“Should Private Gun Ownership Be Banned? ”
Widespread gun ownership in a community could supply a general hindrance to condemnable predation. take downing the hazard to proprietors and non-owners likewise. But widespread gun ownership could besides take to increased hazards of assorted kinds. including the possibility that guns will be misused by the proprietors or transferred to unsafe people through larceny or unregulated sale. Whether the societal costs of gun ownership are positive or negative is arguably the most cardinal inquiry for the ordinance of pieces in the United States. Gun control Torahs and policy vary greatly around the universe. Some states. such as the United Kingdom. hold really rigorous bounds on gun ownership while others. such as the United States. have comparatively modest bounds. In some states. the subject remains a beginning of intense argument with advocates by and large reasoning the dangers of widespread gun ownership. and oppositions by and large reasoning single rights of self-defense every bit good as single autonomies in general. Some in the United States position gun ownership as a civil right ( Snyder i-ii ) . where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to maintain and bear weaponries.
One of the earliest U. S. gun-control statute law at the province degree were the black codifications ( Torahs that replaced the pre Civil War epoch slave codifications which. among other things. prohibited black ownership of pieces ) in an effort to forestall blacks’ holding entree to the full rights of citizens. including rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment ( Halbrook 108 ) . Laws of this type subsequently used racially impersonal linguistic communication to last legal challenge. but were expected to be enforced against inkinesss instead than Whites. Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School hiting in December 2012. where 20 immature kids were killed. Wayne LaPierre. vice-president of the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) proposed. at an NRA imperativeness conference. that the solution to such calamities is to topographic point armed officers in schools. stating: “The merely manner to halt a bad cat with a gun is a good cat with a gun”
( Washington station ) . LaPierre blamed the media. politicians in favour of gun-free zones. U. S. mental wellness services. and violent films and picture games for the shot. He introduced an NRA-backed proposal to set armed guards in all schools in the U. S. . which he called the National Model School Shield Program. In January 2013. the Newtown school board voted nem con to inquire for police officer presence in all of its simple schools. A 2004 reappraisal by the National Research Council concluded that. “higher rates of family pieces ownership are associated with higher rates of gun self-destruction. that illegal recreations from legitimate commercialism are of import beginnings of offense guns and guns used in self-destruction. that pieces are used defensively many times per twenty-four hours. and that some types of targeted constabularies intercessions may efficaciously take down gun offense and violence” ( Welford ) . Another reappraisal conducted in 2011 by the Firearm Injury Center at Penn determined that. “the correlativity between firearm handiness and rates of homicide is consistent across high income industrialized states: in general. where there are more pieces. there are higher rates of homicide overall” .
A 2004 reappraisal of the literature conducted by research workers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center likewise found that. “a wide array of grounds indicates that gun handiness is a hazard factor for homicide. both in the United States and across high-income countries” ( Homicide – Firearms Research ) . Reviews by the HICRC besides assessed fluctuation in gun ownership and force in the United States and found that the same pattern held: provinces with higher gun ownership had higher rates of homicide. both gun-related and overall. A reappraisal published in 2011 found that the wellness hazards of a gun in the place are greater than the benefits. based on grounds that the presence of guns increases the hazard of completed self-destructions and grounds that guns increase the bullying and slaying rate of adult females ( Hemenway 502 ) . The research workers found no believable grounds that guns in the place cut down the badness of hurt in a housebreaking or confrontation or act as a hindrance of assault. A old survey ( 2003 ) had likewise found that the presence of a gun in the place significantly increased the hazard of self-destruction and grownup homicide ( Wiebe 12 ) . A figure of surveies have examined the correlativity between rates of gun ownership and gun-related. every bit good as overall. homicide and self-destruction rates internationally. Martin Killias. in a 1993 survey covering 21 states. found that there were important correlativities between gun ownership and gun-related self-destruction and homicide rates. Gun control has a serious public wellness. political and economic concerns that need to be addressed severally. HEALTH/SAFETY
Every twelvemonth. more than two 1000 people die in the United States from gun-related hurts. The population groups most affected by these evitable deceases are kids and immature striplings. The abuse of pieces is a job worldwide. of class. However. the incidence of piece usage does vary from state to state. Harmonizing to the United Nations Report on Firearm Regulation. Crime Prevention. and Condemnable Justice ( 1997 ) . the United States has “weaker firearm ordinances and higher Numberss of deceases affecting pieces than all other industrialized and even most underdeveloped states. ” The survey besides noted that the entire firearm decease rate in the United States in 1995 was 13. 7 per 100. 000 people. “three times the mean rate among other reacting states and the 3rd highest. after Brazil and Jamaica” . More than half the places in the United States possess pieces. so it is barely surprising that they rank among the “ten prima causes of decease accounting for more than 30. 000 deceases annually” ( Wintermute 3107 ) . While most people have guns chiefly for featuring activities. many proprietors besides have them for personal protection and security intents.
