Nowadays, the issues over the policies of the gun control are the relevant topic in terms of correlation with the crime rates in the society. In fact, any citizen wants to live in a peaceful environment, but the increase in the number of guns in use creates the background for the crimes. In this regard, people conduct arguments, in which the one part is sure that the gun control can decrease the crimes. Conversely, other people reject this statement because the decrease in the number of guns does not mean the lowering of the crime rates. However, the opposite side to the gun control does not cover the issue of the possibility of making wrong actions. In other words, people do not consider the fact that the gun possession makes gives more power to a person and eliminates the barriers of the consequences of their actions. In this way, this argumentative essay has the purpose of proving that gun control limits the people in their actions and discussing the humans’ responsibility as an important aspect of the social life.

First, the experience of the contemporary world showed the evidence that the gun control was a crucial policy that could reduce the rates of the crimes. For instance, in the article “24 Ways to Reduce Crime in the World’s Most Violent Cities” by Naomi Larsson, the author – an expert in the criminology – underlines the importance of the policies. According to the provided data, the rate of the homicides in Rio was over 100 deaths for 100,000 citizens during the 90s (Larsson). This data had the epidemic character, and the citizens were not protected. Conversely, when Brazil had the same problem, the government of the country tried to reduce the homicides’ rates by implementing the gun control policies. As a result, these laws reduced the intensity of the crimes because of the limitations. It is important to consider that the person who has a gun is more aggressive in one’s own actions because of the human nature. Moreover, if it is the case of the lack of proper limitations, then such individual begins to think that no consequences would follow. Unfortunately, such attitude to the guns leads to the situations, in which person may kill anyone without the doubt, while demonstrating the power.

Second, an improvement of the gun control policies was the method that reduced the crime rates. For instance, in the article “Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship” by Adam Liptak, the author – a specialist in Supreme Court – provides the evidence of the consequences of the development of gun control policies. Liptak also covers the cause for this improvement and provides an evidence of the significant increase of the crimes because of the illegal guns’ usage. During the 90s, the report data showed that about 36,000 cases of the deaths were related to the firearms every year in the United States (Liptak). It means that 36,000 citizens in the whole country were harmed by the guns every year. These figures are horrible, and the government solved this problem through the development of the gun control. According to the data provided in 2006, the rate was decreased to 5.7 per 100,000 people (Liptak). This evidence suggests that the gun control reduces the rate of the crimes and that the Americans became more protected because the owners of the firearms follow the rules. It is important to consider that if the society defines the rules, then everyone must follow them. In other cases, the person may become a criminal, and such individual will be limited in his or her actions through the court and hence prison.

Moreover, the enforcement of the gun control is the best practice to reduce the possibilities of crimes in the low-income communities. When people state that the owners of the guns must follow the rules because of the laws, then the possibility of the crimes is reducing. For example, in the article “The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis” by Matthew D. Makarios and Travis C. Pratt, the criminal researchers conducted the study, in which they defined the best practice to solve the issues of the gun-related crimes. In particular, they defined that the most effective method was the implementation and development of the gun control policies (Makarios and Pratt 237). Their research was based on the low-income communities, since they are directly connected with crimes’ committing. It is important to consider that people with the low rate of the wellbeing are more addicted to violence. Their lifestyle and low incomes create the background for the emotional violence (Makarios and Pratt 237). When a person has a gun, then it is obvious that this individual may use it improperly because of the emotions. However, the gun is a serious weapon that can have negative consequences to the people around. In this way, the limitation of the gun possession can become a method that solves the problem of gun-related homicides.

Conversely, the opposite side is sure that there are no any connections between the gun control and acts of the crimes. For example, in the article “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide” by Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser, who are criminologists, the authors rejected the connection between the policies and reality. In particular, the researchers studied the dependence of the development of gun control policies and their influence on the crimes, considering the global experience. They compared the rates of the murders with the rates of the firearm ownership in the different countries. They found that crime rates were not significantly reduced even in the countries, in which the policies were implemented. For example, in Russia, the rates of suicide equaled 41.2 percent, while the rates of murder because of the guns were about 30.6 percent during the 1990s (Kates and Mauser 687). In contrast, the United States demonstrated much lower rates in these cases because of the implemented gun control policies. It meant that people were looking for other ways to commit homicides. The weak side of this position is the fact the researchers does not cover the human nature and illusion of power. When a person has a gun or other instrument that can be used for killing, one feel that they have a choice to use it. On the other side, if people do not have the guns, then they do not have any choices.

In conclusion, gun control policies can become a solution to the issues of the firearm-associated murders. The experience of many countries showed that during the 1990s the rates of the crimes were high. The development and implementation of the new laws that limited the ownerships of the guns made it possible to decrease the rates of the crimes. Moreover, in the areas where the people have the low level of life, gun control policies become an effective restrictive factor. However, the opponents of this position provide the evidence that the firearm is only an instrument for committing crimes, and that the gun control does not reduce the number of murders. Despite this, if a person has the gun, then there is a chance that he or she may shoot. If a person does not have a gun, there is no practical possibility for that. Unfortunately, the human nature shows that people can do anything when not limited with anything.

Works Cited

Kates, Don B., and Gary A. Mauser. “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, no. 2, 2007, pp. 650–685.

Larsson, Naomi. “24 Ways to Reduce Crime in the World’s Most Violent Cities ”. The Guardian, 2015. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jun/30/24-ways-to-reduce-in-the-worlds-most-violent-cities. Liptak, Adam. “Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship.” The New York Times, 2008. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html.

Makarios, Matthew D., and Travis C. Pratt. “The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence.” Crime & Delinquency, vol. 58, no. 2, 2012, pp. 222–244.