Economic Theory On Gun Control Criminology Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The need for self protection in the American Society has led to the high demands for concealed handguns by normal civilians. Public law enforcement does not today guarantee protection of individuals for the fact that criminals have become more advanced in their tactics which has made even the police work difficult (Duggan, 2001). However, crime could not thrive if there is no property that the criminals' desire or the financial gains that they get from the victim. To control guns possession or not to lies on the economic reasons that similarly drive people in the legitimate business world. Robbers would not steal if at all the victim has nothing of value to the robber and at the same time one would not look for self protection if at all they have nothing that can be snatched from them (Lott, 2000). The economic theory of gun control is much reliant on the financial or material gain than just the need for individual protection. Criminals would not use their guns if they would gain nothing. When citizens go out to get a gun; it is for reasons of protecting their property and not just themselves.

On another dimension, guns are possessed by only who can afford to buy them. Not all of the American families can afford a gun. The irony comes in as in those with guns are the richest and hence criminals have to confront the gun owners most likely when they need money. Note worthy, guns are expensive commodities (Lott & Mustard, 2001). In the world of demand and supply, high presence of guns in the society would cause several issues to arise. The supply of guns creates a market for them. The increase of guns has seen the effect of them being sold across borders after being possessed by everyone including minors. This makes it important to have gun control measures within the community.

However, controlling guns has also its demerits. Many guns opens a market for their sale causing even more harm. The lack of guns on the other hand leads to a rise of its initial value. When guns access is restricted to citizens, the market demand for the rare commodity goes up and within no time many crimes result as robbers look for new ways to acquire guns for selling and for their criminal activity. Several reports have explained that there is high theft of guns in the American society due to their value. The problem is worsened when the gun is stolen for homicide activity or lands into the wrong hands of a criminal or a minor. On one outlook guns need to be restricted due to the fact that many guns in the market will lead to high crime rates but for the above arguments less guns will still have a near effect. When criminals are not controlled by anyone on their guns possession, good citizens will suffer in the introduction of such laws as they are left without means of protecting themselves (Ludwig, 1998). In some way, possession of guns by the American society is security in itself; security to a person, their business and property. The problem arises when the government assumes that citizens have protection when they have guns which are not the case. Criminals may be trained better and some families cannot afford guns.

Possession of guns has been triggered by other factors above security concerns and financial ability. The fact of being trained or access to training material like magazines has triggered a number of people into having firearms. This depicts an interesting fact that even though a number of the American homes own a gun they may not be able to comfortably use it. The high presence of guns in the rural than in the town suburbs gives an idea of lack of security in the rural compared to the urban.

Lott's (2000) shocking observation of more guns less crime has several economic implications. In the normal market sphere, the lack of policies to control guns can be termed as market liberalization where commodities are sold within and out of the country without government interventions. Citizens are free to purchase the guns to protect themselves from robbery among other dangers. When robbers are aware that a good part of the society has guns, they keep off fearing to risk their lives. However, many guns will not be acquired by the citizens if they lack the means to do so. Rising standards of living will enable the citizens to be able to acquire more weaponry to protect them. Just as Maslow hierarchy of needs shows that as you go up from basic needs, safety and security feature next. This is a similar case that those at the lower levels do not consider the need of guns. However, most people are past such a stage in the American society.

Due to the value of guns, it is evident that a gun may not be retained to one owner for a long period of time. The registry may not have enough records to tell which citizen got which riffle and when. The gun may be stolen or fall into the hands of a minor. With this being a fact homicides have been common when minors and even adults have used the guns wrongly. With the decrease of violent robbery, possessions of guns have scared away robbers (Dezhbakhsh & Rubin, 2003). However, between households; domestic firearms have been misused for other purposes by minors. A good example is the shooting at the Virginia Polytechnic in the Year 2007 April. Such occurrences have used by those against possession of firearms arguing that such a thing would not have occurred if the person never had a firearm. It is important to understand that schools and other public institutions may not be that specific on gun laws which thugs can take advantage of.

The equation that relates guns possession and crime is a real one. The outcome is that most occurrences of robbery are driven by the factors of gun possession among other factors. Fewer guns less crime may not be true as criminals will have their weapons ready while the common citizen suffers humiliation when they cannot find similar services due to restrictions. Possession of guns by criminals on the other hand can trigger them to criminal activity as would feel equipped. In another dimension it has been observed that robberies are still high among people who have guns. This can be explained on fact that only the rich can afford to buy a gun.

The possession of firearms by citizens enhances their protection. Policemen on the other hand find it difficult to deal with citizens especially on traffic patrol. The person maybe drunk and may not understand what the policemen needs from them, which if not handled well can result to shooting. The policeman may be shot or they may have to shoot the victim. To say, possession of firearms by citizens creates a problem to the police in their role of ensuring that every person is safe.

