Fresh gun control debates in the US

In the United States, guns are perceived to be a sacred symbol of the independence gained from Great Britain centuries ago (Kalesan, Villareal & Keyes, 2016:216). Fresh gun control debates in the US have been triggered by recent mass shootings that have rocked the country where guns have been used to wreak havoc and cause terror to individuals and/ or groups of people (Luca et. al., 2016). Many innocent lives have been claimed, hence the matter becoming a national tragedy. The underlying issue has been the issuance and ownership of unlicensed firearms where many have claimed that for gun-related violence to decline, the government need forthrightly take charge on the distribution of firearms (Braga & Hureau, 2015:38). According to the US Constitution’s 2 nd amendment, a Militia that is well regulated and is a necessity to the safety of a free state, the right of individuals to possess arms cannot be infringed (Kalesan, Villareal & Keyes, 2016:217). Those who loosely interpret the constitution believe that gun control is constitutional and on the other hand those who strictly interpret its claim that gun control would deter individuals from applying their 2 nd amendment as enshrined in the constitution, and bearing arms. The fact that gun violence is the most common crime occurring in the US has been linked to the ease of firearm access (Braga & Hureau, 2015:39). Guns are easily acquired in the US and this has been a barrier in the legal battle against gun-related crimes. Other factors, however, have been cited for consideration as to the reason for the US having such high rates of gun violence. This vice has been astonishing considering the US arguably the richest and most developed nation in the world. The interpretations and implications of the 2 nd Amendment remain provoking and controversial. According to the Small Arms Survey conducted in 2011, for every 100 people, there is an average of 90 firearms (Kalesan, Villareal & Keyes, 2016:219). Proponents of more stringent gun regulations have safety fears and understandably so due to such statistics. Those opposing regulatory measures on the other hand also fear to lose their safety, arguing that restricting their right to own arms leaves the exposed in their daily lives. Regulations, however, vary from state to state but there are several conditions that should be met for acquiring a firearm in the US. Despite the unlimited research, studies suggest that states with more stringent gun control have fewer gun-related deaths than those without. Despite the compelling correlation, little tangible evidence exists. For example, in states such as Alaska, Louisiana, and Alabama, firearms are regulated lightly but one will find the rate of deaths due to firearms being over four times higher in Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii or Connecticut where there exist the strictest firearm laws. This data is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the School of Public Health at Boston University. However, whereas researchers have pointed out that states with stricter gun laws have lower death rates from guns, studies have not clarified whether gun laws have been the reason for the difference. And while the causes and effects appear intuitively apparent, there are obviously other factors influencing this difference in deaths related to guns from a state to the other. For example, in Maine where there are rather few guns recorded, there have been considerable gun-related deaths compared to Louisiana with almost similar gun laws but higher death rate. Researchers have made speculations on potential explanations. For instance, separate research has demonstrated that suicides involving guns are more prevalent in rural settlements. This may also be due to the delays in getting medical treatment, leading to the higher mortality rates. All in all, it is interesting to note that while the United States has less than 5% of the world’s population, it has approximately half of the civilian-owned firearms in the world. It also has a superior rate of gun-related homicides among the most developed nations in the world. This paper focuses on gun laws in the United States and how the society has changed over time in relation to gun laws. 

RECENT GUN-RELATED INCIDENCES 

Parkland 

Nikolas Cruz, 19 years old, carrying smoke grenades and wearing a gas mask rampaged his former school, killing 14 students, 3 members of the staff, and wounding dozens more. He used an assault rifle to gun down, students, as they evacuated the school, namely Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The suspect had been expelled from the school a year earlier. He managed to hide amongst the terror-stricken crowds, fleeing the horror. Police were, however, able to use CCTV to recognize the assailant and could trace him to nearby Coral Springs where he was arrested and taken into custody. Despite his turbulent home life and FBI concerns about his state of mind and his school shooting motive, the teenager had managed to buy the powerful assault rifle 

Sutherland Springs 

On November 5 th , 2017 during a Sunday service, a man identified as Devin Kelley, in a skull face mask and ballistic vest, stormed into the First Baptist Church and gunned down worshippers with a semi-automatic rifle. 26 people were killed while 20 others were wounded. A passerby outside the church shot him but he managed to flee in his car and thereafter crashing it. The assailant should have been barred from acquiring or handling firearms after he had apparently been convicted of domestic violence while serving in the US Air Force. The Air Force never recorded his conviction by the court-martial in the FBI database. 

