… 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 , 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. Mund t, 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, 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 necessarily 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 morea 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 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.’s society must place limits on culture’s appetites’- Durkheim -.