-03 at 8.08.36 PM

The logic is simple; when a potential victim is armed, suddenly attempting to victimize the citizen is much more dangerous for the offender. Further evidence of this fact can be found everywhere, both nationally and globally. In 1982, the city of Kennesaw Georgia mandated gun ownership in every home (with some exceptions, such as religious conflictions). After the implementation of this law, the city saw an 89% decrease in crime. It is true that crime in general was on the decline during these years anyway, but the 89% decrease is much more drastic compared to the 10% crime decrease in the remainder of the state

Globally, one can look at countries such as Russia or Norway to see the lack of effect that gun control has on crime rates. A study was conducted by the University of Harvard which compared the United State’s homicide rates with the homicide rates of dozens of other countries of varying gun control laws. Russia, which had less than half of the amount of firearms in the country than the U.S. did, still had three times the amount of homicides per capita. In contrast, Norway, which had nearly three times the amount of firearms in the country than the U.S., had a mere one-fifth of the amount of homicides per capita. Clearly, if any relationship exists between gun control and violent crime rates, it’s that civilian gun ownership prevents crime.

Cruz, Jennifer “Harvard Study Concludes That Gun Control Does Not Prevent Murders, Other Violent Crime.” Gunscom. 30 September, 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

This article summarizes the study conducted by Harvard quite nicely. Tables are presented which only discredit the theory that gun control prevents crime. Countries other than Russia and Norway can also be examined to see the same effect, though these are admittedly the most notable countries for this argument.

Hamilton, Jonathan & Burch, David. “Gun Ownership – It’s The Law in Kennesaw.” Rense.com. Accessed on 15, November 2014. Retrieved from: http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

This article examines the affects of Kennesaw, Georgia’s mandatory gun ownership law. The evidence is very conclusive. When the likelihood of a victim having a gun is increased (or in this case, nearly guaranteed), crime rates will drop.

Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)

In this study, 1,874 inmates were interviewed on how greater gun ownership would affect their willingness to commit crimes. Coming from criminals themselves, I find this to be indisputable evidence that gun ownership is a great deterrent of crime.

Right-To-Carry being wrongfully portrayed without regard to 2nd Amendment

Week 2 Critique/Refutation of other sites/sources

By Andrew Zuckerman

Shadee Ashteri’s article “Right-to-Carry Gun Laws Linked To Rise In Violent Crimes: Study” in the Huffington Post portrays firmly the media’s inclination towards gun control rather than giving the public an accurate representation of firearms in the country. Upon her article she gathers her information from a September report from researchers at Stanford and John Hopkins universities. Prior to refuting the report, it is crucial to see how Ms Ashteri is giving the public a non-scholarly adaptation upon gun laws in the country.

To open up she tells how concealed carry laws in all 50 states have led to a rise in violent crime. Then goes on to refute the hypothesis of “more guns, less crime” saying how the assumption argues for the right-to-carry as a deterrent for crime by “allowing ordinary Americans to better protect themselves.” Yet what she is neglecting to realize in her assumption is the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by the people. Though inherently some individuals should be barred from keeping firearms to protect the safety of the public as dictated by the Supreme Court of the United States, drafted in the Bill of Rights are no stipulations or restrictions to the Second Amendment. Anyone considered “people” in this nation as prescribed are given the ability to keep and bear arms without it being infringed. And who is to say someone in this fine country is not a person.

Screen Shot 2014-12-03 at 7.56.43 PM

Between her first and third paragraphs there is much difference in what she is saying. She opens up with calling into question concealed carry laws yet then moves onto right-to-carry laws without making any insertion between the difference of the two laws. Clearly an apparent necessity by the person to carry a weapon and conceal one needs to be given. In the example of the police commonly everyone’s image of an officer is a member wearing a uniform with a bright shiny badge with a firearm strapped to his or her hip, yet throughout departments in America other officers have a necessity to walk around with a concealed weapon, commonly a detective in a suit as one can envision from the television show Law & Order. Further into her article, issues arise of her pointing out the report saw “substantially higher rates” in aggravated assault, rape, and robbery where none of these moral injustices in society arose between more guns and fewer guns. Firearms are not need to commit aggravated assault, rape, and even robbery they can occur, and probably happen more so, when guns are nowhere to be found at the scene of the crime.

Between both the study and what Shadee reports they do not call into question the rise in crime being proportional to the rise in carry laws. As one can think, possibly at the same time of more people gaining permission to carry a firearms the increase in crime happened as well. To sum up her article she uses a quote from Daniel Webster, director of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, by stating “right-to-carry laws increase firearm-related assaults …the exact magnitude of that effect is uncertain.” While many who read this article may see the bias tone of Shadee Ashteri giving this magnitude to be huge, yet as Mr. Webster elluded to the magnitude may be quite small as he does not even know himself.

 

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/right-to-carry-laws-crime_n_6160414.html

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html