Las Vegas 

Hundreds had to dive for cover at the Harvest Festival after gunfire erupted at a set. 58 people were killed and over 800 wounded as the assailant indiscriminately sprayed bullets to the crowd from a hotel Mandalay Bay Hotel window. The shooter was confirmed by the police to be some loner and police found him in the hotel after storming in. The assailant was identified as Stephen Paddock, a 64-year old. Police found over ten rifles in the hotel room and the assailant had shot himself. 

Nevada has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. People can carry firearms which they do not have to register themselves as gun owners but background checks must be conducted when buying the guns. However, one can still privately sell the guns. The state has not banned assault weapons, that is, either automatic or semi-automatic guns and one can buy unlimited ammunition. 

PAST AND CURRENT POLICIES 

Analysts have conducted studies that have statistically scrutinized the efficiency of gun laws before and after implementation, for instance, the Brady Bill passed by the Congress in 1993. The bill obligated federal background checks to be conducted upon purchase of firearms in the U.S. and imposed a waiting period of five days on the purchase. By 1997, despite debates, laws, and regulations, the efficiency of gun control had not been evaluated. A multivariate statistical methodology was instead used to determine the relationship between gun-related deaths by state and the regulations used. The technique implied that the existence of gun-control laws had a detrimental effect on gun-related deaths. The correlation between the United States and Canada is that if the former had a consistent law on gun control like the Canadian law of 1977, there would have been a stronger impact since various states have varying gun laws. Analysts have reported that the U.S. should begin pumping resources to combat the issues arising from areas of low socio-economy, to tackle gun violence. Since studies have used state-level statistics, it is possible to determine a significant correlation between gun violence and socio-economic factors such as alcoholism and poverty levels. 

In 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was introduced to control the accessibility of assault weapons and magazines of high caliber. It was a 10-year ban but in 2004, Congress opted not to renew the ban. In some localities, trends in gunshot wounds on victims were examined and some studies have indicated no considerable reduction in the lethal nature of gun violence between 1995-2002. For instance, in 2002, the rate of gun-related violence resulting to death was constant between 2001-2002, at 2.9%. It was, therefore, difficult to credit the ban to the general decrease in gun-related crime in the 1990s. The conclusion was that there were varying impacts in gun-related crimes’ reduction due to varying loopholes and exclusions in the ban. It was discovered that the ban never affected gun violence at the time of being implemented but some proof indicated that if it was renewed, it would have marginally reduced further victimization of gunshots. Further implications can be discussed in that if legislation in the future replicates prior bans, there will be less impact in most gun-related crimes but some shootings may be prevented, especially those related to a high number of victims. 

Although there has been minimal movement at the federal level, several states have moved to tackle the gun problem in their jurisdictions. In the legislative cycle in 2016, gun-related laws were passed by 21 states where 4, Maine, Nevada, and Washington, included gun-related initiatives in their ballots. By tracing the gun law changes over a period, researchers can evaluate policy transformations and analyze their impacts on gun-related violence. While federal laws are lean and contain loopholes, they indeed prohibit gun possession by certain categories of people discussed later in this paper. Additionally, federal law controls the sale of firearms by dealers who are federally licensed. There are two ways where states can go beyond federal statutes. Firstly, they can enact legislation mirroring federal restrictions and whereas this may appear redundant, a major difference can be made by permitting states to enforce the laws more easily and have violators prosecuted. Secondly, the states can implement legislation that exceeds federal statutes. 