The public wellness attack to violence bar efforts non merely to cut down the happening of force. but besides to restrict the Numberss of fatal and nonfatal hurts when such events occur. To forestall gun-related force. so any type of force. it is of import to understand the kineticss of force every bit good as the function of different sorts of arms in both fatal and nonfatal hurts. Research from around the universe indicates that socio-structural factor such as high unemployment rates. cultural and spiritual belligerencies. political instability. fiscal inequalities. deficiency of resources. and economic want increase the likeliness of force. When guns are readily available in such scenes. or where statute law to control their bastard usage is slack or inappropriate. hurts are more likely to happen. knowing or otherwise. Individual factors can besides precipitate force. including the usage of pieces. Substance and intoxicant maltreatment. mental upsets. feelings of personal insufficiency and societal isolation. and an individual’s experience with force in the place are among some of the factors that have been associated with force.
The more guns there are in circulation. the greater the likeliness that they will be misused. Hence. from a public wellness position. it is of import to invent schemes which aim to guarantee that those in ownership of weaponries use them for legitimate intents and non for violent or condemnable Acts of the Apostless. There are a assortment of ways of covering with the jobs caused by guns in society. and statute law is one of the methods most normally used. Franklin Zimring has noted that Torahs that regulate gun usage autumn into three classs: those that limit the topographic point and the mode of piece usage. those that keep guns out of the custodies of bad users. and those that ban high hazard pieces. Topographic point and mode statute law sets out to make as it suggests. to restrict certain utilizations of pieces in certain locations. Examples include censoring the usage of pieces in public topographic points and forbiding the carrying of a piece ( except for those carried by security forces and constabularies ) . This statute law is hard to implement. nevertheless. without the active support of the constabulary force. and that support requires extra support to do certain that constabulary proctor potentially violent events. Successful topographic point and mode statute law has been implemented in the state of Columbia. where pieces are involved in 80 per centum of homicides. Here. an advanced gun control intercession was implemented by the Program for Development. Security. and Peace ( DESEPAZ ) . in coaction with the Mayor of Cali. Colombia’s 3rd largest metropolis.
A police-enforced prohibition was introduced in Cali that prohibited transporting pieces on weekends. public paydays. public holidays. and election yearss because “such periods were historically associated with higher rates of homicide” ( Villaveces 1206 ) . Media-led information runs informed the populace of the new gun control step. On the yearss when the prohibition was in operation. constabulary set up strategically located checkpoints in countries of the metropolis where condemnable activities were platitude. and they conducted random hunts of persons. “During the prohibition. constabulary policy directed that if a lawfully acquired piece was found on an person. the arm was to be temporarily taken from the person and the person fined. Persons without cogent evidence of lawfully geting the piece were to be arrested and the piece for good confiscated” ( Villaveces1206 ) . Denying bad users entree to pieces is the 2nd type of legislative tool to command gun abuse. In order for this attack to work. the jurisprudence has to specify clearly
who falls into the class of “high-risk user. ” The term is normally applied to convicted felons. those deemed “mentally unfit. ” and to drug nuts. It besides applies to bush leagues. Such statute law efforts to do it hard for members of these groups to possess a piece.
Every twelvemonth. in developed and developing states across the Earth. 1000s of kids and immature striplings die while playing with laden guns. Additionally. surveies have shown that striplings are vulnerable in footings of piece abuse and successful self-destruction efforts. In the United States between 1965 and 1985 “the rate of self-destruction affecting pieces increased 36 per centum. whereas the rate of self-destruction affecting other methods remained changeless. “Among striplings and immature grownups. rates of self-destruction by pieces doubled during the same period” ( Kellermann 467 ) . Restricting bush leagues the entree to hold arms can assist to cut down these events. Many provinces now attempt to forestall bad groups from obtaining pieces by placing “ineligible” persons before they can get a gun. Minor leagues would evidently fall into this class. “The testing system included in U. S. statute law known as the Brady Bill which permits constabulary to find whether a prospective gun buyer has a condemnable record. If the cheque turns up nil the buyer can obtain the gun” ( Zimring 53 ) .
