|
|
|
 
Issue of Gun Control and Violence
The issue of gun control and violence, both in Canada and the United
States, is one that simply will not go away. If history is to be any guide,
no matter what the resolution to the gun control debate is, it is probable
that the arguments pro and con will be much the same as they always have
been. In 1977, legislation was passed by the Canadian Parliament
regulating long guns for the first time, restructuring the availability of
firearms, and increasing a variety of penalties . Canadian firearms law is
primarily federal, and "therfore national in scope, while the bulk of the
firearms regulation in the United States is at the state level; attempts
to introduce stricter leglislation at the federal level are often
defeated".
The importance of this issue is that not all North Americans are
necessarily supportive of strict gun control as being a feasible
alternative to controlling urban violence. There are concerns with the
opponents of gun control, that the professional criminal who wants a gun
can obtain one, and leaves the average law-abiding citizen helpless in
defending themselves against the perils of urban life. Is it our right to
bear arms as North Americans? Or is it privilege? And what are the
benefits of having strict gun control laws? Through the analysis of the
writings and reports of academics and experts of gun control and urban
violence, it will be possible to examine the issues and theories of the
social impact of this issue.
Part II: Review of the Literature
A) Summary
In a paper which looked at gun control and firearms violence in
North America, Robert J. Mundt, of the University of North Carolina,
points out that "Crime in America is popularly perceived [in Canada] as
something to be expected in a society which has less respect for the rule
of law than does Canadian society..." . In 1977, the Canadian government
took the initiative to legislate stricter gun control. Among the
provisions legislated by the Canadian government was a "Firearms
Acquisition Certificate" for the purchase of any firearm, and strengthened
the "registration requirements for handguns and other restricted
weapons..." .
The purpose of the 1977 leglislation was to reduce the availability
of firearms, on the assumption that there is a "positive relationship
between availability and use". In Robert J. Mundt's study, when compared
with the United States, trends in Canada over the past ten years in
various types of violent crime, suicide, and accidental death show no
dramatic results, "and few suggestions of perceptible effects of the 1977
Canadian gun control legislation". The only positive effect , Mundt, found
in the study was the decrease in the use of firearms in robbery with
comparion to trends in the United States . Informed law enforcement
officers in Canada, as in the United States, view the "impact of
restricting the availability of firearms is more likely to impact on those
violent incidents that would not have happened had a weapon been at
hand"(152).
In an article by Gary A. Mauser of the Simon Fraser University in
British Columbia, he places special emphasis on the attitudes towards
firearms displayed by both Canadians and Americans. According to Mauser,
large majorities of the general public in both countries "support gun
control legislation while simultaneously believing that they have the
right to own firearms" (Mauser 1990:573). Despite the similarities, there
are apparent differences between the general publics in the two countries.
As Mauser states that "Canadians are more deferent to authority and do not
support the use of handguns in self defence to the same extent as
Americans".
As Mauser points out that "it has been argued that cultural
differences account for why Canada has stricter gun control legislation
than the United States"(575). Surprisingly enough, nationwide surveys in
both Canada and the United States "show remarkable similarity in the public
attitude towards firearms and gun control"(586). Both Canada and the
United States were originally English colonies, and both have historically
had similar patterns of immigration. Moreover, Canadians are exposed to
American television (both entertainment and news programming) and,
Canadians and Americans read many of the same books and magazines. As a
result of this, the Canadian public has adopted "much of the American
culture" .
In an article by Catherine F. Sproule and Deborah J. Kennett of
Trent University, they looked at the use of firearms in Canadian homicides
between the years of 1972-1982. There findings firmly support the
conclusion that gun control is beneficial. According to Sproule and
Kennett, gun control "may be influencing some suspects to kill by other
methods, but it is less likely for these suspects to kill multiple
victims". From the study conducted by Sproule and Kennett the rate of
violent crimes was five times greater in the U.S than Canada, and "almost
double the rate of firearm use in American than Canadian homicides" (32-
33). In short, the use of firearms "in Canadian homicides has declined
since the legislative changes in gun control in 1977".
As mentioned in lectures, Canadian cities have been traditionally
safer, and less vulnerable to 'Crime Waves' than our American neighbours
due to our extensive police force and gun control laws . A factor to be
considered, though, is our national heritage or culture which holds
traditions of passiveness and peace unlike the American Frontier heritage.