Future legislation combating gun control from lessons learned should focus on magazine capacity, where adequate political and public support will be gained. Current polling, however, indicates that these measures are backed by 75% of those not owning guns and approximately half of the gun owners. To fully comprehend gun control in the US with respect to academia, it is intrinsic to focus on public opinion. 

Public Opinion 

In the United States, public pressure for the control of firearms was generated by two factors. One is the massive increase in the levels of violence, for instance in the Prohibition era and in the early 90s. Secondly, the attempted or executed assassinations of presidents as well as other prominent politicians such as Martin Luther King Jr. Rarely, however, have movements for strict gun control been significantly sufficient to establish worthwhile policy at either federal or state level. In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, public opinion polls suggested a considerable shift in perceptions among Americans towards greater backing for solidifying gun laws (Wozniak, 2017:257). Data from some sources such as Gallup discovered that 59% of Americans backed stringent gun laws in 2012 as opposed to a poll in 2011. In the current technology era, it has grown more attractive to use web-based platforms over national phone surveys but both methods have limitations. In the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook, policymakers began contemplating a broader range of options around gun policy, than those evaluated in public opinion polls. Additionally, most of these polls never examined the variance on public opinion and none thoroughly sampled gun owners for more accurate estimates of attitudes towards policy. 

Previous evidence has demonstrated gun policy attitudes significantly vary by ownership and partisanship. Studies have concluded that many Americans back increased government on the treatment of mental health as a gun violence reduction policy. Due to the substantial undertreatment of mental health in the US, worth considering is whether gun laws targeting mentally handicapped might have a negative impact on the behavior of seeking treatment (Fox & Fridel, 2016:16). It is crucial to objectively elucidate all data on public opinion according to the language used to elaborate a certain policy. This is because the way a question is framed might be altered, thus affecting results. The divide between advocates and opponents of gun control has been and may still be split by ideals and the practices representing both have a significant impact on public opinion. 

Ideological Divide 

Scholars have conducted studies stressing on the manner of framing a question in an opinion poll with regards to gun control could lead to more precise polls on policies for gun control. Two frames can be used on to emphasize the influence of framing questions. One is basing on public safety regarding the requirements of gun ownership and the other is focusing on the exposition of the constitution’s 2 nd Amendment. It is deduced that Democrats are insensitive to the 2 nd Amendment while most Republicans and some Democrats are delicate to both frames of questioning. Democrats can be found to be advocates of gun control compared to Independents and Republicans while the latter two oppose gun control. The shooting at Columbine High School was linked to lenient gun laws by the Democrats while the Republicans linked it to media exposure. These studies demonstrate the predispositions by the two parties on gun control. Further studies show that among older adults, 65% of Democrats were for stricter gun control compared to 53% of Republicans. It can also be noted that the likeliest individual to own a gun would be a female Democrat. Other researchers have however claimed that gun ownership is proportional to the two main political outfits. Notably, some state legislatures have ratified stricter gun laws with respect to paramilitary firearms, magazine capacity limit, and record checks when it comes to private buyers. 

Despite some states having established gun laws, the probability of legislation on gun control passing at the federal level is highly unlikely with the current political climate. According to Gray (2004:9), two fundamental findings linking public opinion to gun control were made. One is that interest groups had significant impacts on the perception of the public regarding gun violence but minimal effects when it comes to the result of public policy. This contrasts with Markel (2001:7) where he claims ideologies have specific inclinations to gun control and rights. Secondly is that gun laws of a state have no correlation to whether the state is generally conservative or liberal, or not. The study discovered that California had the most liberal gun control laws, something not a surprise being the country’s most liberal state. The ideological split between conservatives and liberals, in matters gun control, is not often concrete and hence any bi-partisan legislation that challenges them to have more complexities. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook incident, public support, according to some observers, significantly rose but clarity remained lacking when it came to more specific kinds of policies (Wozniak, 2017:2564). Historically, policy analysts and academics have evaluated gun laws among some of these ideological differences. The aftermath of the Sandy Hook incident proved that a considerably less, ideologically sound, as well as better approach based on research to future gun policy and implementation is required. 

