Why The United States Should Not Take Gun Control
Why the United States Should Not Seek Further Gun Control A common phenomenon in the United States is the ownership of guns by civilians for the purpose of personal protection and safety. However, the constitutional privilege has several challenges that the government has tried to solve by drafting laws and implementing policies that limit the use, sale, manufacture, possession, and transfer of guns (Jacobs 54). The issue of gun control is a hotly contested issue that has been discussed both in the academe and the political arena. The debate has attracted opponents and proponents who give varied reasons with regard to appropriate solutions to the problem of violence and crime in America. Different states deal with the problem in different ways. Some states have
…show more content…
stringent gun control laws while others lack laws to limit the possession, sale, and use of guns.
Amidst all the raging debates regarding gun control, it is important to evaluate the issue from the perspective of the role that guns play in the lives of citizens. Crime has been on the rise in several American states. The rising cases of homicide in the past few years have prompted several states to implement stringent gun control laws that restrict purchase and possession of firearms by civilians. The American constitution allows civilians to own firearms for their own protection. However, this is not the main argument why gun control should not be allowed. This argument supports the need for Americans to protect themselves and their families. America does not need gun control but stringent policies that address the causes of gun misuse (Lott 83). Deinstitutionalization is one of the reasons why America does not need gun control. In the past few years, several cases of homicides and haphazard public shootings have been reported. These cases were the origin of debates by politicians for more stringent gun control laws in America. However, they failed to ask the most important question: what was the reason behind the
shootings? The implementation of gun control laws by certain states did not solve the problem of increasing rates of public murders (Jacobs 65). Research studies have shown that more than 50 percent of perpetrators of public shootings have been victims of mental illnesses (Lott 86). Many of mass murderers had already been incarcerated or treated in mental health facilities before they committed the heinous crimes. Reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that in 2002, approximately 13 percent of inmates in correctional facilities who had histories of mental illness were convicted murder. Past cases of homicide and mass murders point to deinstitutionalization. Availability of guns is not the main reason for the aforementioned crimes. However, failure to imprison violent and mental ill individuals in mental health facilities is a main cause of the problem (Wilson and Petersilia 64). Proponents of gun control argue that implementing stringent gun control legislation will ensure that the mentally ill find it hard to get access to guns and thus lack means to commit crime. However, they fail to consider the high number of guns sold illegally through the black market. Stringent gun control laws will not deter criminals from accessing guns because they will obtain them illegally (Goss 92). The United States mental health system is underfunded and cannot therefore perform its functions successfully. Revamping the system and developing strategies that improve provision of health care to mentally ill individuals is a more effective ways of solving the crime problem than solving the problem through gun control. Gun control is unnecessary because of the need for more public safety and security. Instead of gun control, the government needs to license more guns and empower law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families (Cook 53). Cases of civilians using their guns to scare criminals and prevent crime have been reported in the media. For instance, during the Oregon mall shooting, the importance of licensing more guns was evident from the actions of a civilian who drew his gun to shoot the murderer. Unfortunately, he was deterred by a shopper who was in the line of fire and could therefore not pull the trigger. The gunman shot himself before the police could reach him. In order to offer more protection to Americans and make them feel safer, it is important to license more guns. Controlling gun use and possession is tantamount to exposing Americans to more danger. One of the benefits of having more guns among civilians is the increased feeling of safety that will prevail in social places such as restaurants, malls, theaters, and schools (Sakora 42). Cases of murders committed by law abiding citizens have never been reported. Therefore, it is wrong to blame the numerous cases of mass murders on the availability of guns. Americans need to feel more secure and living with the awareness that they can protect themselves when accosted by danger and not lay all their hope on law enforcement officers. Another factor to consider is the attitude of criminals. Criminals do not bother with gun laws whenever they plan to commit crime (Cook 88). For instance, restricting civilians from carrying their guns in restaurants and shopping malls will not deter criminals from striking in those places. This is evident from the numerous cases of public shootings in colleges and schools. Criminals will always disregard the law and commit crime despite the awareness that certain places are gun free zones (Sakora 47). It can be argued that gun free zones serve to inform criminals where they are likely to find unarmed citizens that are easy target. Therefore, it is safer to allow civilians to carry their guns wherever they go. This makes it easier for armed citizens to accost and take down a criminal before any damage is done (Saul 66). Law enforcement officers take some time before responding to certain cases of public unrest. Arming more civilians will ensure that criminals are stopped in their path before causing any damage (Lott 59). Opponents of