Gun violence is a tragedy that daily affects the lives of many individuals around the world. Violence committed by the use of firearms leads to the death of more than 500 individuals every day ('Gun violence: key facts,' 2020). Pew Research Centre shows that nearly two-thirds of annual deaths in America are suicides from gun use.
When the Centers for Disease Control started to publish data since 1981, gun suicides have been more than gun homicides. 19,392 Americans killed themselves using guns in 2010 alone (Malcolm & Swearer, 2018). The gun violence rate nationally is higher in the U.S. than in the developing countries and most developed countries.
The U.S. has the 28th highest rates of gun violence (Aizenman & Silver, 2019). Proponents and opponents believe that the state should ensure maximum protection of human rights by creating an environment that is safest possible for all people a
...nd, most especially, those at higher risks through adequate control of firearm possession ('Gun violence: key facts,' 2020). Guns related conversations are increasingly joining religion, sex, and politics as a taboo because the issue elicits so much passion from both its proponents ad opponents (Gabor, 2016).
Views of Proponents
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 'self-defense can be an important crime deterrent' (Malcolm & Swearer, 2018). CDC reports have recently acknowledged that direct assessment studies on the effects resulting from actual defensive gun uses have shown a consistently decreased injury rates among the gun-using victims of crime when compared to other victims who use other strategies of self-protection.
Proponents argue that gun ownership rates are not associated with higher violent crime rates. They say that Israel and Switzerland ow
more guns than the U.S. but have lower rates of violent crimes and experience much fewer homicides than many nations in Europe with gun control laws that are more strict.
Accidents that result from guns are not considered as under any kind of violence. Also, it is said that the number of shootings that are unintentionally fatal or non-fatal (approximately 17000 every year) is hardly considered as serious health issues given that the guns in private hands are more than 300 million (Weisser 2018). Proponents of this approach further suggest that even though crime penalties seem severe, light punishments are often given in reality.
They, therefore, argue that the hope of gun crime being reduced through widening the penalty of gun crime and that of other crimes does exist, but there is a difficulty of believing that a major effect will be made by such programs on the rate of killings made by guns (Zimring, 1986). The number of crimes committed through gun violence may be reduced significantly through the penalty for gun violence. However, this may have a small effect on the rate of killings that are related to gun possession.
Views of Opponents
Opponents suggest that guns are more lethal than other weapons. Research shows that there are very high costs related to firearm-related injuries. For example, a study conducted in the 1990s depicted that losses associated with firearms are more than $20 Billion. According to the recent estimates by Ted Miller since the 1980s, direct gun violence costs include medical care, cost of police investigations, and emergency services.
Indirect costs include lost wages and the impact the victims undergo in general. This analysis displayed total gun violence
costs of more than $229 billion (Gabor, 2016). A study by Matthew Miller and David Hemenway shows that, statistically, a strong association between gun availability and homicides existed. Where more guns existed, more homicide cases were consequently reported.
Urban gun ownership, to some extent, results from relayed misinformation about accidental death risks and the usefulness of guns at home for defense purposes. Opponents endorse another approach of more comprehensive gun control that some high-risk groups should be forbidden from owning guns. These include alcoholics, individuals with serious criminal records, mental patients, drug addicts, and the very young (Zimring, 1986).
This ban on gun ownership should be made effective because, if the ineligible person is caught in possession of a firearm, they will be subject to criminal penalties. This is a representation of the improvements made by passing stiffer penalties of gun crime. In this way, the law will separate a potential criminal from the gun he possesses before he uses it to commit a crime. If such laws could lead to the reduction of gun numbers owned by individuals, subject to prohibition, gun violence would indeed be reduced.
Additionally, flawed research about guns could highly endanger the safety of the general public. Some of these flaws include complex statistical issue involvements that are hard to elucidate for the media, policymakers, and the public (Webster, Vernick, Ludwig, & Lester, 1997). It may occur because the public can be easily convinced fast that the evidence provided is reliably true.
- What are the issue and the conclusion?
The issue is that self -defense through possession of guns can be self -deterrent. The conclusion is yes, it is.
- What are the Reasons?
Increased gun
use for defense has led to decreased gun-related injuries. Accidents resulting from guns are not considered under violence, and punishment from gun violence is less severe, and therefore these programs have less effect on reducing gun killings.
- What words or phrases are ambiguous?
Other strategies
- What are the value, conflicts and assumptions?
Gun possession and self- protection, punishment, and constant killings. The assumptions are that the penalties for gun violence do not have any effect on the reduction of gun killings and that individuals who own guns are self -defendant from criminals.