RATIONALE FOR CURRENT CONDITIONS 

Certain categories of people are prohibited by the federal law from being in possession of guns. These are fugitives, felons, those found to be mentally incompetent, those subject to some restraining orders, people convicted for domestic violence or misdemeanor crime, those addicted to controlled substances, those committed to a mental institution, illegal aliens, those discharged from military services dishonorably, and those who have their U.S. citizenship renounced. Additionally, the minimum age set by federal laws at which an individual can purchase a firearm from a federally authorized dealer is 21 years. However, the minimum legal age for the possession or transfer of a handgun is 18 years. Most of these groups of people barred from possessing guns can be rationalized based on data indicating increased violence risk. It is accepted that individuals with past convictions of a felony are likelier to commit violent crimes in the future than non-felons. A history of committing IPV (intimate partner violence) is related with heightened risk of the subsequent killing of an intimate partner and an offender’s ownership of a gun increases domestic homicide risks (Sorenson & Spear, 2018). 

Gun restrictions for drug abusers are also valid. Increased domestic violence risk is linked with substance abuse. Homicide offenders are almost five times likelier to abuse drugs than non-offenders. Despite the majority of people with mental illnesses being non-violent, and only a minimal portion of violence can be attributed to mental incapacity alone, persons with more serious mental illness and major depression are likelier to commit violence against themselves and others (Fox & Fridel, 2016:18). Minimum age restrictions for gun possession are set as the of being victimized by serious violence rapidly increases during adolescence as well as in the early 20s. Impulse control and brain structures develop during adolescence and this may cause heightened violence risks among that age bracket. 

CATEGORIES OF FIREARM LAWS 

Open Vs. Closed Carry 

Some states have either strongly regulated or prohibited laws around ‘open carry’, which is basically the public carrying of guns. In recent years, however, most have weakened these laws. Florida, California District of Columbia and Illinois generally bar people from carrying firearms openly in public. South Carolina and New York prohibit carrying handguns openly but not bigger guns while Minnesota, New Jersey, and Massachusetts prohibit openly carrying big guns but not handguns. A total of 31 states allow open carrying of handguns without a permit or license although the gun must not be loaded in some cases. 15 states require some form of permit or license to carry a handgun openly. 

As the term suggests, concealed carry is carrying a firearm in a hidden manner either nearby or within one’s self. Many states banned this in the 19 th century and termed it as a criminal practice whereas open carrying was perceived as legitimate and a practice for self-defense purposes. Concealed carry required a special permit, with a license only granted to qualified people, an exemption being Vermont which had no restriction. Recently, more states such as Arizona, New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska, and Kansas Have altered the law to allow eligible residents to carry concealed firearms. Oher states either require a permit or have partial restrictions. ‘Gun free zones’ can be declared in some areas, making it possible for businesses to have a sign that makes it illegal to carry concealed guns on the premise. Over 16 million concealed weapon permits were issued in the United States as of 2017. 

Dealer Regulations 

These introduce rules for any individual in the business of lending, selling, or trading guns 

Buyer Regulations 

Contains laws that purchasers of guns must follow to obtain a gun 

High-Risk Gun Possession Prohibition 

These deter individuals with a criminal history, substance abuse, or mental health issues from purchasing or possessing guns. 

Background Checks 

These establish the procedures and requirements for firearm dealers to conduct background checks on potential firearm purchasers. 

Ammunition Regulations 

These introduce rules for any individual in the business of buying or selling of ammunition. 