The 3rd legislative scheme used to battle the abuse of pieces is to present statute law modulating the usage of really unsafe arms. Such “laws bound the supply of high hazard weapons” and “can complement the scheme of diminishing high hazard utilizations and users” ( Zimring 53 ) . Such supply decrease Torahs “strive to do the most unsafe guns so scarce that possible felons can non obtain them easily” ( Zimring 52 ) . They besides set out stiff demands that must be met to turn out that ownership of such a arm is necessary. Sawed-off scattergun. machine guns. and certain military devices are the sorts of arms covered by this type of statute law. Research into this country in the United States has shown that provinces in which such rigorous Torahs operate have lower degrees of violent offense than provinces that do non. Another agency of passing for piece abuse is to present stiff punishments for felons caught utilizing pieces. “More than half of the provinces in the USA have passed such Torahs. This attack is popular with gun proprietors because the punishments concern merely gun related offense and topographic point no limitations on piece ownership” ( Zimring 52 ) . Economics
After the school slaughter in Newtown. everyone has been seting out proposals for how to cut down gun force. President Obama created an inter-agency undertaking force. The NRA asked for armed guards in every school and now economic experts are weighing in with their ain. number-heavy attacks ( Washington station ) . In the United States. there are an norm of 32. 300 deceases ( the bulk of which are suicide ) and about 69. 000 hurts yearly most common in hapless urban countries and often associated with pack force. frequently affecting male juveniles or immature grownup males. with an estimated one-year cost of $ 100 billion ( Bjerregaard and Alan 37 ) . American society remains profoundly divided over whether more restrictive gun control policies would salvage lives and prevent hurts. Scholars agree the rate of gun force in the United States is higher than many developed OECD states that pattern rigorous gun control. The United States’ low life anticipation ( comparative to other affluent states ) may be attributable to guns. with a decrease in mean American lifetime of 104 yearss ( Lemaire. 359 ) .
Disagreement exists among faculty members on the inquiry of whether a causal relationship between gun handiness and force exists. and which. if any. gun controls would efficaciously take down gun related force. Cook and Ludwig created a information set that used the figure of self-destructions by piece in a county as a placeholder for gun ownership and checked it against a assortment of bing study informations. They figured out the “social cost” of having a gun. The two economic experts determined that a greater prevalence of guns in an country was associated with an addition in the slaying rate. but non other types of violent offenses ( guns. the writers argue. lead to “an intensification of condemnable violence” ) . Why does this go on? One possibility: The two economic experts found grounds that if there are more legal guns in an country. it’s more likely that those guns will be transferred to “illegal” proprietors. When the two economic experts added up the costs of gun ownership. more hurts and more homicides and weighed them against assorted benefits. they concluded that the mean family geting a gun imposed a net cost on the remainder of society of someplace between $ 100 to $ 1. 800 per twelvemonth ( 379-382 ) . Now. usually when economic experts come across a merchandise that has a negative outwardness like coffin nails or coal-burning workss. they recommend taxing or modulating it. so that the user of the merchandise internalizes the costs that he or she is enforcing on everyone else. In this instance. an economic expert might propose slapping a steeper revenue enhancement on guns or slugs.
