Allowing normal civilians to possess firearms in the USA - Influence on Crime Incidence

Introduction

Gun control has existed in varying degrees throughout the history of civilizations, and under the emperor Diocletian in the third century AD, all the weapons of the Roman Empire were manufactured under the control of the praetorian prefects. The workers in these factories had to treat soldiers, and were marked for easy identification in case of a leak. In many cases, restrictions on civilian possession of weapons have been used to control any uprising of the oppressed classes. In the twelfth century sought to prohibit the use of crossbows, because their management did not need much training, which caused a person with little education in the war could kill a knight.

This is the argument put forward by certain groups of opinion, as the National Rifle Association and other associations of ideology predominantly liberal or neoliberal, who advocate the abolition of gun control in the civilian population, arguing that, historically, the limitation to bear arms by the civilian population has been large preface social or ethnic extermination, although most advanced societies, especially in Europe, this control is generally accepted as beneficial (Sarosi & Sombatpoonsiri). At present, Japan is one of the most restrictive gun control in the population, and the United States one of the few.

To facilitate the task of arms control appears the concept of traceability, which is the marking of all weapons and ammunition by various techniques, ranging from the serial numbers to the sensors radio, or specific labeled in explosives. However, in many cases the traceability of weapons is included in strategies to ensure quality standards through the creation and adoption of industrial standards (Fabre). Following the proliferation cases of terrorism in recent years have also promoted measures to control, to the extent possible, the production and distribution of raw materials needed to manufacture weapons (Rosenbaum). Such is the case of control over the ammonium nitrate, a precursor of a multitude of explosives.

Discussion & Analyses

The existence of firearms and the legal treatment of their possession and use by individuals, supports basically three possible answers: The adoption of an unrestricted regime, characterized by the absence of any penalty for possession of firearms, which becomes obvious as unnecessary the development of control mechanisms (Hinchey & Subramaniam). We know that not all weapons are possessed circulating in order to commit crimes, which although it should be presumed, can not be determined with certainty in a system like this. It also said then that the natural risk from lack of control in the holding and movement of firearms, it should be noted the great difficulty that means for the work police repression of crime, against the inevitable presumption of legality all tenure (Price & Norris). Also, the lack of any registration and control provides an additional facility for the sliding of firearms to the relatively safe hands of those who then used to commit crimes.

The other possible situation is the opposite of the above, namely the imposition of a prohibition ...