control argue that the government should illegalize assault rifles and only allow concealable handguns. However, this will not solve the problem of violence because the largest percentage of murders involves handguns. Government statistics reveal that more than 400,000 assault rifles have been purchased in the last six years (Fleming 83). However, cases of murders and violence that involved assault rifles accounted for 0.0027 percent of murder cases reported since the year 2008 (Fleming 103). These statistics farther prove the argument that gun control will not solve the problem of violence and homicide in America. The American constitution allows civilians to own firearms for their own safety and protection (Whitney 65). Therefore, stopping them from owning guns will be a direct violation of their constitutional right. This amendment supports the need for public safety especially at a time when cases of mass murders and violence are on the rise. Proponents of gun control argue that originally, the 2nd amendment was not intended to arm people (Whitney 69). They argue that it was blown out of proportion by opponents of gun control. However, the supreme court of the United States has reiterated several times that the scope of the amendment is not limited to militias but encompasses individual citizens (Haerens 86). Several courts had given rulings that conferred power to the federal and state governments to limit possession of firearms by civilians. However, the rulings were overturned by the decision of the Supreme Court during the District of Columbia v. Heller case. The court maintained that it was unconstitutional for the federal and state governments to limit individual’s right to own firearms (DeConde 32). Gun control won’t stop criminals from committing crimes because they will always obtain guns through illegal means. Controlling guns will expose civilians to danger because they will do not have weapons to protect themselves against criminals who will posses guns despite the existence of gun control legislation (Jens 76). One of the dangers of gun control is that it will steal from Americans a constitutional right that is the hallmark of the liberty that makes America the greatest country in the world with regard to freedom. Moreover, it will create a loophole that could be used by selfish politicians to introduce socialism and totalitarianism in America (Lott 62). Instead of controlling guns, the federal and state governments should conduct training and sensitization campaigns to educate citizens about proper use of firearms. Gun control will result in proliferation of crime and therefore not a good legal move. Currently, the rate of crime and violence in America is very high. Therefore, what America needs is implementation of policies to curb crime and not policies to stimulate its proliferation (Spitzer 54). Implementing stringent gun control legislation will make civilians vulnerable to attacks by criminals who will not be hindered from committing crime by the legislation. Crime rates are especially high in inner cities where poverty and drug abuse are prevalent. Cases of sexual assault, physical violence, and domestic violence are high in these areas. Therefore, implementing policies that discourage possession of firearms by civilians will leave vulnerable groups such as women at risk of increased assault. It is important to ram them for personal safety (Burbick 99). Research has shown that guns deter crime because criminals hesitate and sometimes abdicate their crime missions upon the realization that their target possesses a gun. This means that arming more people has the potential to reduce rates of crime. Another dimension of this argument is that police officers do not have enough resources to protect all civilians from attacks by criminals (Squires 73). Therefore, allowing civilians to own guns and use them anywhere will lessen the burden that policies officers shoulder of protecting citizens. Licensed gun owners can protect themselves and other people. Another reason for increase in crime due to gun control is the proliferation of black markets (Spitzer 58). Black markets will increase because criminals will always be in need of guns. It is against the law to sell or buy guns from unlicensed sellers. Gun control will serve to create another source of criminal activities in the form of sale and purchase of illegal firearms. Opponents argue that gun control legislation will reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals because the legislation will regulate the sale and possession of guns. In addition, they argue that it will difficult for criminals to obtain guns. However, the black market has always and will always be in existence. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Therefore, no legislation can possibly stop criminals or black market cartels from obtaining guns (Squires 76). Registration would also be an ineffective method of solving the crime problem. The inefficiency of current gun regulations eradicates the need for further gun control legislation. Numerous gun regulations that exist have been ineffective in solving the crime problem. Therefore, adding more regulations will to solve the problem. The existing regulations are weak and easy to circumvent. In some states, there are mandatory gun control background checks conducted at points of sale (Burbick 103). This regulation has been criticized for invading personal privacy and failing to deter criminals from possessing guns because of black markets. Black markets and private sellers do not perform gun background checks on buyers. Other sources of guns include family members and relatives. States that have higher rates of gun possession among civilians have reported improvement in public safety. In Texas, possession of guns by more citizens has proved beneficial through the Guardian program that aims to protect children from criminals. The program includes teachers who are licensed firearm carriers, and who undergo training on the proper handling and sue of guns (Burbick 108). Many schools have implemented this program and have reported significant improvements in the attainment