Others might object that this isn’t carnival. There are responsible gun proprietors and irresponsible gun proprietors. Not everyone with a gun imposes the same costs on society. Why should the revenue enhancement be uniform? And that brings us to John Wasik’s recent essay at Forbes. Alternatively of a revenue enhancement on guns. he recommends that gun proprietors be required to buy liability insurance ( Washington station ) . Different gun proprietors would pay different rates. depending on the hazards involved. Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to perpetrate a offense with it. Economist John Lott. in his book More Guns. Less Crime. provides informations demoing that Torahs leting observant citizens to transport a gun lawfully in public may do decreases in offense because possible felons do non cognize who may be transporting a piece. The information for Lott’s analysis came from the FBI’s offense statistics for all 3. 054 US counties ( Lott 50 ) . University of Chicago economic expert Steven Levitt argues in his paper. Understanding Why Crime Fell in the ninetiess: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not. that available informations indicate that neither stricter gun control Torahs nor more broad concealed carry Torahs have had any important consequence on the diminution in offense in the 1990s. A comprehensive reappraisal of published surveies of gun control. released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. was unable to find any statistically important consequence ensuing from such Torahs. although the writers suggest that farther survey may supply more conclusive information. Fully automatic pieces are legal in most provinces. but have demands for enrollment and limitation under federal jurisprudence.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 needed blessing of the local constabulary head. federally registered fingerprints. federal background cheque and the payment of a $ 200 revenue enhancement for initial enrollment and for each transportation. The Gun Control Act of 1968 forbidden imports of all nonsporting pieces and created several new classs of restricted pieces. A proviso of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 prohibited further register of machine guns manufactured after it took consequence. The consequence has been a monolithic rise in the monetary value of machine-guns available for private ownership. as an increased demand chases the fixed. pre-1986 supply. For illustration. the Heckler & A ; Koch MP5 submachine-gun. which may be sold to jurisprudence enforcement for about $ 1. 000. costs a private citizen about $ 5. 000 ( Stewart ) . POLITICS
Gun political relations addresses safety issues and political orientations related to pieces through condemnable and noncriminal usage. Gun political relations trades with regulations. ordinances. and limitations on the usage. ownership. every bit good as distribution of pieces. Gun control Torahs and policy vary greatly around the universe. Some states. such as Australia. the United Kingdom or Germany. hold really rigorous bounds on gun ownership while others. such as the United States. have comparatively indulgent bounds. Most states hold the power to protect them. others. and patrol their ain district as a cardinal power vested by sovereignty. However. this power can be lost under certain fortunes: some states have been forced to demilitarize by other states. upon losing a war. or by holding weaponries embargos or countenances placed on them. Likewise. states that violate international weaponries control understandings. even if claiming to be moving within the range of their national sovereignty. may happen themselves with a scope of punishments or countenances sing pieces placed on them by other states. National and regional constabulary and security services enforce their ain gun ordinances. For illustration. the U. S. Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco. Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) supports the United States’ International Traffic in Arms Regulations ( ITAR ) plan “to sharply implement this mission and cut down the figure of arms that are illicitly trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to perpetrate Acts of the Apostless of international terrorist act. to overthrow limitations imposed by other states on their occupants. and to organized offense and narcotics-related activities.
The issue of pieces has. at times. taken a high-profile place in United States civilization and political relations. Mass shots ( like the Columbine High School slaughter. Sandy Hook Elementary School shot and Virginia Tech slaughter ) have continually ignited political arguments about gun control in the United States. Harmonizing to a 2012 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation canvass. 10 % of Americans support censoring all guns except for constabulary and authorised forces. 76 % support gun ownership with some limitations. and 10 % support gun ownership with no limitations. Michael Bouchard. Assistant Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco. Firearms and Explosives. estimations. there are 5. 000 gun shows yearly in the United States. In 1959. the Gallup canvass showed that 59 % of Americans supported censoring pistol ownership. In 2011. the Gallup canvass showed that 26 % supported censoring pistol ownership. In 1990. the Gallup canvass showed that 78 % of Americans supported stricter Torahs on gun gross revenues than existed at the clip. 17 % felt the Torahs were all right as they were. and 2 % supported less rigorous Torahs. In 2011. the Gallup canvass showed that 43 % supported stricter Torahs on gun gross revenues. 44 % felt the Torahs were all right as they were. and 11 % supported less rigorous Torahs. In 2001. the Gallup canvass showed that 51 % of Americans preferred that current gun Torahs be enforced more purely. In 2011. it was 60 % ( Gallup political relations ) .
A 2009 CNN/ORC canvass found 39 % favorite stricter gun Torahs. 15 % favored less rigorous gun Torahs. and 46 % preferable no alteration. CNN reported that the bead in support ( since the 2001 Gallup canvass ) came from self-identified mugwumps and Republicans. with support among Democrats staying consistent. There is a crisp divide between gun-rights advocates and gun-control advocates. This leads to intense political argument over the effectivity of firearm ordinance. Democrats are more likely to back up stricter gun control than are Republicans. In an online 2010 Harris Poll. of Democrats. 70 % favorite stricter gun control. 7 % favored less rigorous gun control. and 14 % preferable neither. Of Republicans. 22 % favorite stricter control. 42 % favored less rigorous control. and 27 % preferable neither ( Krane 1-2 ) . In the same 2011 Gallup canvass. 55 % of Republicans and Republican-leaning mugwumps had a gun in their family compared to 40 % of Democrats and Democratic-leaning mugwumps. Of Republicans and Republican-leaners. 41 % personally owned a gun. Of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. 28 % personally owned a gun ( Gallup political relations ) . Incidents of gun force and self-defence have routinely ignited acrimonious argument. 12. 632 slayings were committed utilizing pieces and 613 individuals were killed accidentally in 2007 ( CDC 89 ) . Surveies have suggested that guns are used in offense disincentive or bar around 2. 5 million times a twelvemonth in the United States ( LaPierre 23 ) .
