Gun Control Essay

Should Private hero sandwich Ownership Be Banned?far-flung gasolene monomania in a community could provide a general deterrent to criminal predation, dejecting the gamble to have goters and non-owners alike. But widespread crampfish self- self-discipline could in like manner lead to increase risks of various sorts, including the disaster that zeps will be sh come forwardd by the owners or transferred to dangerous battalion with and through theft or unregulated sale. Whether the narkible costs of catalystman ownership atomic number 18 positive or negative is arguably the virtu bothy funda affable question for the regulation of fire fortifys in the unite States. ordnance store secure laws and policy vary greatly roundwhat the world. Some countries, much(prenominal) as the linked Kingdom, contrive very(prenominal) strict limits on hired shoot self- confine while an different(prenominal)wises, such as the United States, have relatively baseborn li mits. In some countries, the topic remains a source of smart tilt with prop onenessnts gener onlyy reason the dangers of widespread hoagie ownership, and opponents gener each(prenominal)(prenominal)y arguing individual pays of self-protection as well as individual liberties in general. Some in the United States view throttle valve ownership as a civil right (Snyder i-ii), where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to lay aside and bear arms.One of the earliest U.S. hero- go steady code at the introduce level were the black codes (laws that re arrive at offd the pre Civil War era slave codes which, among different things, prohibited black ownership of firearms) in an attempt to pr howevert blacks having retrieve to the full rights of citizens, including rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment (Halbrook 108). Laws of this type later social functiond racially neutral language to survive legal challenge, entirely we re expected to be enforced against blacks rather than whites. Following the Sandy Hook master(a) work shooting in December 2012, where 20 young children were extinguished, Wayne LaPierre, vice-president of the case conk out connection (NRA) proposed, at an NRA press conference, that the solution to such trage crumples is to place arm officers in schools, saying The to a great extent(prenominal)over way to stop a sad guy with a particle accelerator is a good guy with a triggerman(Washington post). LaPierre blamed the media, politicians in favor of gun-free zones, U.S. mental health services, and lurid movies and video games for the shooting. He introduced an NRA-backed proposal to put armed guards in all schools in the U.S., which he called the discipline Model School Shield Program. In January 2013, the Newtown school board voted unanimously to ask for police force officer nominal head in all of its elementary schools. A 2004 review by the National Research Council reason outd that, high directs of ho consumption take over firearms ownership argon associated with high order of gun felo-de-se, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce ar big sources of villainy guns and guns employ in self-destruction, that firearms ar employ defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police noises may raiseively lower gun crime and wildness (Welford). Another review conducted in 2011 by the Firearm stain Center at Penn determined that, the correlativity amongst firearm accessibility and values of homicide is consistent across high income industrialized nations in general, where at that place atomic number 18 to a greater extent firearms, at that place are high rates of homicide overall.A 2004 review of the literature conducted by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center similarly establish that, a broad array of reason indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, bo th in the United States and across high-income countries (Homicide Firearms Research). Reviews by the HICRC also assessed variation in gun ownership and rage in the United States and embed that the uniform pattern held recites with higher gun ownership had higher rates of homicide, both gun- reckon and overall. A review published in 2011 found that the health risks of a gun in the home are greater than the benefits, based on evidence that the presence of guns increases the risk of completed suicides and evidence that guns increase the intimidation and murder rate of women (Hemenway 502). The researchers found no plausible evidence that guns in the home quash the severity of injury in a break-in or confrontation or act as a deterrent of assault. A previous study (2003) had similarly found that the presence of a gun in the home signifi notifytly increased the risk of suicide and adult homicide (Wiebe 12). A number of studies have examined the correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates internationally. Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were probatory correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. gunman control has a serious national health, semipolitical and scotch c erstwhilerns that need to be addressed respectively. HEALTH/SAFETYEvery year, to a greater extent(prenominal) than two thousand mountain die in the United States from gun-related injuries. The universe groups virtually affected by these avoidable deaths are children and young adolescents. The misuse of firearms is a problem worldwide, of course. However, the incidence of firearm use does vary from orbit to country. According to the United Nations Report on Firearm Regulation, horror Prevention, and illegal Justice (1997), the United States has weaker firearm regulations and higher numbers of deaths involving firearms than all other industrializ ed and even more than or slight developing nations. The study also say that the total firearm death rate in the United States in 1995 was 13.7 per century,000 people, three times the average rate among other responding