As stated earlier, the discipline of sociology is relevant as it is helpful in looking at how there might be a disparity between different regions in America, how many individuals in certain regions own firearms, and why. The cultural influence that plays a part in how Americans feel about firearms regionally is reinforced by Celinska (2007) in the article “Individualism and Collectivism in America: The Case of Gun Ownership and Attitudes toward Gun Control”. The author conducted a study to determine if gun ownership, and if attitudes towards gun ownership by citizens residing in the United States correlates to cultural traditions. The study found that there are two primary reasons for people who own guns in the United States, which are
…show more content…
The issue of people wanting to limit the availability of firearms for purchase to help lower the amount of homicides and violent acts of crime in our country is not something new. This is shown to be the case in a paper written in 1975 by Douglas Murray, which is titled “Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence”. This paper takes the stance that gun control laws have no significant effect on rates of violence, and thus reasons that gun control laws as a whole are ineffective. Empirical data was compiled and used from various sources, including FBI databases regarding homicide rates, and then measured against all 50 states and their stances on open-carry, concealed-carry, age requirements for purchase, waiting period from time of purchase until ownership, etc. It was then determined that violent crime is no more prevalent in states and cities with lax gun laws over those cities and states with stringent gun laws. The bigger factor that underlined homicide rates in certain areas around the United States were the harsh types of social conditions that some of the population live in (i.e. poverty stricken areas and regions). The report also concluded that living in an area that has strict gun laws does not limit someone from being …show more content…
The comprehensive evaluation gives a detailed look at if gun-related deaths are more or less frequent in states that have extreme gun-related legislation over states with lax gun-related legislation. The multivariate statistical analysis in the study indicates that, “states with most comprehensive gun control legislation experienced on average one to almost six fewer gun-related fatalities than those states with the most lax laws. Gun control laws are a deterrent; however, they only address one aspect of individual behavior regarding the use (and abuse) of firearms. Finally, socioeconomic variables are found to be significant indicators of levels of firearm deaths. Both the percentage of African Americans residing in a state and the unemployment rate seem to positively relate to gun-related fatalities” (545, 2005). While the findings show that gun legislation is a deterrent in gun-related deaths, it fails to mention that some of the states with strict gun legislation (New York, South Carolina) border states with lax gun legislation (Vermont, Georgia). Therefore, it can be theorized that states that have strict gun laws is not always the best means of measuring the hindrance of gun-related crimes and
The issue of people wanting to limit the availability of firearms for purchase to help lower the amount of homicides and violent acts of crime in our country is not something new. This is shown to be the case in a paper written in 1975 by Douglas Murray, which is titled “Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence”. This paper takes the stance that gun control laws have no significant effect on rates of violence, and thus reasons that gun control laws as a whole are ineffective. Empirical data was compiled and used from various sources, including FBI databases regarding homicide rates, and then measured against all 50 states and their stances on open-carry, concealed-carry, age requirements for purchase, waiting period from time of purchase until ownership, etc. It was then determined that violent crime is no more prevalent in states and cities with lax gun laws over those cities and states with stringent gun laws. The bigger factor that underlined homicide rates in certain areas around the United States were the harsh types of social conditions that some of the population live in (i.e. poverty stricken areas and regions). The report also concluded that living in an area that has strict gun laws does not limit someone from being …show more content…
The comprehensive evaluation gives a detailed look at if gun-related deaths are more or less frequent in states that have extreme gun-related legislation over states with lax gun-related legislation. The multivariate statistical analysis in the study indicates that, “states with most comprehensive gun control legislation experienced on average one to almost six fewer gun-related fatalities than those states with the most lax laws. Gun control laws are a deterrent; however, they only address one aspect of individual behavior regarding the use (and abuse) of firearms. Finally, socioeconomic variables are found to be significant indicators of levels of firearm deaths. Both the percentage of African Americans residing in a state and the unemployment rate seem to positively relate to gun-related fatalities” (545, 2005). While the findings show that gun legislation is a deterrent in gun-related deaths, it fails to mention that some of the states with strict gun legislation (New York, South Carolina) border states with lax gun legislation (Vermont, Georgia). Therefore, it can be theorized that states that have strict gun laws is not always the best means of measuring the hindrance of gun-related crimes and