In 2004. the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun makers for making what it called a “public nuisance” through the “negligent marketing” of pistols. which included theoretical accounts normally described as Saturday dark specials. The suit alleged that pistol makers and distributers were guilty of marketing guns in a manner that encouraged force in black and Latino vicinities. The NAACP case and several similar suits. some brought by municipalities seeking reimbursement for medical cost associated with condemnable shots were dismissed in 2003. Gun-rights groups. most notably the National Rifle Association. portrayed it as “nuisance suits. ” aimed at driving gun makers ( particularly smaller houses ) out of concern through tribunal costs entirely. as harm awards were non expected. These suits prompted the transition of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ( PLCAA ) in October 2005. On January 22. 2013. Congressman Adam Schiff introduced a measure in U. S. House of Representatives to counter the PLCAA. the The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act.
Since the yearss of the innovators. guns have been around as portion of the tradition in states such as the United States of America ( USA ) . Switzerland and Canada. In recent old ages. issues refering the ownership and ownership of private guns have become a heatedly debated subject in these societies because of the rapid growing of gun offenses. However. guns are still valuable for self-defense. Allowance of private gun ownership can diminish offense rates and a gun abolishment policy will bring forth unwanted results to society. One of the statements against censoring private gun ownership is that leting private usage of guns is effectual for self-defense. If a individual carries a arm. it can be used as self-defense against felons. It is believed that citizens who are unarmed have higher opportunities to be targeted and assaulted by felons as most violators would desire to cut down their hazards when perpetrating offenses. The protagonists of entire gun arrogation argue that constabulary who are allowed to transport pieces will be able to halt the offenses. Americans are eventually get downing to hold a serious treatment about guns. One statement we’re hearing is the cardinal pillar of the instance for private gun ownership: that we are all safer when more persons have guns because armed citizens deter offense and can support themselves and others against it when disincentive fails. Those who don’t have guns. it’s said. are free riders on those who do. as the criminally disposed are less likely to prosecute in offense the more likely it is that their victim will be armed. When most citizens are armed. as they were in the Wild West. offense doesn’t cease.
The felons get better. There’s some sense to this statement. for even felons don’t like being shot. But the logic is defective. and a close expression at it leads to the decision that the United States should censor private gun ownership wholly. or about wholly. One would believe that if widespread gun ownership had the robust hindrance effects that gun advocates claim it has. our state would be free of offense than other developed societies. But it’s non. When most citizens are armed. as they were in the Wild West. offense doesn’t cease. Alternatively. felons work to be better armed. more efficient in their usage of guns ( “quicker on the draw” ) . and readier to utilize them. When this happens. those who get guns may be safer than they would be without them. but those without them become increasingly more vulnerable. Gun advocators have a solution to this: the unarmed must build up themselves. But when more citizens get guns. farther jobs arise: people who would one time hold got in a fistfight alternatively shoot the individual who provoked them ; people are shot by error or by accident. And with guns so plentiful. any moonstruck or reprehensively fain individual who has a sudden and possibly merely impermanent impulse to kill people can merely assist himself to the contents of Mom’s gun cabinet. Possibly most of import. the more people there are who have guns. the less effectual the constabulary become. As more private persons get guns. the power of the constabulary diminutions and personal security becomes a affair of self-help.
For the constabulary to stay effectual in a society in which most of those they must face or arrest are armed. they must. like felons. go better armed. more legion. and readier to fire. But if they do that. guns won’t have produced a net decrease in the power of the authorities but will merely hold generated tremendous private and public outgos. go forthing the balance of power between armed citizens and the province as it was earlier. the unarmed conspicuously worse off. and everyone poorer except the gun industry. The logic is as more private persons get guns. the power of the constabulary diminutions. personal security becomes more a affair of self-help. and the unarmed have an increasing inducement to acquire guns. until everyone is armed. The logic of private gun ownership is therefore similar to that of the atomic weaponries race. When merely one province gets atomic arms. it enhances its ain security but reduces that of others. which have become more vulnerable. The other provinces so have an inducement to acquire atomic arms to seek to reconstruct their security. As more provinces get them. the inducements for others increase. If finally all acquire them. the possible for calamity whether through unreason. misperception. or accident is great. Each state’s security is so much lower than it would be if none had atomic arms. But. as with atomic arms. we would wholly be safer if no 1 had guns or. instead. no 1 other than trained and lawfully constrained constabulary officers.
