Name
Course
Professor
Date
Gun Control
Gun control is a set of laws or policies that control the construct, trade, ownership, transport, alteration or make use of guns by civilians. Countries have restricted the use of firearms, having a few legislations being categorized as permissive. The policy that regulates access to firearms restrict access to only specific categories of guns and then limiting the types of persons who will be granted a license to have access to weapons. Those who favor legislation prefer to use the term ‘gun safety’ (Spitzer, 35). Debates concerning the control of guns have shown the importance both to the people and the country. Therefore the sole purpose of this essay is to give facts and explain the significance of controlling guns.
Possession of gun in the United States is believed to put people at risk, more harm than protecting people. More deaths have been reported as cases of unlawful killing of another person and suicides. In 2010 US gun homicides rates were 25 times higher than in 23 other high-income countries (Smith, 41). About a third were considered homicides, while the rest were classified as suicides. Between 2000 and 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded half a million cases of gun-related deaths. The most affected person by gun violence is the black and Hispanic men and women compared to white peers, 1.7 for whites, and 14.2 for blacks.
Likewise, the report also suggests that men with access to firearms may be more likely to commit suicide than women and that women face higher chances of being homicide victims than men. Assassinations among female victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were 35.5% were murdered by their husbands or lovers (Duggan and Brian, 90). In contrast, among men, murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were by 3.8% were murdered by their spouse or girlfriends. Therefore, the government should enhance strict gun control rules in the United States, especially the cities where there is inadequate enforcement of the law to prevent Gun Violence, homicides, and suicides.
Secondly, gun violence has lead to economic impact in Texas. Estimating the financial burden of victimizations is the cost of illness method used in the medical field and measures the costs of a particular illness or injury. These costs include direct costs, such as hospital and drug expenses (Duggan and Brian, 81). The indirect costs include counseling sessions, legal services. There are also intangible costs, including pain and suffering, as they are typically not included because they are difficult to quantity. The medical costs of gunshot injuries in the United States cost an average estimation of about 17 dollars for each person in 1995.
Lifetime medical cost is estimated to be 2.3 billion dollars in the year 1995. In 2005 violent crimes negatively affect housing values, and the effect was pronounced for low-income neighborhoods. In neighborhoods where gun violence surges occur, they significantly reduce the growth of new retail and service businesses (Brooks and Kathryn, 70). Gun violence often leads to fewer jobs for the neighbors in the residential area and few local establishments for residents to do their shopping. Thus, if the local shops are few, the housing values in the area appreciate more slowly. Reduction of gun violence would help enhance a healthy economic neighborhood, deaths, and hospitals’ costs by firearm assault injuries.
Entrepreneurs in these residents are forced to take the cost of enhancing security measures because local residents do not feel comfortable shopping in the area. The neighborhood’s insecurity has also led to unemployment among the people (Smith, 46). Areas where there are high gun homicides cases, are likely to suffer low employment growth, despite being surrounded by relatively moderate growth. For instance, the rate of employees in Texas fell from 130 thousand to 112 thousand in retail and service businesses and 800,000 to 1 million across all categories. In Washington, DC, the late of employees between 2011 to 2012
Conclusion
Based on different questions that arise on the gun control policy, in my own opinion, I would conclude that Texas Government policy should enforce the gun control law as it brings more negative impacts compared to the positive effects. Firstly, more lives are lost due to people accessing guns and harm others (Brooks and Kathryn, 80). Cases of suicides and homicides are widespread, and the percentage of these deaths increases day in day out. Also, possessions of guns have to lead to low growth of the states economically. States incur expenses that can be avoided if possession of firearms is prohibited. Medical and drug bills, counseling session fees could be avoided if guns are restricted (Spitzer, 40). People would feel safe to conduct their business, startup new shops as they would feel safe when the firearms are condemned from being accessed. Thus the law should be strongly advised and enforced for the betterment of the individuals and the state.
Work Cited
Duggan, Mark, Randi Hjalmarsson, and Brian A. Jacob. “The short-term and localized effect of gun shows: Evidence from California and Texas.” Review of Economics and Statistics 93.3 (2011): 80-99.
Spitzer, Robert J. “Gun control: Constitutional mandate or myth?.” Moral controversies in American politics. Routledge, (2014). 30-50.
Brooks, Richard RW, Claudia M. Landeo, and Kathryn E. Spier. “Trigger happy or gun shy? Dissolving common‐value partnerships with Texas shootouts.” The RAND Journal of Economics 41.4 (2010): 64-83.
Smith, Christopher E. “Gun policy: politics and pathways of action.” Violence and gender 7.2 (2020): 40-46.