Crime Control and Public Policy

Introduction 

Crime control involves several methods aimed at reducing the crime rates in the society. It includes several government interventions aimed at deterring individuals from participating in the crime and further permanently or temporarily incapacitating people from recidivism (Maruna & Immarigeon, 2013). Many countries have put crime control and prevention at the helm of their policies. One of the policies that have received widespread attention in reducing crime is the gun control. Most fundamentally, it remains an important endeavor for the government to enhance gun control in protecting children and families in schools and social settings. According to statistics, homicides account for the highest number of deaths for people aged between 10 and 19 years old. Statistics further show that the number of Americans killed by guns between 2014 and 2017 is at a whopping 56, 755 (Levineet al. 2015). With proponents of gun control policy citing this as a viable strategy in combating the ever-unending crimes, opponents feel that it is either ineffective or counterproductive. 

Arguments In Favor Of the Policy 

Criminal violence is continuing to dominate news leading to immense public concerns. The advocates of gun control have advanced several arguments in support of their position which asks the government to enhance stricter laws to reduce the violence. Over the last 12 years, many studies have found out that an increased prevalence of gun ownership is associated with the elevated levels of violent crime (Levine et al. 2015). It is also critical to appreciate the fact that the US has the largest gun ownership rates which correlate to its unprecedented rates of firearm-related deaths. Policies aiming at gun control such as stricter background checks, licensing, and controlling the access to the high capacity magazines will reduce the number of guns in the society and further reduce violent crimes. The second major argument fronted by advocates of gun control is that owning a gun increases the risk that they will be killed. According to research, gun primarily kills people in three major ways including suicide, accidents, and homicide. Evidence has shown that there is an increased risk of suicide among people owning guns. States that record more guns in the US have an increased death from suicide and accidents. 

There is a body of research that shows that guns contribute to high cases of domestic violence. In a survey that involved battered women, a whopping 71% said that guns had been used against them (Levine et al. 2015). Therefore, it is increasingly apparent that that gun ownership predisposes an individual to violence. Policies that increase the minimum age required for gun ownership, coupled with the sealing of loopholes that enable gun sales are all significant in preventing violence. The third argument proposed by the proponents of this policy is that when guns are kept out of the hands of the criminals, the levels of crimes significantly dwindle. The current gun population in the US is between 250 and 280 million firearms. Although it is difficult to tell the number of illegal guns, statistics have shown that 65% of juvenile offenders have owned three or more firearms in their lifetime (Levine et al. 2015). Additionally, criminals have managed to access guns through avenues such as gun shows which do not subject one to the background checks. Research has shown that up to 40% of the guns are either sold through the shows or internet (Levine et al. 2015). Therefore, stricter background checks and criminalization of shows and internet sites selling guns would be a step forward in controlling gun-related violence. 

Some arguments also propose a move to reduce the number of guns in the society as a way of taking guns away from the criminals. Disarmament primarily aims at limiting, abolishing, or reducing the number of weapons in the country. It aims at eliminating weapons that are capable of causing mass destruction as those used in school shootings such as in Sandy Hook and Marjory Stoneman High School. Disarmament would not only target criminals but will also seek to find the ineligible such as the young, those with criminal backgrounds, and the mentally unsound. Proponents say that this would be a significant way in reducing crime as the number of guns already in wrong hands will be reclaimed. However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been on the forefront in preventing any meaningful policy that aims at controlling gun control. According to the body, gun ownership is a right enshrined in the constitution under the Second Amendment and should not be in any way infringed through gun control policies. 

Arguments against the Policy 

If introduced, the federal government proposal for stringent gun control would not reduce crime, according to opponents of the policy. Such individuals have even claimed that the reduction stricter gun policies can have an impact in increasing crimes as guns are primary essential in protecting people. Such policies are also accused of assuming that all gun owners are identical. According to studies, gun owners are primarily divided into two including the ordinary persons such as the target shooter and the hunter. The second owner is the violent offenders who pose a threat to the community. According to the opponents of these policies, the legislation already existing is enough to curb the ongoing gun-related violence. Examples of these laws include the hunting regulations, firearms acquisition certificate, and handgun registration amongst others. There is a cliché that says “guns don’t kill-only people kill” (Kleck, 2017). There is another body of research that has held that guns offer protection that can reduce violent crimes as criminals are cognizant of the equal threat posed by the public. 

Every policy must remain in tandem with the constitutional provisions of any country. Imposing gun control comes with a threat of infringing the rights of the people as outlined in the Second Amendment that a “well-regulated militia” can own and keep firearms (Kleck, 2017). It, therefore, means that the implementation of these policies will receive a significant backlash from a section of the people, political divide, and interest groups amongst others. It can lead to lengthy court battles and legislation in the Congress. Also, opponents of gun control policies have come up with proposals that provide the government with alternatives to the much-controversial gun control policies. As part of curbing violent criminals, there have been suggestions to put mandatory sentencing for any person who commits a criminal act with a firearm. Such a move will respect individual rights to own guns and at the same time, reduce the crime rates due to fear of the lifetime incarceration. It also calls on the increased deployment and armament of the policies to enable them to face the violent criminals better. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it is evident that crime control is an emotive issue that requires the input of many stakeholders from the citizens, to federal agencies. With the courts having difficulties in interpreting the Second Amendment in the words of the founders of the nation, the gun control policies will continue to be viewed in light of controversy. Evidence has shown that indeed the high prevalence of guns in the country is the primary reason for the increased violent crimes. Stricter background checks and the sealing of loopholes such as the sale of firearms in the shows provide these policies with an impetus to reduce crime. However, critics such as NRP hold that guns are an integral part of human rights and also play a vital role in safety and protection. 

References 

Kleck, G. (2017).  Targeting Guns: Firearms and their control . Routledge. 

Levine, R. S., Goldzweig, I., Kilbourne, B., & Juarez, P. (2012). Firearms, youth homicide, and public health. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 23(1), 7. 

Maruna, S., & Immarigeon, R. (Eds.). (2013).  After crime and punishment . Routledge.