From our textbook, Why Nothing Works, Marvin Harris points out that the
"American Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, and
this has made it possible for U.S. criminals to obtain firearms more
readily than their counterparts in countries like Japan...". Marvin Harris
indicates that "the high rate of homicide in the United States undoubtedly
reflects, to some extent, the estimated 50 million handguns and rifles
legally and illegally owned by the American people" (122). As demonstrated
in the film: Cops, Guns, and Drugs, the problem with controlling urban
violence in the United States is that it is out of proportion in contrast
to the available police force.
In his book, The Saturday Night Special, Robert Sherrill explains the
cheap, usually illegal, easily concealed handgun that plays a part in so
many crimes in the United States. He reviews the role of guns in American
life-from the shoot-outs of the Old West to the street violence of today.
According to Sherrill, "most murders occur in shabby neighbourhoods; of
the 690 murders in Detroit in 1971, for example, 575 occurred in the black
slums mostly by handguns". As a Detroit sociologist added to this alarming
figure: "Living in a frustrating stress-inducing environment like the
United States every day of your life makes many people walking powder
kegs" (38). In agreement with this statement, Sherrill suggests that the
hardest hit of all American urban centres is the inter-cities of Los
Angeles, New York, Detroit, and Washington. These cities largely consist
of visible minorities who are frustrated with the hand dealt to them, and
simply resort to "drugs, guns, and violence" as a way of life . As
discussed in lecture, and viewed in the film: Cops, Guns, and Drugs, many
of the youth in the underclass who become involved in this way of life,
"are considered to be old if they live past the age of 20" .
In another paper by Catherine F. Sproule and Deborah J. Kennett,
they compared the incidence of killings by handguns, firearms other than
handguns, and nonshooting methods between the United States and Canada for
the years 1977 to 1983. In their study they found that "in Canada there
were 443 handgun killings per 100,000 people compared to 4108 in the U.S.
over the period of 1977-1983" . They also noted that the "American murder
rates for handguns are higher than the total Canadian homicide rate"(249).
According to Sproule and Kennett, "Canada's favourable situation regarding
murder relative to the United States is to a large measure the result of
Canadian gun control, and Canadians must be vigilant against any erosion
of our gun control provisions" (250).
B) Comparison:
The works cited above are based on research done by experts and
scholars in the field of gun control and violence. Examining the above
materials can identify similarities and differences found in the various
cited sources, such arguments for and against gun control policy in North
America. It is clearly evident to see that opponents of strict gun control
will have similar arguments. Firstly, they are usually defending each
other against their opponents of the issue, and they see the benefits as
far more greater than the setbacks. The introduction of the 1977
legislation by the Canadian government strongly suggests that the country
will benefit by having a safer society, and reduction in crime. According
to Robert J. Mundt, a benefit reaped by this legislation has been a "trend
away from the use of firearms in robberies has been noticeable ever since
the passage of the gun control provisions of the 1977 Bill C-51 (Criminal
Law Amendment Act)". Mauser mentions that Canadians are "more supportive
of stricter controls on handguns than are Americans...Moreover, Canadians
appear to be less supportive of home owners using firearms to defend
themselves than are Americans" (Mauser:587). This evaluation by Mauser
suggests that Canadians do have confidence in gun control, and law
enforcement in controlling the safety of their well-being.
Similarities can also be cited in the works of Harris and Sherrill
which discuss the effects of having 'the right to bear arms' in the United
States. According to Marvin Harris, Why Nothing Works, there "has been a
steady increase in the availability of firearms since 1945, this may
account for much of the increase in the homicide rate" in the United
States. Harris also suggests that America has "developed a unique
permanent racial underclass" which provide conditions for both the motive
and opportunity for violent criminal behaviour (123). In Sherrill's book,
The Saturday Night Special , a major topic of concern is the status
structure of the street gang in which "success in defense of the turf
brings deference and reputation...Here the successful exercise of violence
is a road to achievement". As Sherrill mentions, this violence is
exercised by the means of a gun that can be easily obtained in the United
States due to the easy accessibility of guns.
