Gun Influence On Gun Control

Gun control: Is violence influenced by the choice of weapon?
Although recurring debated, in special due to recent and recurring broadcasted mass shootings, the majority of people cannot reason whether firearms influence urban violence. Furthermore, when the topic arises in a discussion, it usually serves as a disguise to deeper value conflicts such as individuality versus collectivity; leaving the gun control debase aside because neither sides present strong evidences. Whereas gun control lies on collectivity values, having the choice to possess a firearm usually consolidates itself on the former but also as a necessity claim for some. Nonetheless the inner value one chooses to defend, throughout this text, by comparing countries’ firearm ratios, the afterwards of homicides indices where gun restrictions were imposed, and analyzing premises used by those who advocate gun constraints a reasonable conclusion that the any specific weapon limitation present minor to none influence on urban violence is attainable.
Primary, surveying a broader list of countries to determine whether the relation between firearm ratio and homicide levels is tangible fails. This is an important factor as it will be analyzed in a later moment. Take for example Finland and Switzerland, even though their firearm ratio are considerable higher than countries as Honduras and El Salvador, their homicide levels are extremely lower than those two; and dozens of others. To avoid potential strawman fallacies, as an argument that comparing different economic countries is unreliable, Finland and Switzerland, again, when facing New Zealand and Norway homicide levels, continue to show smaller rates even though they continue to show higher guns per capita (Global Study on Homicide) and (Small Arms Survey 2007).
While comparing distinct countries present real and palpable data, they lack the environment to examine the impact firearm restriction represent on already established scenarios. Therefore, it is vital to investigate the collaterals where those limitations were exercised. After all, firearms banning would indeed decrease homicide rates of places if guns present direct relation with homicides and violence in general. Evaluating researches from one of Brazil’s most prominent statistical institution, IPEA, we observed that even though a Gun Act was implemented in 2004 in that country, its violence level kept the previous curve. Again, we took the precautions to scrutinize countries with high GDP and lengthier gun control laws as the economics and recent Brazil’s legislation could be used to diminish the impact in their Firearm Act’s efficacy. As such, England is a prominent example in this setup. England is globally known for their gun restriction policies and high economic power, nevertheless, after the 1997 Firearm Act their (IPEA) homicide rate continued raising (Murder and Homicides Rates Before and After Gun Bans).
Besides presenting raw data to reason on them, one important consideration is to argue on evidences presented by those who campaign the opposing side. Since although important defending one point of view, understanding opposing side is vital as well. Either to logically change or validate the argument originally proposed. From this point, one compelling argument used in favor of gun policy restrictions is the resemblance between firearms ratio in the USA and their homicide indices. In special when they compare those values with so-called advanced countries; usually with lower homicides ratios. Their approach is to correlate lower homicides indices, and general urban violence, with fewer guns among citizens. Although the data used are usually correct, they intentionally choose the countries to compare to the USA creating, thus, a hasty generalization fallacy as this argument cannot stand a deeper analysis as we contradict it in the second paragraph. For instance, by comparing countries with different homicides counting methodology one achieves corroboration of his initial thesis instead of acquiring knowledge; a priori fallacy. A concrete example of this technique is when comparing the USA and England homicides rates. Have the USA adopted England homicide counting approach their rates would decrease considerably (Crime in the U.S.) as Chief Inspector GreenWood’s words can corroborate in his memorandum in part 35 of Cross Sectional Analyses (Committee Office).
In conclusion, taking into consideration that number of guns does not directly relate to number of homicides as shown in paragraph two, and that England, Brazil and other countries study cases demonstrate that their violence and homicide have not lessened, and that some pieces of evidence used by those defending gun control policies usually are based on fallacies, one can understand that firearms are not responsible for homicides ratings. Anyhow, an analytical approach to the violence’s roots instead of randomly shooting at probable causes might achieve superior results. As the evidences presented here demonstrate, banning firearms have not demonstrated any plausible result. Pulling up a future study, and most probable causes, for violence levels are unfair wealth concentration created by prejudice opportunities as well as ethical diversity conflicts; which usually correlates closer to violence. After all, knives and vehicles kill as much as firearms, and in some countries even more, and surprisingly they are sold without ample restrictions.