Statistical Perspective on U.S. Gun Deaths
Statistical Perspective on U.S. Gun Deaths
Guns are one of the most dangerous weapons that people use badly. Guns are not allowed in many countries. Conversely, some countries allow guns. The United States of America is one of those countries that allow carrying guns in many states for self-defense. However, some people use guns to kill or to slaughter or to rape people unjustfully. Many people die every day because of firearms. The visual interpretive analysis below, showing the five major causes of annual U.S.gun deaths includes a orientation, limitations, conclusions, and affected groups who might be interested in the data and why.
Annual U.S. Gun Deaths Near 30,000
Source: Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Initially, this line graph shows the data from 1981 to 2004 based on the Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for“annual U.S. Gun Deaths.” The three horizontal lines reflect the causes of the annual gun deaths in the United States of America from 1981 to 2004. The red horizontal line refers to “Suicide” which is self-murder. Moreover, the green horizontal line refers to “Homicide” which is killing. Also, the violet horizontal line refers to “Unintentional” which means the shooter did not mean to kill the victim. The Y axes reflect the numbers of dead people and the X axes reflects the years.
Next, there are at least three limitations to this chart. First, this data shows the statistics from 1981 to 2004, which is very old, so we can tell what is going on in these recent years. Second, the statistics do not give us enough specific demographic information such as: gender, age, ethnic differences, and education of the victims. Third, the statistics do not show where the killing occurred in U.S. We do not know the exact states where the gun deaths were the most.
Nonetheless, we can draw at least three conclusions. First, the “Suicide” is the main reason for gun deaths in the U.S. and it declined by about 1000 deaths/year in the last five years.Second, “Homicide” is the second main reason for gun deaths; it dropped sharply from its high point in 1993 and leveled off at around 9,000 deaths/year in the last five years. From 1993 to 2004, it slowly dropped in half to about 1,000 deaths per year.
At least three groups of people might use this statistics. The U.S.government might need this to reduce or limit the number of dead people who get killed by gun. Also, police
Departments might use these statistics trying to figure out why that happened. Finally, maybe people would like to know what happened in 1994 to begin the decline in queer deaths.
To sum up, this chart could give us more knowledge about what is going on. Also, it helps us how to protect ourselves and how reduce the number of gun deaths in the United States of America.
More than 20,000 people die in the United States every year from gunshot wounds. Research indicates that youths are the leading group affected by premature mortality. Moreover, the records indicate that the number of deaths from normal illnesses is 30% lower than the number of deaths from gunshots. It is not surprising that the gun violence is profound in a nation attributed to great wealth. Even though the rate of criminal activity is apparently equal between the United States and other nations, it is unarguably that US has the highest homicide cases than any other nation. Indeed, the rate of homicide rate is 15% higher than in other high-income earning nations.
The growth in the crime rate and other violence activities is attributed to less restrictive gun policies in the United States. Consequently, the country suffers enormous costs in terms of financing the medical requirements, and security force to individuals; hence low productivity in the other sectors. Notably, the firearm activities in 2005 cost the country more than $ 32 billion. However, the entire costs of the gun cases are beyond these figures. When aspects such as the loss of property, low living standards, social, emotional and physical trauma, moral decadence, and societal effects are accounted for, the cost of the gun crimes would increase by around 15% (Jost, 2007). Similarly, another study indicates that children and women are prone to gunshots out of their inferior nature. Actually, United States records a death rate of around 9,000 head/years, most of whom are children and women. As a result of increased gun violence, the tax revenues in the United States reduce approximately by 12%, inclusive of the countries endeavors to address the security frameworks of dealing with this dilemma.
.Gun control policies in the United States
International evidence has long indicated that more guns mean more violence whereas fewer guns mean fewer killings. This perceptions triggers debate on whether the guns are meant to make us safer or less safe. Many countries have stepped to intervene for the sake of the majority group through restricting gun ownership. Unfortunately, with the recent Supreme Court decision of banning the possession of the fire arms, American government does not disarm adults aged over 22. Instead, the policies cover the general themes of:
Prohibiting “normal” individuals from possessing guns and other weapons
Prohibiting carrying of guns outside the home vicinity
Implementing decisions limiting prohibited persons from owning firearms.
Regulating the sale of the firearms in the market
Banning possession of the firearms reduces the assaults from machine guns and other ammunitions. For instance, the large volumes of the published materials aimed at campaigning against firearms indicate that gun assaults occur even to the innocent individuals. Despite the culprit claiming that they used the weapons for self-defense, it is clears that these ammunions are misused thus leading to immature deaths (Webster & Vernick, 2009). Young and frail individuals are the most targeted groups. If the governments remain aggressive in implementing the policies entitled to ban the possession of the firearms and the ammunions, then the populations will be guaranteed freedom and harmony in their own countries.
It is worth noting that gun bans are intended to reduce availability of the firearms to offenders thus reducing the potentials to perpetrate violence and criminal activities. Mostly, the prohibition policies are imposed on the firearms and ammunions that are either dangerous or perceived to cause chaos. The prohibition policy is one of those policies that provoked consistence public debate on the delicacy of security matter in United States. 1998 polls indicated that 39% percents of the respondents supported authorization of the possession of the firearms to the police and licensed persons. In the 1999 polls, more than 15% of the respondents supported the total ban of the firearms. These figures show that public’s support for regulation of the firearms does not have boundary.
Despite the perception to regulate the possession of dangerous weapons, some people feel that armed citizens create a secure community. This perception is evident in the “concealed carry study” which permitted all law abiding citizens to possess the guns. Surprisingly, the idea is embraced in most of the western nations, suggesting issuance of the weapons to adults who passes the criminal checks. About 55% of the Americans feel that authorization of possession of the firearms makes the community less safe while the rest constitutes of supportive and indecisive individuals (Webster & Vernick, 2009).
