1Reviews and everything / Gun Project

Alex Kvartalny @ flamedragon27.blogspot.com

Group 501

Having a Gun at Home Represents a Real Danger and a False Hope of Safety – Project on Gun Ownership

The arguments for and against buying a gun for self-defense are shrill and confusing. Gun control advocates say having a gun at home represents a real danger and a false hope of security. If we set out to determine the relative incidence of gun victimization versus self defense gun use by civilians in the United States, and the circumstances we’ll find that on average, out of 100,000 US citizens each year (approximately) 7 kill themselves with guns, 6 are purposely killed by others, 5 are killed with guns by accident, 2 are seriously injured while trying to commit suicide with a gun, 5 are accidentally injured by someone with guns. At the same time the National Rifle Association is telling us that a gun at home may represent your last line of protection.

It has been noted by many on different occasions that guns and crimes are interrelated. While some people believe that potential positive correlations exist between crime, others think that they are negative. Both sides engage in the active discussion of the relevance of gun laws and self-defense in modern society. Naturally, it is difficult to establish the correlations because countries with different gun laws are hardly ever the same in all other aspects.

In his book More Guns, Less Crime John Lott claims to have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals confront citizens. However, his critics state that Lott’s data prove neither a positive nor negative connection between gun ownership and crime.

At first glace you may believe that any conflict that involves guns will be more deadly and more dangerous that any conflict that does not involve guns, but we also have to bear in mid the deterrent effect of possession and brandishing.

For instance, we take Europe. The United Kingdom is well-known for its strict rules against gun ownership. At the same time in Switzerland 14% of home have fully automatic assault rifles. Further, civilian long-gun purchases are essentially unregulated, and handguns are available to any adult without a criminal record or mental defect. Nevertheless, Switzerland suffers far less crime per capita than the United States and almost no gun crime. However, this case should be viewed rather as an exception from the rule since most gun control laws seem to make the overall crime levels decrease. As far as the 1993 US Brady law goes, while some believe this has improved the gun situation in the country, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology, The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernible effect on reducing gun deaths.

Let’s have a look at some of the arguments to either prove or disprove the statement that having a gun at home represents a real danger and a false hope of safety.

Violence in the home

Pro: repeat violent offenders account for most cases of domestic violence and practically all homicides. There are not many crimes of passion where a normal person simply loses control and kills someone. That is a myth perpetuated by the media.

Con: most gun homicides occur in altercations among family members, friends or acquaintances. In a heated dispute, few carefully weigh the legal consequences of their actions. They are too busy reaching for a weapon. If it is a gun, death is more likely to follow.

Defending your family.

Pro: several surveys have been conducted by the criminologists from Florida State University and they suggest that guns are used up to 2.4 million times a year for protection. They think that this figure is much higher than government figures, in part because respondents are more truthful to private pollsters than to officials.

Con: other researches believed that they included an uclear definition of “self-protection” which results in more gun-use responses than there really are. The Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey suggests guns are used in self-defense no more than 80,000 times annually.

Preserving liberty.

Pro: the principal purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain the freedom from government. The leaders of the American Revolution and the early republic were enthusiastic proponents of guns and widespread gun ownership. The Founding Fathers were unanimous about the importance of an armed citizenry able to overthrow a despotic government. The various gun-control proposals on today's agenda & including licensing, waiting periods, and bans on so-called Saturday night specials & are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. However, persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime.

Con: There is willingness to take the law into one’s own hands that is again loose in the West, especially in Montana, where there is rising resentment against government. People are afraid that the government is treating them unlawfully neglecting the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Therefore, having a gun at home may protect you not only from burglars or maniacs but will let you directly influence the unlawful decisions by the government.

Protecting property

Pro: robbery or burglary victims who defend themselves with a gun are less likely to lose their property than are victims who do not resist or those who resists without a gun. Defensive gun use rarely provokes criminals to attack the victims, and criminals rarely take defenders’ guns.

Con: defending yourself with a gun is relatively dangerous and may result in the attacker’s wrestling the gun away from you, even if you are properly trained. Almost 20% of the police officers who are fatally wounded with firearms are shot with their own gun.

So, in conclusion I can say that bearing in mind both the negative and positive aspects of gun ownership the issue is very complicated. One the one hand we see that guns can be used as a deterrent and both lives and property can be defended with its help. On the other hand, owning a gun poses is a grave danger and it poses more risk than benefit since for every case of gun use for self-protection there are several times more cases where guns are used in suicides, homicides and accidental deaths.

In my book, I’m convinced that violence produces only more violence. We have the example of Gandhi who proved to the whole world that you can make the whole country leave without firing a single shot. He proved that words are mightier than the sword. At the same time I realise that it’s natural to want to defend your family with the most effective weapon possible. It’s also natural to seek cover under a tree during a thunderstorm, that does not make either a good idea.

5