U.S. is the world’s second largest economy, only recently relinquishing the top spot to China (Carter, 2014). In addition to being an economic powerhouse, U.S. is also at the forefront when it comes to social progress. While the country does serve as a model of economic and social progress for most of the world, there are areas in which it may benefit by emulating certain other countries. One such area is stricter gun control laws as they exist in developed countries like U.K. Australia, Canada, and Japan (Hickey, 2013). Gun ownership by private citizens should be subject to stricter gun control laws in the U.S. because the economic and social costs of private gun ownership significantly exceed the potential benefits.
Stricter gun ownership laws should be introduced in the U.S. because other countries who have introduced strict gun control laws have experienced dramatic declines in gun-related homicide cases. The case for stricter gun control laws only becomes stronger by the fact that these positive outcomes have been experienced by almost every developed country which took this path. As opposed to the U.S. which had a gun-related homicide rate of 3 per 100,000 in 2011, U.K. had a gun-related homicide rate of only 0.07 per 100,000 during the same year. While gun control laws are not as strict in Canada as they are in U.K., they are still stricter as compared to the U.S. and the gun-related homicide rate demonstrates that. The gun-related homicide rate in Canada in 2009 was 0.5 per 100,000. In Australia, there has not been a single mass-shooting since 1996 Port Arthur tragedy which is also due to the strict gun control laws introduced in the aftermath of the strategy. But the strongest case for ban on private gun ownership is probably made by Japan where there were only 11 gun-related homicides in the entire year of 2008 (Hickey, 2013). Thus, it is clear stricter gun control laws would significantly reduce gun-related homicides in the U.S.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Gun Ownership".
Private gun ownership should also be subject to stricter gun control laws because the mere presence of gun increases the risk of gun-related violence. The opponents of stricter gun control laws sometimes argue guns don’t kill but instead people kill. This argument falls flat upon closer scrutiny because if the capabilities of a weapon didn’t influence the probability and/or nature of a crime, there would be no reason for prohibiting citizens from owning hand grenades and rocket launchers. This is not mere a speculation but a fact supported by research. A study published in American Journal of Epidemiology found having a firearm in the house increases the risk of violent death irrespective of the gun type, storage practice, and number of guns. The risk of gun-related suicide also increases in the presence of a firearm in the house (Dahlberg, Ikeda, & Kresnow, 2004). Thus, stricter gun control laws should be introduced in the U.S. because their mere presence makes household members including children less safe.
U.S. should embrace stricter gun control laws because doing so would yield tremendous economic benefits as well. It is estimated the annual direct costs of gun-related violence to America is $8.6 billion. But these direct costs pale in comparison to the annual indirect costs of $221 billion. These indirect costs include lower quality of living and lost wages. It is important to note even this staggering sum of indirect costs may be an underestimation because it assumed 7-years of long term care for victims while it is not uncommon for survivors to live much longer than 7 years (Follman, 2015). But even if this indirect costs figure of $221 billion is accepted, it is a significant incentive to introduce stricter gun control laws in the U.S.
As a society, one of our major obligations is to provide the best care to our children and the current gun culture in the U.S. severely limits our ability to do so. A report by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (DLPF) claimed 20,000 children and youth under 20 are injured or killed by firearm in the U.S. each year. Firearms are the second leading cause of death among youth between the age of 10 and 19. Youth from minority ethnic groups and those in urban areas are, particularly, at higher risk of gun homicide. The economic costs of gun violence involving youth total approximately $15 billion per year. One of the recommendations made by DLPF to combat gun violence involving youth is for Congress and state legislatures to introduce stricter gun control measures (The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 2002). The nation needs stricter gun control laws because it doesn’t merely impact adults but also a significant proportion of our children and youth. In other words, gun culture imposes huge costs on the nation’s future and causes us to lose young minds some of whom could have become the future Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
U.S. needs stricter gun control laws because the nation is paying huge economic and social costs that far outweigh any potential benefits. The right to own gun might have made sense in the past when law and security infrastructure was weak but that is not the case anymore. The U.S. could also learn from other developed countries such as Japan, Canada, Australia, and U.K. where extremely low gun-related homicide rates as compared to U.S. call upon us to take immediate action.
- Carter, B. (2014, December 16). Is China’s economy really the largest in the world? Retrieved June 12, 2015. Web.
- Dahlberg, L. L., Ikeda, R. M., & Kresnow, M.-j. (2004, June 7). Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study. Retrieved June 12, 2015. Web.
- Follman, M. (2015, May June). What Does Gun Violence Really Cost? Retrieved June 12, 2015. Web.
- Hickey, W. (2013, January 15). How Australia And Other Developed Nations Have Put A Stop To Gun Violence. Retrieved June 12, 2015. Web.
- The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. (2002). The Future of Children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Print.