The gun control advocates are attributed to some political influence in their campaigns against possession of the firearms. They contacts politicians in their cases, making them triumph over their opponents. American Gun Survey Group conducted a study in 2005 which indicated that 70% of the parents would restrict their children from possessing guns. Even though, fairly equal percent showed the interest in allowing their children posses guns attributing it to the fact that most of the death cases relating to teenagers were uncalled for. Nonparents stated that restricting youths from possessing guns impose them to criminal threats since they take an upper hand in tracking down the violators.
Brady’s Law versus Law to Carry
The Brady Law
This law was founded by the federal government in its attempts to identify those purchasing and illegally involved in the gun business. Before introduction of this law, the gun control policy in many states was based on the honor system. Interested purchasers were required to fill a form without stating their eligibility to own firearms. With the affirmation of the Brady’s bill, all firearm purchasers buying from the firearm dealers are required to undergo a background check. This system enhances verification of the individuals’ behaviors before permitting them to own firearms. Since 1994, when Brady’s Law was enacted, the government cancelled more than 3 million applications since the applicants did not meet the criteria to purchase and possess firearms.
Brady’s Law necessitates prospective buyers to succeed in the background check. National data indicates that 55% of the firearms possessors purchased them from unlicensed dealers. Unsurprisingly, criminals exploit sale and purchase activities through private means. The United State Survey Group (USSG) conducted a research to inmates in various prisons, where it was revealed that inmates obtained the guns from unlicensed gun dealers. In 2006, advocates for closing unlicensed gun sale likened the Brady’s Law to the airline security system where the passengers decide between screening and side stepping. Therefore, the ability of the Brady’s Law to eliminate illegal possession of the firearms is founded on the willingness of the legal bodies and the community to adequately implementing it (Tim, 2007).
Law to Carry
Besides the accountability of the federal laws in regulating the possession of the firearms, the Congress has weakened these affirmative actions. The Firearm Protection Act of 2002 eliminated some of the penalties for gun selling and illegal possession of firearm. In addition, the Tiahrt amendments focused on restricting public from accessing national data on criminal offenses. This rule made the gun dealers and criminals to evade from physical check of their eligibility to possess firearms. The Protection Commerce Act of 2007 provides protection to unlicensed gun dealers from jurisdiction.
Right to Carry (RTC) law enables the unlicensed individuals to carry and possess weapons in public. The debate on RTC is premised on notion that eligible persons who holds firearms in public are law-abiding and therefore should not be treated with suspense. National Council of Research suggests possession of firearms has serious flaws to the society; in spite of the perceived decrease in the criminal activities in large part of North Carolina. This data contradicts one of the most consistent finding in the Ohio city where it is revealed that Right To Carry laws aggravates assaults to the large community (Tim, 2007).
Rationale in prohibition of the firearms
Federal law forbids certain individuals to possess guns and ammunions. These persons includes: felons, drug dealers, murderers, mentally incompetent, militia offenders, illegal aliens, persons with denounced citizenship, and anyone else with a cases on misdemeanor behaviors. Moreover, the federal law permits individuals who are over 21 years to buy and posses guns from the gun dealers. 18 years is the minimal age at which handgun transfer from illegal dealers should occur.
Most of those prohibited from possessing firearms are justified from the statistics which indicates increased violence and criminal activities in United States. Individuals with the prior cases on killing have likelihood of committing future crimes as compared to those whose records are clear of any criminal offences. The intimate partner rule states that subsequent slay of an intimate partner increases the threats of domestic murder in five folds. This study resonates with the United Nations Anti-guns Group research which indicates that a significant percent of the domestic violators are most likely to trigger serious offense affecting both strangers and family members (Webster & Vernick, 2009).
The prohibition of the firearms to the drug dealers is also justified. Drugs are linked with several social evils in the society. Most drug addicts are known as threats to the lives of people since they are considered as mentally incompetent. Subsequently, the study indicates that homicide offenders are ten times more likely to abuse drugs, making them violent and heartless. This means that drugs stimulates offenders to behave maliciously to both family members and outsiders. Although some of the mental ill persons are not violent, individuals with mental problems such as bipolar disorders, depression and schizophrenia are likely to commit crimes on themselves and even to other people.
The federal law of restricting possession of firearms to persons aged below 21 is a prudent step since it is scientifically proven that brain structure based on risk taking develops in adolescence. Therefore, any attempts to legalize possession of guns to this bracket could generate serious threats to the wellbeing and the security of the future society. In addition, youths are considered brave and aggressive in executing violent behaviors; therefore remain a great threat to the community when permitted to possess firearms.
The federal laws in many countries forbid individuals’ possession of the firearms. Enforcement efforts could be realized through disarming all the unlicensed gun dealers as well as restricting possession of weapons to citizens. Youths below 21 years are prohibited from possessing firearms in most states. Child Access Prevention (CAP) law requires the gun owners to store these weapons in safe areas where children cannot access them. This law has being pivotal in reducing the number of deaths occurring though accidental shooting of children (Jost, 2007).
Nevertheless, the weaknesses witnessed in the gun laws have lead to ownership and illegal firearm trade in the American society. If the state expands prohibition of the firearms, it will be effective means of reducing crimes and violence in the society. The political hurdles in implementing gun control policies should be dealt with for the interest of the public.
Jost, K. (2007, May 25). Gun violence. CQ Researcher, 17, 457-480. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/Webster &Vernick (2009, May 21). Keeping firearms from drug and alcohol abusers. Injury Prevention, 15:425-427.retrieved from
http://bjs.ojp.uodoj.gov/content/homicide/teens.cfm.Tim, C. (2007, May 1). Ban on sale of guns to mentally ill expanded. Retrieved from
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!