the control of guns

The topic of gun violence on American streets has raised questions in recent decades over how existing gun regulations aimed at restricting gun possession, sale, and use lead to the current state of homicide. Various organizations have taken positions to voice their views, and some agencies have begun research to investigate the effects of gun policies on crime prevention (Gius 1688). As a result, two camps have arisen with opposing views about the role of gun laws in crime prevention and regulation. On the one hand, advocates of gun control argue that limiting gun possession and use will help deter violence. On the other hand, the opponents argue that gun control does not reduce crimes. Both sides provide their evidence to support each of their arguments. In consideration of different arguments, however, it is evident that gun control does not reduce crimes as they discourage inappropriate transfer and misuse of firearms by encouraging registration and proper use.
The proponents of gun control laws include individual people and organizations that believe that government can reduce crimes by enforcing strict laws on ownership, transfer, and use. Such people include Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (BCPGV), and Every Town for Gun Safety.
According to the proponent of gun control laws and policies, violent crime such as homicide is less in states with strict gun laws than in those that do not enforce strict laws. According to data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on 48 metropolitan increased supply or ownership of guns in American cities interpret into more violent crimes (Siegel et al 2100). The data showed that the rate of homicide among the residents of the state that enforces strict laws on gun ownership is 4.32 per 100, 000 people (Brands and Jeffrey 1). The rate is higher than that of some states but lower in others, thereby indicating the differing effect of gun laws.
Since gun laws encourage and advocate for a background check to prevent criminals, juveniles and those who have psychological disorders obtain guns, proponent hold that gun control can significantly reduce crimes. According to National Rifle Association (NRA), the enforcement of strict laws soon after Newton’s killing in 2012, seeking universal background check enabled identification of the people who previously owned guns and had mental issues (Brands and Jeffrey 3; Siegel et al 2102). According to National Journal of Investigation, the states that enforced handgun permits, registration and background check experienced fewer crimes compared to those that did not. According to Garen Wintemute who is the director of Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP), gun laws reduce homicide cases by reducing the ownership and transfer of firearms.
Looking at the trend of gun violence situation in America, it is evident that introduction of gun laws and policies in early 1976 contributed to the 10 percent annual decline in crime from the early 1990s, with a total fall of about 50 percent (Gius 16940. The proponents argue that, if there were no stricter laws in response to the deadly violent crimes committed in the period between the 1970s -90s, the situation in America today would be worse.
In another argument, the proponents of gun laws hold that about 60 percent to 70 percent of all homicides reported in most of the American States involve firearms (Borwein and Bailey 3). In this case, the adoption of gun laws aimed at reducing the distribution of guns can have a significant decline in the violence (Brands and Jeffrey 1-7). The proponents argue that the cause and effect of gun ownership in a population can be disrupted through gun laws, and achieve positive results in crime reduction. However, these crimes must be those involving the use of firearms.
The opponents of gun control are the individual people and organizations that believe and argue that adoption of stricter gun laws cannot have reduced crimes such as homicide and suicide. The organizations that oppose gun laws include the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, and National Shooting Sports Federation. Consequently, these organizations participate in activities that promote unrestricted ownership, carrying and use of firearms.
Also, opponents of gun laws argue that some of the facts used by the opponent are invalid. For example, proponents refute the idea that more guns in place mean tighter security and decreased crime rate since people can defend themselves (Brands and Jeffrey 4). Instead, they argue that most crime victims rarely use guns for defense. Also, the US court still disregards granting the American citizens the right to bear firearms as the provisions of the Second Amendment suggest (Borwein and Bailey 1-13). Despite the US court restricting or failing to provide this right, some of the states still recorded high rates of crimes. In this case, new laws may not necessarily deter crime.
Also, opponents argue that the enforcement of gun laws in some states have not revealed any decline crimes. In fact, some states have crime rates hiking with the introduction of guns laws in the state. For example, research conducted at Stanford University that utilized data from Uniform Crime Report between 1979 and 2012 revealed that 33 American states that had implemented Right To Carry (RTC)laws has recorded crime rates that were 4 percent to 19 percent higher after ten years than if they had not enforced them (Siegel et al 2102). Another case was observed in Washington e DC in early 1976 when the adoption of gun laws resulted in an increased rate of murder. According to Gius (1677), the gun laws enforced during this period were one of the most restrictive, but the murder rate in Washington rose to about 134 percent
Based on the arguments and evidence that each side present to push for their agendas, both the proponent and opponents have all seem to have a common objective in reducing crimes in American cities. Proponents feel stricter laws will reduce the supply of guns in the wrong hands and induce proper use by those who are licensed, thereby reducing crimes. The opponents feel that stricter laws will reduce the guns that people use of self-defense, and therefore increase crimes. However, the proponents of gun controls have failed to give substantial and concrete evidence, preferably in statistics to show practical outcomes of established laws in the US. On the other hand, the evidence provided by proponents indicated that adoption of laws has resulted in increased crime rates. For this reason, the government can avoid stricter laws that may reduce the citizen’s ability to exercise their duties as awarded by the Second Amendment. Simply put, government, the adoption of gun controls do not deter crime, but instead increase the rate as revealed in this study.

Works Cited
Borwein, Jonathan M., and David H. Bailey. "Does Gun Control Encourage Crime? The Science of Crime Statistics". The Huffington Post. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2017.
Brands, Riley and Jeffrey M. Jones. "Crime Victims More Likely to Own Guns." Gallup News Service, 12 Dec. 2016, p. 1
Gius, Mark. "The Effect of Gun Ownership Rates on Homicide Rates: A State-Level Analysis." Applied Economics Letters, vol. 16, no. 17, 10 Nov. 2009, pp. 1687-1690.
Siegel, Michael, et al. "The Relationship between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981-2010." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 103, no. 11, Nov. 2013, pp. 2098-2105.