There are also some worthwhile differences found in the literature
cited above. For one, Sproule and Kennett , indicate that gun ownership in
the United States is "inversely related to individuals lack of confidence
in collective institutions to protect their security of person and
property...". Robert Sherrill believes that the vast majority of people
who own guns , "simply own them because it is a part of their American
heritage, and the constitution gives them 'the right to bear
arms'"(1973:225). He suggests that Americans choose to practice their
civil liberties to its entirety.
Other notable differences in the literature is Mauser's view for the
differences in the gun-control legislation between the two countries.
Mauser states that the cause for this is "the differences in political
elites and institutions rather than in public opinion" (1990:587). Due to
Canada's political structure, it is a lot easier to make and approve laws
in comparison with the United States Congress structure. Part III: Thesis
Statement After researching all the data collected from the library and
the use of course-related materials, I have formulated my own theory on
the social impact of gun control and violence in North America. Going back
to the introduction, I have asked the reader two questions :(1) Is it our
right to bear arms as North Americans? Or is it a privilege?, and (2) What
are the benefits of having strict gun control laws? It appears to me that
much of the literature cited above looks at gun control as being a
feasible alternative in reducing homicides and armed robbery. From the
authors cited above, there findings undermine the apparent claim of gun
control opponents in their slogan "people kill, guns don't". The
introduction of gun control in Canada significantly shows that Canadian
gun control, especially the provisions pertaining to handguns, does have
the beneficial effect of reducing violent crime, and saving lives.
Part IV: Analysis And Conclusions
When looking at the 1977 Canadian Legislation of gun control, it is
easy to see that there is some bias and assumptions present. For one, it
assumes that left to its own devices the legislation will make it
virtually impossible for a criminal to obtain a handgun. Secondly, there
is an assumption that if a person doesn't have a criminal record (it
doesn't neccessarily mean that they are law-abiding) then they are
eligible to obtain a firearm with an FAC (firearms Acquisition
Certificate). With the implementation of Bill C-51, a `Black Market' for
illegal handguns has emerged from the United States into Canada, making it
extremely easy for the professional criminal to obtain a firearm.
It can be agreed that since the implementation of Bill C-51 in 1977,
Canada has remained relatively safe in incidents involving firearms in
comparison to the United States. The assumption of many Americans, is that
having the right to bear arms increases their security is open to dispute.
It is just as reasonable to assume that restricting the `right to bear
arms' will increase the safety and security of a society. In accordance
with many sociologists beliefs, is that Canada historically hasn't
experienced the problems of crime, that the United States has, because of
it's central police force.
In addition, Sproule and Kennett view the significant effect of gun
control is the method of killing. Although "gun control may be influencing
some suspects to kill by other methods, it is less likely for these
suspects to kill multiple victims". As witnessed by the American media,
mass murder in public is much more a common occurrence in the U.S. than
Canada. It is safe to say that gun control has saved the lives of
potential innocent victims of crime.
Furthermore, as was mentioned in class discussion and lectures, the
strength or influences of the mass media to glorify violence has had
detrimental effects on North American society. In some ways, the act of
violence has been desensitised and glorified rather than being displayed as
an unacceptable form of behaviour. This portrayal by the media, has made
handguns and other firearms seem fashionable in the eyes of our youth and
general population in North America. This unquestionably places our law
enforcement agencies at a considerable disadvantage, simply because it
erodes the confidence and trust displayed in them by the general public.
Presently, Canada does have the advantage of gun control unlike the
U.S. situation. We are now living in an environment that has seen dramatic
increase in violent crime, over a short period of time. Whether the United
States adopts a gun control policy similar to Canada's, remains to be seen.
As for Canadians, we must maintain confidence in the police and justice
system to protect our collective security as an important means by which
to deter gun acquisition.
ADDITIONAL FEATURED ESSAYS
Censorship Threatens Freedom Of Speech
Thesis: The world is full with obscene things. And it is understandable that parents want to protect their children from
Television That Kills
Television has changed over time. It used to be a wholesome activity for the family to sit in front of the tube together
Violence In The Media
In the world we live in, violence is a way of life for many people. Chances are, most of the people reading this live in
Child Abuse
Abuse is the improper use of power by one person to the detriment of another. In today’s society and world, spouses of m
Jane Eyre - Violence
Charlotte Bronte uses violence in several scenes throughout the novel. The violence in the novel is not fatal to anyone,
|
|
|
|