countries and the third highest, afterwardsward Brazil and Jamaica. More than half the homes in the United States possess firearms, so it is hardly surprising that they rank among the ten leading causes of death write up for more than 30,000 deaths annually (Wintermute 3107). While most people have guns chiefly for sporting activities, many owners also have them for mortalal protection and trade protection purposes.The public health approach to violence prevention attempts not only to reduce the occurrence of violence, but also to limit the numbers of inglorious and nonfatal injuries when such events occur. To prevent gun-related violence, indeed any type of violence, it is alpha to understand the dynamics of violence as well as the place of diametrical kinds of mechanisms in both fatal and nonfatal injuries. Research from around the world indicates that socio-structural factor such as high unemployment rates, ethnic and apparitional hostilities, political instability, financial inequalities, lack of resources, and economic deprivation increase the likelihood of violence. When guns are readily uncommitted in such settings, or where order to curb their illegitimate use is lax or inappropriate, injuries are more possible to occur, intentional or otherwise. Individual factors backside also decrease violence, including the use of firearms. Substance and alcohol abuse, mental disorders, feelings of own(prenominal) inadequacy and social isolation, and an individuals experience with violence in the home are among some of the factors that have been associated with violence.The more guns there are in circulation, the greater the likelihood that they will be misused. Hence, from a public health perspective, it is important to de vise strategies which aim to ensure that those in possession of arms use them for legitimate purposes and not for violent or criminal acts. thither are a variety of ways of dealing with the problems caused by guns in caller, and legislation is one of the methods most commonly used. Franklin Zimring has noted that laws that regulate gun use fall into three categories those that limit the place and the manner of firearm use, those that keep guns out of the hands of notional users, and those that cast out high risk firearms. arse and manner legislation sets out to do as it suggests, to limit definite uses of firearms in certain locations. Examples include forbiddance the use of firearms in public places and prohibiting the carrying of a firearm (except for those carried by credential somebodynel and police). This legislation is sticky to implement, however, without the active check of the police force, and that support requires additional funding to cave in sure that police m onitor authorizationly violent events. Successful place and manner legislation has been implemented in the country of Columbia, where firearms are pertain in 80 percent of homicides. Here, an innovative gun control intervention was implemented by the Program for Development, Security, and Peace (DESEPAZ), in collaboration with the city manager of Cali, Colombias third largest city.A police-enforced ban was introduced in Cali that prohibited carrying firearms on weekends, public pay days, public holidays, and election days because such periods were historically associated with higher rates of homicide (Villaveces 1206). Media-led information campaigns informed the public of the new gun control measure. On the days when the ban was in operation, police set up strategically located checkpoints in areas of the city where criminal activities were commonplace, and they conducted random searches of individuals. During the ban, police policy directed that if a legally acquired firearm was found on an individual, the weapon was to be temporarily taken from the individual and the individual fined. Individuals without substantiation of legally acquiring the firearm were to be arrested and the firearm permanently confiscated (Villaveces1206). Denying high-risk users access to firearms is the second type of legislative tool to control gun misuse. In order for this approach to work, the law has to define clearlywho move into the category of high-risk user. The term is usually applied to convicted criminals, those deemed mentally unfit, and to dose addicts. It also applies to minors. Such legislation attempts to make it difficult for members of these groups to possess a firearm.Every year, in substantial and developing countries across the globe, thousands of children and young adolescents die while playing with loaded guns. Additionally, studies have shown that adolescents are vulnerable in terms of firearm misuse and successful suicide attempts. In the United States between 1965 and 1985 the rate of suicide involving firearms increased 36 percent, whereas the rate of suicide involving other methods remained constant. Among adolescents and young adults, rates of suicide by firearms doubled during the same period (Kellermann 467). Restricting minors the access to have weapons can suffice to reduce these events. Many states now attempt to prevent high-risk groups from obtaining firearms by identifying ineligible individuals before they can acquire a gun. Minors would obviously fall into this category. The screening system include in U.S. legislation cognize as the Brady Bill which permits police to determine whether a prospective gun emptor has a criminal record. If the check turns up nobody the purchaser can obtain the gun (Zimring 53).The third legislative strategy used to combat the misuse of firearms is to introduce legislation regulating the use of very dangerous weapons. Such laws limit the run of high risk weapons and can complement t he strategy of decreasing high risk uses and users (Zimring 53). Such supply step-down laws strive to make the most dangerous guns so stingy that potential criminals cannot obtain them easily (Zimring 52). They also set out pissed requirements that must be met to prove that possession of such a weapon is necessary. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and certain military devices are the kinds of weapons covered by this type of legislation. Research into this area in the United States has shown that states in which such strict laws operate have lower levels of violent crime than states that do not. Another means of legislating for firearm misuse is to introduce unshakable penalties for criminals caught use firearms. More than half of the states in the USA have passed such laws. This approach is popular with gun owners because the penalties concern only gun related crime and place no restrictions on firearm ownership (Zimring 52). political economyAfter the school massacre in Newt own, everyone has been putting out proposals for how to reduce gun violence. President Obama created an inter-agency task force. The NRA asked for armed guards in every school and now economists are weighing in with their own, number-heavy approaches (Washington post). In the United States, there are an average of 32,300 deaths (the majority of which are suicide) and approximately 69,000 injuries annually most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, much involving male juveniles or young adult males, with an estimated annual cost of $100 billion(Bjerregaard and Alan 37). American society remains deeply divided over whether more restrictive gun control policies would save lives and prevent injuries. Scholars agree the rate of gun violence in the United States is higher than many substantial OECD countries that practice strict gun control. The United States low life prevision (relative to other wealthy countries) may be attributable to guns, with a reduction in average American lifespan of 104 days (Lemaire, 359).Disagreement exists among academics on the question of whether a causal relationship between gun availability and violence exists, and which, if any, gun controls would effectively lower gun related violence. organise and Ludwig created a data set that used the number of suicides by firearm in a county as a proxy for gun ownership and checked it against a variety of existing survey data. They figured out the social cost of owning a gun. The two economists determined that a greater prevalence of guns in an area was associated with an increase in the murder rate, but not other types of violent crimes (guns, the authors argue, lead to an intensification of criminal violence). wherefore does this happen? One possibility The two economists found evidence that if there are more legal guns in an area, its more in all likelihood that those guns will be transferred to illegal owners. When the two economists added up the cos ts of gun ownership, more injuries and more homicides and weighed them against various benefits, they concluded that the average household acquiring a gun imposed a net cost on the rest of society of somewhere between $100 to $1,800 per year (379-382). Now, usually when economists come across a product that has a negative outwardness like cigarettes or coal-fired plants, they recommend tasking or regulating it, so that the user of the product internalizes the costs that he or she is imposing on everyone else. In this case, an economist might suggest slapping a steeper tax on guns or bullets.Others might object that this isnt fair. There are responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. Not everyone with a gun imposes the same costs on society. Why should the tax be uniform? And that brings us to John Wasiks recent essay at Forbes. alternatively of a tax on guns, he recommends that gun owners be call for to purchase liability insurance (Washington post). Different gun o wners would pay different rates, depending on the risks involved. Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it. Economist John Lott, in his playscript More Guns, Less criminal offence, provides data showing that laws allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a gun legally in public may cause reductions in crime because potential criminals do not know who may be carrying a firearm. The data for Lotts analysis came from the FBIs crime statistics for all 3,054 US counties (Lott 50). University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues in his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s Four Factors that Explain the Decline and sextet that Do Not, that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. A comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information. Fully automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law.The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and the payment of a $200 tax for sign registration and for each transfer. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners apology Act of 1986 prohibited further registry of machine guns manufactured after it took effect. The result has been a massive rise in the price of machine-guns available for clandestine ownership, as an increased demand chases the fixed, pre-1986 supply. For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 su bmachine-gun, which may be sold to law enforcement for about $1,000, costs a hush-hush citizen about $5,000 (Stewart). POLITICSGun politics addresses safety make dos and ideologies related to firearms through criminal and noncriminal use. Gun politics deals with rules, regulations, and restrictions on the use, ownership, as well as distribution of firearms. Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom or Germany, have very strict limits on gun possession while others, such as the United States, have relatively lenient limits. Most nations hold the agent to protect them, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be confounded under certain circumstances some countries have been forced to disarm by other countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control a greements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may hear themselves with a range of penalties or sanctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations. National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States International Traffic in gird Regulations (ITAR) program to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to dispirit restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to organized crime and narcotics-related activities.The issue of firearms has, at times, taken a high-profile position in United States floriculture and politics. Mass shootings (like the Columbine High School massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Virginia Tech massacre ) have continually ignited political debates about gun control in the United States. According to a 2012 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 10% of Americans support banning all guns except for police and authorized personnel, 76% support gun ownership with some restrictions, and 10% support gun ownership with no restrictions. Michael Bouchard, benefactor Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, estimates, there are 5,000 gun shows annually in the United States. In 1959, the Gallup poll showed that 59% of Americans support banning shooting iron possession. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 26% back up banning handgun possession. In 1990, the Gallup poll showed that 78% of Americans supported stricter laws on gun sales than existed at the time, 17% felt the laws were fine as they were, and 2% supported less strict laws. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 43% supported stricter laws on gun sales, 44% felt the laws were fine a s they were, and 11% supported less strict laws. In 2001, the Gallup poll showed that 51% of Americans prefer that current gun laws be enforced more strictly. In 2011, it was 60% (Gallup politics).A 2009 CNN/ORC poll found 39% favored stricter gun laws, 15% favored less strict gun laws, and 46% best-loved no change. CNN reported that the drop in support (since the 2001 Gallup poll) came from self-identified independents and Republicans, with support among Democrats remaining consistent. There is a sharp divide between gun-rights proponents and gun-control proponents. This leads to intense political debate over the effectiveness of firearm regulation. Democrats are more likely to support stricter gun control than are Republicans. In an online 2010 Harris Poll, of Democrats, 70% favored stricter gun control, 7% favored less strict gun control, and 14% preferred neither. Of Republicans, 22% favored stricter control, 42% favored less strict control, and 27% preferred neither (Krane 1-2 ). In the same 2011 Gallup poll, 55% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had a gun in their household compared to 40% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Of Republicans and Republican-leaners, 41% personally owned a gun. Of Democrats and Democratic-leaners, 28% personally owned a gun (Gallup politics). Incidents of gun violence and self-defense have routinely ignited bitter debate. 12,632 murders were committed using firearms and 613 persons were killed unintentionally in 2007 (CDC 89). Surveys have suggested that guns are used in crime deterrence or prevention around 2.5 million times a year in the United States (LaPierre 23).In 2004, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a public hatred through the negligent marketing of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday night specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The NAACP lawsuit and several similar suits, some brought by municipalities seeking reimbursement for medical cost associated with criminal shootings were dismissed in 2003. Gun-rights groups, most notably the National Rifle Association, portrayed it as nuisance suits, aimed at driving gun manufacturers (especially smaller firms) out of business through court costs alone, as damage awards were not expected. These suits prompted the passage of the egis of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in October 2005. On January 22, 2013, Congressman Adam Schiff introduced a bill in U.S. House of Representatives to snack counter the PLCAA, the The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun military group Act.CONCLUSIONSince the days of the pioneers, guns have been around as part of the tradition in countries such as the United States of America (USA), Switzerland and Canada. In recent years, issues concerning the ownership and possession of private guns have become a hotly debated topic in these societies because of the rapid growth of gun crimes. However, guns are still valuable for self-defence. allowance account of private gun ownership can decrease crime rates and a gun abolition policy will produce unsuitable outcomes to society. One of the arguments against banning private gun ownership is that allowing private use of guns is effective for self-protection. If a person carries a weapon, it can be used as self-defence against criminals. It is believed that citizens who are unarmed have higher chances to be targeted and assaulted by criminals as most lawbreakers would want to reduce their risks when committing crimes. The supporters of total gun confiscation argue that police who are allowed to carry firearms will be able to stop the crimes. Americans are finally beginning to have a serious discussion about guns. One argument were listening is the central pillar of the case for private gun ownership that we are a ll safer when more individuals have guns because armed citizens deter crime and can defend themselves and others against it when deterrence fails. Those who dont have guns, its said, are free riders on those who do, as the criminally addicted are less likely to engage in crime the more likely it is that their victim will be armed. When most citizens are armed, as they were in the nonsensical West, crime doesnt cease.The criminals get better. Theres some soul to this