Gun advocators sometimes argue that a prohibition would go against individuals’ rights of self-defence. Enforcing a prohibition on guns. they argue. would be tantamount to taking a person’s gun from her merely as person is about to kill her. But this is a faulty analogy. Although a prohibition would strip people of one effectual agencies of self-defence. it would besides guarantee that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even utile for self-defence. Guns are merely one agencies of self-defense and self-defence is merely one agencies of accomplishing security against onslaught. It is the right to security against onslaught that is cardinal. In other Western states. per capita homicide rates. every bit good as rates of violent offense affecting guns. are a fraction of what they are in the United States ( New York Times ) . Gun advocates claim it has nil to make with our permissive gun Torahs or our imposts and patterns affecting guns. If they are right. should we reason that Americans are merely inherently more violent. more fain to mental mental unsoundness. and less moral than people in other Western states? If you resist that decision. you have small pick but to accept that our easy entree to all mode of pieces is a big portion of the account of why we kill each at a much higher rate than our opposite numbers elsewhere.
Mcmahan J. The Rock: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough. The New York Times December 19. 2012. 1:03 autopsy. hypertext transfer protocol: //opinionator. web logs. nytimes. com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/ . 5th April 2013.
Kellermann A. L. . Rivara F. P. . Somes G. . Reay D. T. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership. ” New England Journal of Medicine 327. 7 ( 1992 ) : 467-72. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ncbi. nlm. National Institutes of Health. gov/pubmed/1308093. 10th April. 2013. Villaveces A. . Cummings P. . Espitia V. E. . Koepsell T. D. “Effect of a Ban on Transporting Firearms on Homicide Rates in 2 Colombian Cities. ” Journal of the American Medical Association 283. 9 ( 2000 ) :1205-9.
hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ncbi. nlm. National Institutes of Health. gov/pubmed/10703790. 10th April. 2013. Wintermute. G. J. . Teret S. P. . Kraus J. F. . Wright M. A. . and Bradfield. G. ( 1987 ) . “When Children Shoot Children. ” Journal of American Medical Association 257. 22 ( 1987 ) : 208-209. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ncbi. nlm. National Institutes of Health. gov/pmc/articles/PMC1025799/ . 7th April. 2013. Zimring. F. E. “Firearms. Violence and Public Policy. ” Scientific American ( November 1991 ) . Brad Plumer. “The economic sciences of gun control” . The Washington Post December 28. 2012 at 3:42 autopsy. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. washingtonpost. com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/ . 7th April. 2013. Snyder J. “Nation of Cowards: Essaies on the Ethical motives of Gun Control” . Saint Louis: Accurate Press. 2001. i-ii. Print. Halbrook S. P. That Every Man be Armed: The development of a Constitutional Right. 2nd erectile dysfunction. . The Independent Institute. Oakland. 1994. 108. Print. Welford. C. F. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington D. C. : National Academies Press. 2004. Print. Hemenway. David ( 2011 ) . “Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home” . American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 5. 6 ( 2011 ) : 502–511. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. medscape. com/viewarticle/753058_2. 10th April. 2013. Wiebe. Douglas ( 2003 ) . “Homicide and suicide hazards associated with pieces in the place: A national case-control study” . Ann Emerg Med 41. 6 ( 2003 ) : 12. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ncbi. nlm. National Institutes of Health. gov/pubmed/12764330. 10th April. 2013. Martin Killias. “Gun Ownership. Suicide and Homicide: An International Perspective” 1993. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unicri. eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP. pdf. 10th April. 2013. Bjerregaard. B. and Alan J. L. ( 1995 ) . “Gun Ownership and Gang Membership” . Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86. 1 ( 1995 ) : 37–58. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. saf. org/LawReviews/BjerregaardAndLizotte. htm. 10th April. 2013. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Nonfatal Injury Reports “ . Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. December 7th 2012 ( WISQARS ) . CDC. World Wide Web. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. gov/ncipc/wisqars. 10th April. 2013. Cook J. P. and Ludwig J. The societal costs of gun ownership. Journal of Public Economics 90 ( 2006 ) : 379–391. World Wide Web. elsevier. com/locate/econbase.
Lott. John R. Jr. . “More Guns. Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws” . Chicago Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. 1998. 50-122.