The opposite of feeling secure by having a legal firearm is fear. Most people with guns have the notion that their security is mainly guaranteed by the possession of the firearm. On this fact most will go to greater miles to have one. In case they are attacked they have the idea that it is only their speed to pull the trigger that will save them (D'Alessio & Stolzenberg, 2000). This has led to several deaths of innocent people due to uncontrolled shooting in the name of self defense. It is not advisable to enter people's compounds before notifying them as it can trigger such dangerous confrontations. The fact of many people having guns leads to lose of trust among business people. Instead of trust, transactions are driven by fear.

With the rising cost of living and inflation, peoples' lives are more endangered with the possession of firearms. When most people cannot maintain their living standards, financial insecurity sets fear among people. Criminal activity can be triggered by such an occurrence where the guns will be misused. The government screens people on their sanity, age and mental health. However, guns can be stolen and can also be hired by the criminal themselves. The fact of having guns in market, poses a threat by itself. Many guns will accelerate the condition while fewer guns will soon change the situation to victimization of the persons without the guns.

Equipping citizens with firearms and showing them on their use can for some time prove to be working. Contrary, criminals can find better weaponry that will enable them carry out their plans where they would shoot without warning. At the same time, people temper has seemed to be uncontrollable whenever they would confront each other if they have guns.

Noteworthy, many homicidal deaths can be prevented whenever firearms are controlled. It is important to note that several suicides have been committed by people who had an access to a firearm. There have been situations of rape and even domestic violence all attributable to possession of firearms. In a way, having a gun feels like being above the law; having a breakthrough in the several areas of life which should not be the case. On other areas the elite have taken the advantage by trying to acquire several guns. Firearm control measures are being put in place where those with guns are being called up to register them, for licensing and for records.

Scarcity of commodities increases their demand for supply. The rising demand causes the need to have the price of scarce commodity reviewed in order to have the prevailing competitive market prices. If the value attached to the commodity is exaggerated due to the scarcity, the item acquires a prestigious status. The hypothesis fewer guns less crime can lead to the high demand for guns by any who need to feel secure. The outcome can be a black market for guns where they can be sold at higher prices. This will still lead to more people having guns which are unregistered and uncontrolled. When restricting guns, we may be trying to prevent harm but end up causing it all the more. In black market, the guns will be sold to both the criminals, minors and even unsound people in the society. If the government sells to people these firearms, possibility of black markets will be near zero. If the government lets the black market alone to operate per the forces surrounding it; with time it shall stabilize having many people possessing illegal guns which they would shy from disclosing to right authorities. Fewer guns, less crime would not work for me. Gun control will bring rebellion on the parts of the citizens which will be backed up by criminals who will have their own motives.

In the place of more guns in the society, obviously crime will result from the many firearms. The structure of the society at that moment will dictate whether the many guns will be used in the criminal activity or just for protection. If everyone has a gun, they become their own bosses when handling security matters. It is true that in such a society, attacks of persons are very rare without the attacker being prepared beforehand to do the attack they do intend to. One of the reasons that states have not registered the number of people with guns is for fact that criminals may not exactly tell how secure a suburb is from the other (Moody & Marvell, 2005). Robbers have to be keen when they attack homes not to lose their lives by being shot.

It would not be satisfactory to say that many guns will lead to fewer crimes or the opposite that many guns will lead to much criminal activity. Fewer crimes can results from either many firearms or less firearms. When many firearms are in the market but in the hands of criminals, related activity will result. If the citizens have enough firearms to counter the attack from the robbers, the attacks would be many but unsuccessful. The demand for firearms can lead to more criminal activity if at all that a big portion of the firearms are just with the citizens. In addition, if robbers posses most of the weaponry, they will feel psyched to attack the citizens. There should a balance between the two where scarcity on one side has to be balanced over time.

The economic theory considers transactions of goods and services. In the light of this theory, it is important to understand the comparison between security through a firearm and the risk associated with the same. The criminal activity by robbers is affected by availability of firearms which is equivalent to forces of demand and supply. With a high supply of guns, the criminal activity is observed to either rise up or decline. With gun control, the criminal activity has been observed to follow a similar pattern. However, the pattern is much unpredictable as it is affected by several other factors. Guns supply will affect the criminal activity in relation to who the guns are supplied to. If the riffles are in less supply due to control the effect will be reflected on the criminal activity now to the unarmed citizens. Criminal activity will thrive depending on; if people are prepared and whether they have the firearms.

In conclusion, too much food is not good for health and too little food also affects the health negatively. Aristotle has advocated the need to move with moderation. By having a concealed gun, citizens should make good use of the firearm to police their immediate environment and should never negotiate with criminals. The government should make sure also that those with guns have registered them and promised to use them wisely as the law requires. The government should make it possible for eligible persons who need the gun have got it easily to ensure their protection. This will also remove possibilities of black markets