Are Gun Control Laws Strict Enough?

In his article, "Firearms, Violence, and the Potential Impact of Firearms Control," Franklin E. Zimring argues that stricter gun control laws will reduce the homicide rate. While I found some of his points relevant and compelling, I don't agree with his entire argument. One of his first points is that "guns do not become dangerous instruments of attack if they are not used in an attack" (Zimring, 2004, p. 34). I found this point particularly interesting because it focuses around refuting any objection to the idea that guns are the cause of death; when clearly it is people using those weapons which is the ultimate reason homicides occur. He's saying that if there were no people to hold and fire these guns, homicides via the use of a gun would not exist. I don't think it's that simple, but Zimring persuades me a little more when he explains that guns are a contributing cause to homicides, rather than a main reason.

I believe that Zimring's argument seems to lose a good portion of its strength after he makes the simple gun-to-person relationship. For example, in 1993, "over 64,000 people were killed during robberies, murders, or other kinds of violent crimes. Since then, however, this number has decreased, mainly because of a fall in violent crime" (Lancet, 2000, p. 1367). What is a possible reason for this decrease in homicides? Some argue that it is the record-low unemployment rate, which we reached in 2000.

There are plenty of discrepancies within studies of gun control laws besides Zimring's, but one review in particular found that studies like his provide "little support for the view that gun control laws reduce gun availability or violence rates" (Kovandzic & Marvell, 2003, p. 364). In fact, within those studies, only 7 out of the researched 49 found significant beneficial impact, and only a slightly larger 12 out of the 49 found a mix of support and non-support.

So where do we get these ideas that gun control laws reduce homicides to the scope we idealize? Well, it probably isn't due to the ways in which we perceive criminals. On the contrary, there are differences of opinion in the ways we value the intelligence of criminals, which then could explain why we perceive gun control laws as being so effective. Becker and Ehrlich argue "because criminals are rational, utility maximizing individuals, they will be less likely to engage in criminal behavior if the perceived costs of crime outweigh the perceived benefits gained from committing crime" (Becker, 1968; Ehrlich, 1973, as cited in Kovandzic & Marvell, 2003, p. 365). On the flipside, however, Cornish and Clarke say that "criminals' cognitive abilities are limited; they quickly make and revise choices, and use incomplete or inaccurate information" (as cited in Kovandzic & Marvell, 2003, p. 365).

They also add that, in terms of non-criminal adults and our willingness to adhere to the rules laid out by the current gun laws (of which there are many), that "only about 1% of adults has a permit to carry a concealed weapon" (Bird, 2000, as cited in Kovandzic & Marvell, 2003, p. 366) leading to, as Kovandzic notes, the possibility that around 90% of adults with a handgun either don't carry their permit with the gun, or flat out do not have a permit. Yet, what is the punishment for that 90%? Fines? Having to relinquish their weapons? Even so, if that 90% can often wander without ultimately getting caught without their permit, then how strong are the gun laws once we get beyond the initial purchasing and re-purchasing? Furthermore, if not having a permit is an issue, then how far down the realm of possibility is the fact that gun owners will escalate their existing criminal behavior?

I argue that one of the larger issues with gun control is that many overlook our perceptions of what it means to be a criminal. In fact, it seems that one of the problems behind these laws is the fact that the statistics seem to focus more on the aftermath of illegal gun use (leading to homicides) and the intricacies of hardened criminals breaking these laws, rather than the fact, as Kovandzic discovered, that just about everyone is willing to break the law simply by not carrying a permit. This is criminal behavior at its lowest level. Nevertheless, just as not carrying a driver's license or not having car insurance is a crime, so is not following a simple request to have a permit. Perhaps this 90% doesn't have or doesn't carry a permit because they feel it is unjust. At any rate, one of the bigger problems with criminal justice seems to be our society's knack for devaluing some crimes over others. If we were to re-evaluate our perceptions and think about simple crimes as much as we do more serious crimes like homicides, then perhaps that seemingly innocuous 90% could one day be more evenly distributed, or maybe not even exist at all.

Works Cited

2000, October 21. Reducing gun deaths in the USA. [Editorial]. The Lancet, p. 1367.

Kovandzic, T. and Marvell, T. Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Control? Criminology & Public Policy, 2. 363-396.

Zimring, Franklin E. (2004) Firearms, Violence, and the Potential Impact of Firearms Control. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32, 34-37.