argument, for even criminals dont like being shot. But the system of logic is faulty, and a close look at it leads to the conclusion that the United States should ban private gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely. One would think that if widespread gun ownership had the robust deterrent effects that gun advocates claim it has, our country would be free of crime than other developed societies. But its not. When most citizens are armed, as they were in the barbaric West, crime doesnt cease. Instead, criminal s work to be better armed, more competent in their use of guns (quicker on the draw), and readier to use them. When this happens, those who get guns may be safer than they would be without them, but those without them become progressively more vulnerable. Gun advocates have a solution to this the unarmed must arm themselves. But when more citizens get guns, further problems arise people who would once have got in a fistfight instead shoot the person who provoked them people are shot by mistake or by accident. And with guns so plentiful, any lunatic or criminally disposed person who has a sudden and perhaps only temporary nerve impulse to kill people can simply help himself to the contents of mommas gun cabinet. Perhaps most important, the more people there are who have guns, the less effective the police become. As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines and personal security becomes a matter of self-help.For the police to remain effective in a soc iety in which most of those they must confront or arrest are armed, they must, like criminals, become better armed, more numerous, and readier to fire. But if they do that, guns wont have produced a net reduction in the power of the government but will only have generated enormous private and public expenditures, leaving the balance of power between armed citizens and the state as it was before, the unarmed conspicuously worse off, and everyone poorer except the gun industry. The logic is as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increase incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. The logic of private gun possession is so similar to that of the thermonuclear arms race. When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable. The other states then have an incentive to get nuclear weapons to try to sterilise their security. As more states get them, the incentives for others increase. If eventually all get them, the potential for catastrophe whether through irrationality, misperception, or accident is great. Each states security is then much lower than it would be if none had nuclear weapons. But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers.Gun advocates sometimes argue that a prohibition would violate individuals rights of self-defense. Imposing a ban on guns, they argue, would be tantamount to taking a persons gun from her just as someone is about to kill her. But this is a defective analogy. Although a prohibition would deprive people of one effective means of self-defense, it would also ensure that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even useful for self-defense. Guns are only one means of self-defense and self-defense is only o ne means of achieving security against attack. It is the right to security against attack that is fundamental. In other Western countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States (New York measure). Gun advocates claim it has nothing to do with our permissive gun laws or our customs and practices involving guns. If they are right, should we conclude that Americans are simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other Western countries? If you rule out that conclusion, you have little choice but to accept that our easy access to all manner of firearms is a large part of the explanation of why we kill each at a much higher rate than our counterparts elsewhere.REFERENCESMcmahan J. The Stone Why Gun Control Is Not Enough. The New York Times December 19, 2012, 103 pm. http//opinionator.blogs.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 medicate 327.7 (1992) 467-72. http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1308093. 10th April, 2013. Villaveces A., Cummings P., Espitia V. E., Koepsell T. D. Effect of a Ban on Carrying Firearms on Homicide Rates in 2 Colombian Cities. Journal of the American medical examination Association 283.9 (2000)1205-9.http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.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. http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1025799/. 7th April, 2013. Zimring, F. E. Firearms, Violence and Public Policy. Scientific American (November 1991). Brad Plumer. The economics of gun control. The Washington Post December 28, 2012 at 342 pm. http//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28 /the-economics-of-gun-control/. 7th April, 2013. Snyder J. Nation of Cowards Essays on the ethics of Gun Control. Saint Louis Accurate Press, 2001. i-ii. Print. Halbrook S.P. That Every Man be Armed The evolution of a Constitutional Right. 2nd ed., 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) 502511. http//www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2. 10th April, 2013. Wiebe, Douglas (2003). Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home A national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med 41.6(2003) 12. http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330. 10th April, 2013. Martin Killias. Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide An International Perspective 1993. http//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) 3758. http//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. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. 10th April, 2013. make up J. P. and Ludwig J. The social costs of gun ownership. Journal of Public Economics 90 (2006) 379391. www.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.