of its goals. This program was created after several cases of mass murders in schools. Schools are easy targets for criminals because guns are not allowed inside institutions of learning. In school shootings, teachers are the first to respond because it is their responsibility to protect their students. It is insensible to expect teachers to protect children against harm and deny them the right to possess or carry their guns at school (Squires 81). If the teachers and other staff members that work in schools and colleges are armed, cases of shootings could reduce significantly because of the gun’s power to deter crime. In addition, they would be more prepared to respond to such cases. America needs more guns because there are several methods of committing crime and guns should not be blamed for rampant crime (Diaz 171). However, guns are the single most effective ways of stopping crime. Supporters of gun control present several arguments in an effort to explain why gun control is important for Americans. They argue that related legislation will minimize crimes related to guns, decrease the number of illegal firearms, and clear the misunderstanding regarding the provisions of the second amendment (White 117). However, these arguments are erroneous and misunderstood. They are based on superficial assumptions and research studies. First, gun control will not reduce crime because there are several weapons that can be sued to commit crime. Therefore, controlling gun possession and usage will not stop crime. Second, gun control will stimulate the proliferation of black markets and in that way increase the number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals (White 123). Third, gun control will not minimize gun related crimes. On the contrary, such crimes will increase because citizens will be left defenseless and at the mercy of criminals who will own guns. Fourth, the 2nd amendment is not misunderstood. The Supreme Court of the United States clarified the matter by stating that it is the right of American citizen to own firearms as stipulated by the constitution. Therefore, the federal and state governments have no authority to limit or violate that that right. There are several and more effective ways of solving the problem of violence. Gun control legislation will try to eradicate the effects of crime while nurturing the cause. Common causes of crime include mental illness, unemployment, and economic constraints (Diaz 221). The federal and state governments should solve these problems and desist from implementing legislation that will infringe on the rights and freedoms of Americans. In conclusion, the issue of gun control has been debated in different fields for a very long time. Politicians have been the most vibrant in voicing their opinions regarding the issue. The issue is hotly contested because of the opposing arguments presented by opponents and proponents of gun control. Proponents argue that further gun control is important because it will reduce crime, reduce the number of illegal arms owned by criminals, and eradicate the flawed interpretation of the second amendment. On the other hand, opponents argue that it will reduce crime, increase public safety, deter crime, and avoid infringing on the constitutional rights of Americans to own firearms. Revamping the system and developing strategies that improve provision of health care to mentally ill individuals is a more effective ways of solving the crime problem than solving the problem through gun control.
Works Cited
Burbick, Joan. Gun show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy. New York, N. Y.:
New Press, 2006. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1108314~S0>.
Cook, Philip. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2014. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1142776~S0>.
Goss, Kristin. Disarmed: The missing Movement for Gun Control in America. New York:
Princeton University Press, 2010. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138811~S0>.
Haerens, Margaret. Gun violence: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press,
2006. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1106707~S0>.
DeConde, Alexander. Gun violence in America: The Struggle for Control. Boston: Northeastern
University Press, 2001. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1076324~S0).
Fleming, Anthony. Gun Policy in the United States and Canada: the Impact of Mass Murders and Assassinations on Gun Control. New York: Continuum, 2012. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1139599~S0>.
Diaz, Tom. Making A Killing: The Business of Guns in America. New York: New Press, 1999.
Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1071911~S0>
Jacobs, James. Can Gun control Work? New York, Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
Jens, Ludwig. Evaluating Gun policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. Washington D.C.:
Bookings Institution Press, 2003. Print.<(http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1131103~S0>.
Lott, John. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third
Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.2013.
Lott, John. Straight Shooting: Guns, Economics, and Public Policy. Bellevue, Wash: Merrill
Press, 2006. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1108446~S0>.
Wilson, James, and Petersilia, Joan. Crime and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2010. Print.
Saul, Cornell. A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York: Oxford University press, 2006. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138809~S0>.
Sakora, Lea. Is Gun Ownership a Right? Farmington, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Print.
<http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138942~S0>.
Spitzer, Robert. Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Westport, CT.: Greenwood,
2009. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138810~S0>.
Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control: Firearms, Violence, and Society. London,
Routledge, 2000. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1086117~S0>.
