The issue of gun control is among the most contentious subjects that public administrators have to deal with. The debate surrounding the issue has managed to divide the country into two opposing factions with one calling for banning of firearms among civilians while the other advocates for the civilians` rights to bear arms. From the debate, it has emerged that those in favour of the banning civilians to own firearms cite the issue of increased gun violence in recent times as the reason as to why the government should step in and legislate against guns in the public sphere. On the other hand, the arguments made against such a move are based, among other things, on the constitutional rights to possess arms given to individuals by the second amendment (Spitzer, 2015) . Given the arguments made by the opposing sides, it is important to research on the evidence and data concerning the issue and come up with a position that is informed by concrete evidence. To gain a better understanding of the issue, the essay will set out to answer the question; does abolishing the right to bear arms from citizens solve the issue of gun violence?
Notably, both sides of the debate agree on the fact that guns should be kept away from mentally unstable and violent individuals. However, advocates of gun control aim at achieving that by means of a blanket ban of guns on every citizen, including the stable, non-violent, and law-abiding gun owners. In light of evidence from statistics on the use of guns, this move will be self-defeating in the sense that it will lead to more deaths than the lives it will save. This is because, while it is true that there are people who tragically lose their lives through gun violence, there are far more lives saved because of the existence of guns in the hands of good people. Statistically, whenever a gun is used in self-defence, there are no shots fired 98% of the time (Gorman & Kopel, 2000) . This means that if gun control laws were to be passed, the total number of individuals who lose their lives as a result of gun violence will actually increase instead of decreasing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The proposal to have stricter gun laws for purposes of safety is additionally blind to the fact that individuals that commit violent crimes using guns are not law-abiding citizens in the first place. Hence, they would not observe the gun laws put in place hence acquiring guns illegally (Braga et al., 2002) . The table below shows the firearms flow and how criminals acquire them through illegal trafficking.
| N(%) | Total Guns | Mean | Median | |
| Firearms trafficked by straw purchaser or straw purchasing ring | 695 (47%) | 25,741 | 37.0 | 14 |
| Trafficking in firearms by unregulated private sellers a | 301 (20%) | 22,508 | 74.8 | 10 |
| Trafficking in firearms at gun shows and flea markets | 198 (13%) | 25,862 | 130.6 | 40 |
| Trafficking in firearms stolen from federal firearms licensees | 209 (14%) | 6,084 | 29.1 | 18 |
| Trafficking in firearms stolen from residence | 154 (10%) | 3,306 | 21.5 | 7 |
| Firearms trafficked by federal firearms licensees, including pawnbroker | 114 (8%) | 40,365 | 354.1 | 42 |
| Trafficking in firearms stolen from common carrier | 31 (2%) | 2,062 | 66.5 | 16 |
Source: National Research Council (2005)
There are facts that support the above figure. That is, the banning of assault rifles in from 1999 to 2004 did not stop the columbine school shooter who used the very assault rifles that were made illegal (Hong et al., 2011) . The same can also be said to be the cause of other mass shootings that have taken place since the perpetrators either used banned firearms or were themselves not legally allowed to own the weapons they used. Such evidence is testimony to the fact that confiscating firearms from all citizens does nothing to improve the safety of communities because if a criminal decides to commit a gun crime, he or she will acquire one using illegal means. As shown in the table below, there are several means through which a criminal can acquire a firearm.
Sources of handgun acquisition by criminals
| Study | Measure | Method of Firearm Acquisition as Reported by Prison Inmates | Source of Firearm as Reported by Prison Inmates |
| Bureau of Justice Statistics (1993) | Handgun possessed by inmate | 27% retail purchase 9% direct theft | 31% family/friends 28% black market/fence 27% retail outlet |
| Wright and Rossi (1994) | Most recent handgun—incarcerated felons | 43% cash purchase 32% direct theft 24% rent/borrow, trade, or gift Estimated 40-70% directly or indirectly through theft | 44% family and friends 26% black market/fence 21% retail outlet |
| Sheley and Wright (1993) | Most recent handgun—incarcerated juveniles | 32% straw purchase 12% theft | 90% from friend, family, street, drug dealer, drug addict, house or car |
Source: National Research Council (2005).
It is also a fact that guns are the best equalizers with the ability to bridge the power gap between a criminal and law-abiding citizen in a shooting situation. Factually, of all the weapons that one can use to defend themselves, it is only a gun that does not depend on a person’s physical strength or combat expertise. Therefore, it is only a gun that can enable an old, young, or any physically weak individual to defend themselves against an enemy of any physical abilities (Carlson, 2014) . Moreover, realistically, one cannot abolish crime. Thus, taking away guns from the hands of such people, whose sole reason of owning a gun is to protect themselves, leaves them vulnerable to criminals because it eliminates the equalizing power that guns give them.
In conclusion, from the above reasons, the research question can be reasonably answered negatively. That is, taking away the right to bear arms from citizens cannot solve the issue of gun violence. In light of this, public administrators can be advised to resist any argument to put in place stricter gun laws that will disadvantage law-abiding gun owners who have them for protection purposes. Additionally, any arguments to ban firearms completely should also be resisted on the grounds of the above arguments.
References
Braga, A. A., Cook, P. J., Kennedy, D. M., & Moore, M. H. (2002). The illegal supply of firearms. Crime and justice , 29 , 319-352.
Carlson, J. (2014). The equalizer? Crime, vulnerability, and gender in pro-gun discourse. Feminist criminology , 9 (1), 59-83.
Gorman, L., & Kopel, D. B. (2000). Self-defense: The equalizer. In Forum for Applied Research & Public Policy (Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 92-100).
Hong, J. S., Cho, H., Allen-Meares, P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). The social ecology of the Columbine High School shootings. Children and youth services review , 33 (6), 861-868.
National Research Council. (2005). Firearms and violence: a critical review . National Academies Press.
Spitzer, R. J. (2015). Politics of gun control . Routledge.