Possession Regulations 

These establish age limits for gun possession, conditions where possession is allowed and areas where the carrying of guns is permitted. 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY SCOPE UNDER THE 2 ND AMENDMENT 

The 2 nd Amendment provides a ‘militia that is well regulated’. In D.C., The Supreme Court ruled that the handguns prohibition and the provision that long guns be always inoperable at home violates the provision. In the case of McDonald Vs. Chicago City, the court maintained that the 2 nd Amendment equally applies to state and federal laws, making it a burden to bear and keep arms. Moreover, the prohibition extending to the home where self, family, and property defense is most needed is a violation. The court wrote that few laws in the history of the country have been close to the handgun ban in D.C. It went further to state that nothing should be taken to instill doubt on prohibitions that are longstanding on firearm possession by the mentally ill, felons, or laws restricting the carrying of firearms in delicate laces such as schools. The court noted that the permissible regulations list does not claim to be exhaustive. While the exact boundaries of the 2 nd Amendment accordingly remain unclear, it is agreed that most forms of gun laws are in line with people’s rights to keep and bear arms. 

Hundreds of 2 nd Amendment challenges have been ruled by the lower courts to a broader range of laws. Despite most of these cases having approved the challenged laws, the courts have made a few invalid severe burdens on the freedom to possess or use a gun for self-defense purposes. An emerging legal framework for constitutional analysis on gun control can be discerned. The framework involves what the courts have considered a two-pronged perspective to 2 nd Amendment problems. When a law strains conduct within the 2 nd Amendment scope, it then seeks to find out whether the government has enough reason for the law. Not all regulations deterring guns suppress the right to possess arms and not all policies that suppress the right are unconstitutional. 

The inquiry for threshold seeks to find out whether a gun law suppresses conduct within the 2 nd Amendment scope. There exists a well-established historical trend of regulating guns that have been a dominant feature of the law since America’s birth. Parts of the population were not only barred from gun ownership, including citizens of good conduct not willing to swear their allegiance to the Revolution, the founding population also had laws for safe storage of gunpowder and guns. Laws of prohibiting carrying concealed guns became common in the 1820s and these laws were upheld by most courts in the 19 th century. 

After the Civil War Congress abolished militia in many southern states as they proved to be a danger to the public and the Union citizen’s security. The legislation was part of gun control measures used to tackle violence in the South. Congress in the 1934 National Firearms Act restricted machine gun access and at the same time laws restricting public possession were passed by many states. The right to keep and bear arms has therefore been comprehended to allow the significant leeway that the lawmakers have to regulate. If therefore, after examining the tradition and history of regulations a court establishes a challenged law caters for conduct outside the 2 nd Amendment, the law is upheld and the inquiry is over. It is only when a challenger can demonstrate that the law creates such burden will it proceed to the next step, which is scrutinizing the law’s justifications and burdens. 

STATISTICS 

In the US, experts on gun control estimate that a ban on assault weapons might prevent over 150 mass shootings a year. A universal law on a background check, when passed, could help over 1000 homicides annually (Sorenson & Spear, 2018). Raising the age limit for the purchase of firearms could prevent over 1500 suicides and homicides. These non-partisan analyses based on existing gun policy reviews and surveys by Rand Corporation have taken two years and over $1million on the project (Tita et. al., 2011). 

The research concluded that only a few gun control laws were supported by substantial evidence. Laws touching on the prevention of child access, designed to keep guns away from children, had the most substantial evidence backing them and seemed to reduce gun suicides and injuries. The review also had adequate evidence that background checks minimize firearm homicides and suicides, and that violent crime is reduced by certain prohibitions on mental health (Sorenson & Spear, 2018). What was most starkly revealed by the project were the glaring holes in both the basic data required to establish what gun laws could save most lives and the research. The only evidence that was inconclusive evidence existed on the impact of bans on assault weapons and magazines of high capacity, on violent crime and mass shootings (Luca et. al., 2016). No thorough research on the implications of gun-free zones was conducted. Research on the implications of laws allowing the ease of carrying hidden firearms was either inconclusive or limited (Tita et. al., 2011). 