White, Joe. NRA the Inside Story. Denver, CO: Outskirts Press, Inc., 2006. Print.
<http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1119496~S0>.
Whitney, Craig. Living with guns: A Liberal Case for the Second Amendment. New York: Public
Affairs, 2012. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138494~S0>.
stringent gun control laws while others lack laws to limit the possession, sale, and use of guns.
Amidst all the raging debates regarding gun control, it is important to evaluate the issue from the perspective of the role that guns play in the lives of citizens. Crime has been on the rise in several American states. The rising cases of homicide in the past few years have prompted several states to implement stringent gun control laws that restrict purchase and possession of firearms by civilians. The American constitution allows civilians to own firearms for their own protection. However, this is not the main argument why gun control should not be allowed. This argument supports the need for Americans to protect themselves and their families. America does not need gun control but stringent policies that address the causes of gun misuse (Lott 83). Deinstitutionalization is one of the reasons why America does not need gun control. In the past few years, several cases of homicides and haphazard public shootings have been reported. These cases were the origin of debates by politicians for more stringent gun control laws in America. However, they failed to ask the most important question: what was the reason behind the
shootings? The implementation of gun control laws by certain states did not solve the problem of increasing rates of public murders (Jacobs 65). Research studies have shown that more than 50 percent of perpetrators of public shootings have been victims of mental illnesses (Lott 86). Many of mass murderers had already been incarcerated or treated in mental health facilities before they committed the heinous crimes. Reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that in 2002, approximately 13 percent of inmates in correctional facilities who had histories of mental illness were convicted murder. Past cases of homicide and mass murders point to deinstitutionalization. Availability of guns is not the main reason for the aforementioned crimes. However, failure to imprison violent and mental ill individuals in mental health facilities is a main cause of the problem (Wilson and Petersilia 64). Proponents of gun control argue that implementing stringent gun control legislation will ensure that the mentally ill find it hard to get access to guns and thus lack means to commit crime. However, they fail to consider the high number of guns sold illegally through the black market. Stringent gun control laws will not deter criminals from accessing guns because they will obtain them illegally (Goss 92). The United States mental health system is underfunded and cannot therefore perform its functions successfully. Revamping the system and developing strategies that improve provision of health care to mentally ill individuals is a more effective ways of solving the crime problem than solving the problem through gun control. Gun control is unnecessary because of the need for more public safety and security. Instead of gun control, the government needs to license more guns and empower law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families (Cook 53). Cases of civilians using their guns to scare criminals and prevent crime have been reported in the media. For instance, during the Oregon mall shooting, the importance of licensing more guns was evident from the actions of a civilian who drew his gun to shoot the murderer. Unfortunately, he was deterred by a shopper who was in the line of fire and could therefore not pull the trigger. The gunman shot himself before the police could reach him. In order to offer more protection to Americans and make them feel safer, it is important to license more guns. Controlling gun use and possession is tantamount to exposing Americans to more danger. One of the benefits of having more guns among civilians is the increased feeling of safety that will prevail in social places such as restaurants, malls, theaters, and schools (Sakora 42). Cases of murders committed by law abiding citizens have never been reported. Therefore, it is wrong to blame the numerous cases of mass murders on the availability of guns. Americans need to feel more secure and living with the awareness that they can protect themselves when accosted by danger and not lay all their hope on law enforcement officers. Another factor to consider is the attitude of criminals. Criminals do not bother with gun laws whenever they plan to commit crime (Cook 88). For instance, restricting civilians from carrying their guns in restaurants and shopping malls will not deter criminals from striking in those places. This is evident from the numerous cases of public shootings in colleges and schools. Criminals will always disregard the law and commit crime despite the awareness that certain places are gun free zones (Sakora 47). It can be argued that gun free zones serve to inform criminals where they are likely to find unarmed citizens that are easy target. Therefore, it is safer to allow civilians to carry their guns wherever they go. This makes it easier for armed citizens to accost and take down a criminal before any damage is done (Saul 66). Law enforcement officers take some time before responding to certain cases of public unrest. Arming more civilians will ensure that criminals are stopped in their path before causing any damage (Lott 59). Opponents of control argue that the government should illegalize assault rifles and only allow concealable handguns. However, this will not solve the problem of violence because the largest percentage of murders involves handguns. Government statistics reveal that more than 400,000 assault rifles have been purchased in the last six years (Fleming 83). However, cases of murders and violence that involved assault rifles accounted for 0.0027 percent of murder cases