- What are the descriptive assumptions?
The descriptive assumption is that shootings that are unintentionally fatal are not considered as health issues because more than 300 million guns are in private hands.
- Are there Fallacies in the reasoning?
There is a belief that widening the penalty for gun crime may have a possibility of reducing the rate of gun violence, and they also state that this will make little or no difference in reducing the crime/ violence rates. The problem is that the belief they got is constructed from the thought that has no evidence, and they have not yet done any experimental research to prove this.
- How good is the evidence supporting the views and arguments of the proponents?
The evidence provided by the proponents is debatable. They say that unintentional gun shootings are not considered as violence. It can be stated that if the guns were not in people's possession, such accidental shootings leading to many injuries would never occur in the first place. For example, citizens in countries that are forbidden from owning guns, never have cases of accidental shootings at homes.
- Are there Rival Causes?
Another
possibility for the set -up of this case is because it was meant to show that possession of guns should be allowed by the law. After all, they have more advantages than disadvantages to having them. That is, insecurity would be a cause of alarm if people never possessed guns.
- Are the statistics deceptive?
The statistics are deceptive because they are solely relying on the information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ascertain why guns should be allowed in circulation. The methods used to prove their claims have not been well defined or backed up to prove their effectiveness and dependency. This shows that people may be basing their arguments on information that has errors and therefore making wrong conclusions.
- What significant information is omitted?
The statistics that should be used to prove that gun violence is reduced by massive gun possession.
- What conclusions are possible?
A possible alternative conclusion is that self -defense by gun ownership is not deterrent because the guns cause unexpected more injuries and deaths than if the guns never existed.
- What are the issue and the conclusion?
The issue is whether the use of guns for self -defense is a deterrent. The conclusion is that it is not.
- What are the Reasons?
The use of guns is more lethal than other forms of protection. It is very costly to cater for damages and losses that occur as a result of people possessing guns. The more guns are in people's hands, the more the cases of homicides that have been reported.
- What words or phrases are ambiguous?
High-risk groups
- What are the value, conflicts, and assumptions?
Gun possession and more homicides, punishment, and fewer
killings. Assumptions are that there are many deaths and injuries/ homicides that result from possessing guns that would otherwise not occur if guns were not in the hands of citizens.
- What are the descriptive assumptions?
The assumptive description is that there is a flaw in the method used to come up with statistics for determining the best option of the law allowing or not allowing common citizens to possess and use guns at homesteads.
- Are there Fallacies in the reasoning?
High-risk groups have not been denied from using guns, and therefore there is an increasing chance of more gun-related deaths, which should be put into consideration.
- How good is the evidence supporting the views and arguments of the opponents?
It is fair because it shows the exact costs that are incurred due to cases of gun violence. It also identified the voids that are present in the system that even the opponents have not proved in their views, such as the high-risk group like the mentally ill.
- Are there Rival Causes?
The general public becomes easily convinced that the data presented to them is reliable even when they have not proved its legibility.
- Are the statistics deceptive?
I do not believe that the statistics provided are deceptive. However, values representing the ratios of gun possession to homicides have not been given.
- What significant information is omitted?
An analysis to show the level to which the provided statistics have flowed from the expected/ real statistical values.
- What conclusions are possible?
There are no other possible conclusions from the ones provided because satisfactory evidence has been given to support the claims.
From the evidence provided, I strongly believe that huge numbers of homicides have existed
because of individuals being allowed to possess guns. Digging into the same point, when a comparison is made to determine the number of homicides that have occurred in different countries due to gun possession, it is rare to find such cases where guns are not allowed for citizens. Other defense mechanisms are less effective in causing deaths as compared to guns; for example, the chances of one escaping stabbings are very high compares to when escaping a gunshot.
This is because the speed of a gunshot is many times faster than a person running after somebody else to stab them. Homicide resulting from gun violence or accidental shooting could never exist if guns were not allowed, and therefore deaths caused by the same reasons would be very rare cases, so death cases would be lower. Therefore, I oppose gun violence and public possession of guns.
The proponents of gun violence believe that it is a form of self-defense and is a deterrent. This may not be the case because there is no enough evidence to prove the truth of the claim. Also, defending oneself from a person who does not have a gun is easier if u also don't possess a gun.
But when guns are used as the only means of defense, then there is an expected win-win situation where one wants to get rid of the other before they are harmed or killed. In such a case, it is highly expected that one or both of the victims will be badly injured or killed. The claims of the proponents should be illegalized until there is enough evidence to prove that their claims work best compared to
those of opponents.