The lack of evidence is not by chance but rather a political decision influenced by over two decades of opposing federal gun research from the NRA (National Rifle Association) as well as other advocates. Lack of research to answer questions from the crucial gun debate creates an environment that is free of facts, where individuals can lay claims that make it problematic for legislation to progress. To fill in the gaps the researchers conducted surveys on longstanding gun policies experts on their best clues on the implications of differing laws. This is what most policymakers do when studies offering answers lack. The experts, inclusive of policy researchers on guns and advocacy groups’ affiliates did their best to guess to what extent a given law affects gun suicides, homicides, accidents, mass shootings, and so on, as well as how a single policy can affect the sale of guns in the industry (Tita et. al., 2011). 

CONCLUSION 

In the American society, the gun violence problem is a substantial burden, whether viewed in terms of lives lost or the economic implications. In high-income states, the toll is unprecedented. Vulnerability in current gun laws contributes to this burden by the existence of poor standards for legal gun ownership as well as considerable loopholes in policies tailored to keep away guns from prohibited individuals. When high-risk groups are extended the prohibition of firearms by states and comprehensive mechanisms are adopted, less violence will be experienced. Some are under the misconception that the 2 nd Amendment in the U.S. Constitution would deter the type of legal reforms believed to be warranted. In D.C., in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment safeguarded individuals’ rights to own guns, bringing down the existing state law that banned the possession of handguns at home. However, the (Heller) decision also touched on diverse types of valid gun laws that were presumptive. Since the 2008 case, lower courts have upheld the constitutional nature of a broad range of gun laws overwhelmingly, besides handgun bans. 

As opposed to recent media reports, a massive majority of the public, inclusive of gun owners, advocates for rectifying the many existing weaknesses in the gun laws. Political barriers to implementing new gun laws exist and the gun lobby group has substantial power. But politicians interested to correct flaws in the current laws that allow dangerous individuals to have guns could so bear in mind that there is a wide support for the policies and that the reforms, the policies would improve public safety and that the reforms are constitutional. 

References 

Braga, A. A., & Hureau, D. M. (2015). Strong gun laws are not enough: the need for improved enforcement of secondhand gun transfer laws in Massachusetts.  Preventive medicine ,  79 , 37-42. 

Fox, J. A., & Fridel, E. E. (2016). The tenuous connections involving mass shootings, mental illness, and gun laws.  Violence and gender ,  3 (1), 14-19. 

Gray V, Lowery D, Fellowes M, McAtee A (2004) Public opinion, public policy, and organized interests in the American states. Political Research Quarterly 57: 411-420. 

Haider-Markel DP, Joslyn MR (2001) Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics 63: 520-543. 

Kalesan, B., Villarreal, M. D., Keyes, K. M., & Galea, S. (2016). Gun ownership and social gun culture.  Injury prevention ,  22 (3), 216-220. 

Levine, P. B., & McKnight, R. (2017). Firearms and accidental deaths: Evidence from the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting.  Science ,  358 (6368), 1324-1328. 

Luca, M., Malhotra, D. K., & Poliquin, C. (2016). The impact of mass shootings on gun policy. 

Sorenson, S. B., & Spear, D. (2018). New data on intimate partner violence and intimate relationships: Implications for gun laws and federal data collection.  Preventive medicine . 

Tita, G., Riley, K. J., Ridgeway, G., Grammich, C. A., & Abrahamse, A. (2011).  Reducing gun violence: Results from an intervention in East Los Angeles . Rand Corporation. (Tita et. al., 2011) 

Wozniak, K. H. (2017). Public opinion about gun control post–Sandy Hook.  Criminal Justice Policy Review ,  28 (3), 255-278.