reported since the year 2008 (Fleming 103). These statistics farther prove the argument that gun control will not solve the problem of violence and homicide in America. The American constitution allows civilians to own firearms for their own safety and protection (Whitney 65). Therefore, stopping them from owning guns will be a direct violation of their constitutional right. This amendment supports the need for public safety especially at a time when cases of mass murders and violence are on the rise. Proponents of gun control argue that originally, the 2nd amendment was not intended to arm people (Whitney 69). They argue that it was blown out of proportion by opponents of gun control. However, the supreme court of the United States has reiterated several times that the scope of the amendment is not limited to militias but encompasses individual citizens (Haerens 86). Several courts had given rulings that conferred power to the federal and state governments to limit possession of firearms by civilians. However, the rulings were overturned by the decision of the Supreme Court during the District of Columbia v. Heller case. The court maintained that it was unconstitutional for the federal and state governments to limit individual’s right to own firearms (DeConde 32). Gun control won’t stop criminals from committing crimes because they will always obtain guns through illegal means. Controlling guns will expose civilians to danger because they will do not have weapons to protect themselves against criminals who will posses guns despite the existence of gun control legislation (Jens 76). One of the dangers of gun control is that it will steal from Americans a constitutional right that is the hallmark of the liberty that makes America the greatest country in the world with regard to freedom. Moreover, it will create a loophole that could be used by selfish politicians to introduce socialism and totalitarianism in America (Lott 62). Instead of controlling guns, the federal and state governments should conduct training and sensitization campaigns to educate citizens about proper use of firearms. Gun control will result in proliferation of crime and therefore not a good legal move. Currently, the rate of crime and violence in America is very high. Therefore, what America needs is implementation of policies to curb crime and not policies to stimulate its proliferation (Spitzer 54). Implementing stringent gun control legislation will make civilians vulnerable to attacks by criminals who will not be hindered from committing crime by the legislation. Crime rates are especially high in inner cities where poverty and drug abuse are prevalent. Cases of sexual assault, physical violence, and domestic violence are high in these areas. Therefore, implementing policies that discourage possession of firearms by civilians will leave vulnerable groups such as women at risk of increased assault. It is important to ram them for personal safety (Burbick 99). Research has shown that guns deter crime because criminals hesitate and sometimes abdicate their crime missions upon the realization that their target possesses a gun. This means that arming more people has the potential to reduce rates of crime. Another dimension of this argument is that police officers do not have enough resources to protect all civilians from attacks by criminals (Squires 73). Therefore, allowing civilians to own guns and use them anywhere will lessen the burden that policies officers shoulder of protecting citizens. Licensed gun owners can protect themselves and other people. Another reason for increase in crime due to gun control is the proliferation of black markets (Spitzer 58). Black markets will increase because criminals will always be in need of guns. It is against the law to sell or buy guns from unlicensed sellers. Gun control will serve to create another source of criminal activities in the form of sale and purchase of illegal firearms. Opponents argue that gun control legislation will reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals because the legislation will regulate the sale and possession of guns. In addition, they argue that it will difficult for criminals to obtain guns. However, the black market has always and will always be in existence. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Therefore, no legislation can possibly stop criminals or black market cartels from obtaining guns (Squires 76). Registration would also be an ineffective method of solving the crime problem. The inefficiency of current gun regulations eradicates the need for further gun control legislation. Numerous gun regulations that exist have been ineffective in solving the crime problem. Therefore, adding more regulations will to solve the problem. The existing regulations are weak and easy to circumvent. In some states, there are mandatory gun control background checks conducted at points of sale (Burbick 103). This regulation has been criticized for invading personal privacy and failing to deter criminals from possessing guns because of black markets. Black markets and private sellers do not perform gun background checks on buyers. Other sources of guns include family members and relatives. States that have higher rates of gun possession among civilians have reported improvement in public safety. In Texas, possession of guns by more citizens has proved beneficial through the Guardian program that aims to protect children from criminals. The program includes teachers who are licensed firearm carriers, and who undergo training on the proper handling and sue of guns (Burbick 108). Many schools have implemented this program and have reported significant improvements in the attainment of its goals. This program was created after several cases of mass murders in schools. Schools are easy targets for criminals because guns are not allowed inside institutions of learning. In school shootings, teachers are the first to respond because it is their responsibility to protect their students. It is insensible to expect teachers to protect children against harm and deny them the right to possess or carry their guns at school (Squires 81). If the teachers and other staff members that work in schools and colleges are armed, cases of shootings could reduce significantly because of the gun’s power to deter crime. In addition, they would be more prepared to respond to such cases. America needs more guns because there are several methods of committing crime and guns should not be blamed for rampant crime (Diaz 171). However, guns are the single most effective ways of stopping crime. Supporters of gun control present several arguments in an effort to explain why gun control is important for Americans. They argue that related legislation will minimize crimes related to guns, decrease the number of illegal firearms, and clear the misunderstanding regarding the provisions of the second amendment (White 117). However, these arguments are erroneous and misunderstood. They are based on superficial assumptions and research studies. First, gun control will not reduce crime because there are several weapons that can be sued to commit crime. Therefore, controlling gun possession and usage will not stop crime. Second, gun control will stimulate the proliferation of black markets and in that way increase the number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals (White 123). Third, gun control will not minimize gun related crimes. On the contrary, such crimes will increase because citizens will be left defenseless and at the mercy of criminals who will own guns. Fourth, the 2nd amendment is not misunderstood. The Supreme Court of the United States clarified the matter by stating that it is the right of American citizen to own firearms as stipulated by the constitution. Therefore, the federal and state governments have no authority to limit or violate that that right. There are several and more effective ways of solving the problem of violence. Gun control legislation will try to eradicate the effects of crime while nurturing the cause. Common causes of crime include mental illness, unemployment, and economic constraints (Diaz 221). The federal and state governments should solve these problems and desist from implementing legislation that will infringe on the rights and freedoms of Americans. In conclusion, the issue of gun control has been debated in different fields for a very long time. Politicians have been the most vibrant in voicing their opinions regarding the issue. The issue is hotly contested because of the opposing arguments presented by opponents and proponents of gun control. Proponents argue that further gun control is important because it will reduce crime, reduce the number of illegal arms owned by criminals, and eradicate the flawed interpretation of the second amendment. On the other hand, opponents argue that it will reduce crime, increase public safety, deter crime, and avoid infringing on the constitutional rights of Americans to own firearms. Revamping the system and developing strategies that improve provision of health care to mentally ill individuals is a more effective ways of solving the crime problem than solving the problem through gun control.
Works Cited
Burbick, Joan. Gun show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy. New York, N. Y.:
New Press, 2006. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1108314~S0>.
Cook, Philip. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2014. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1142776~S0>.
Goss, Kristin. Disarmed: The missing Movement for Gun Control in America. New York:
Princeton University Press, 2010. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138811~S0>.
Haerens, Margaret. Gun violence: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press,
2006. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1106707~S0>.
DeConde, Alexander. Gun violence in America: The Struggle for Control. Boston: Northeastern
University Press, 2001. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1076324~S0).
Fleming, Anthony. Gun Policy in the United States and Canada: the Impact of Mass Murders and Assassinations on Gun Control. New York: Continuum, 2012. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1139599~S0>.
Diaz, Tom. Making A Killing: The Business of Guns in America. New York: New Press, 1999.
Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1071911~S0>
Jacobs, James. Can Gun control Work? New York, Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
Jens, Ludwig. Evaluating Gun policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. Washington D.C.:
Bookings Institution Press, 2003. Print.<(http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1131103~S0>.
Lott, John. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third
Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.2013.
Lott, John. Straight Shooting: Guns, Economics, and Public Policy. Bellevue, Wash: Merrill
Press, 2006. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1108446~S0>.
Wilson, James, and Petersilia, Joan. Crime and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2010. Print.
Saul, Cornell. A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York: Oxford University press, 2006. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138809~S0>.
Sakora, Lea. Is Gun Ownership a Right? Farmington, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Print.
<http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138942~S0>.
Spitzer, Robert. Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Westport, CT.: Greenwood,
2009. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138810~S0>.
Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control: Firearms, Violence, and Society. London,
Routledge, 2000. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1086117~S0>.
White, Joe. NRA the Inside Story. Denver, CO: Outskirts Press, Inc., 2006. Print.
<http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1119496~S0>.
Whitney, Craig. Living with guns: A Liberal Case for the Second Amendment. New York: Public
Affairs, 2012. Print. <http://library.brookdalecc.edu/record=b1138494~S0>.