Gun control in the United States is a thorn in the flesh, with many challenges cropping up in the quest to regulate gun-ownership and licensure. In the country, guns are perceived as a sacred emblem to the country’s independence from Great Britain. The mass shootings that took place recently, however, have re-ignited the discussion on gun control in the United States. For instance, in 2012, various mass shootings occurred in different places, including in Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut. Such shootings have elicited the debate on the country’s policy on gun control, with some reiterating the need for it, and some refuting it. Gun violence may be termed as the use of a firearm to terrorize via death or harm to a person or a group of individuals. It has claimed the lives of many innocent people, causing national tragedies in the country. The major challenge lies in the issuances and ownership of unlicensed guns. Some propose that, so as to lower crime rates related to gun violence, the government has to control the distribution of guns. The truth is that gun-control would play a major role in saving the lives of many innocent civilians in the US.
Gun control is likely to save lives, even if it would not and cannot prevent all gun deaths. Based on the current figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2015 alone, there were over 36,200 deaths that were caused by firearms in America. These statistics reveal that the number of deaths caused by guns is more than those caused by motor vehicle crashes in American roads. While mass shootings tend to receive the most media focus, on average approximately hundred individuals die every day in the United States due to gun violence, including local criminal occurrences, accidents, domestic violence, and suicides (Welch, 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Kaufman, in her quest to find solutions to gun violence, she conducted a study on the effect of state laws on gun violence. She told CBS News that, in the United States, most of the firearm policies are made at the state level, however, the states do not operate in a vacuum, and firearms may cross state boarders, just like any consumer product (Lopez, 2017). She adds that scholars in criminal justice have not investigated the implications of that for states that possess varying degrees of fire-arm restrictions in place. Her research focuses on the strength of gun laws in forty-eight states and suicide and homicide rates in over 3,100 counties across the United States. The laws that the study focused on include those mandating strict licensing needs or high law enforcement oversight of those who deal with guns, those necessitating background checks for the private sale of guns, such as gun show sales, and laws that necessitate people to get licenses to buy or own firearms (Lopez, 2017). Moreover, the research focused on regulations that determine the minimum specifications for the design of firearms, aimed at limiting the presence of cheap handguns; laws preventing multiple-gun purchases, meant to prevent “stray purchasers” from buying several weapons on behalf of people who cannot legally buy a firearm; and regulations mandating owners to report theft or loss of a firearm (Lopez, 2017).
From the research, Kaufman came up with various conclusions that support the position that gun control is a major step towards saving the lives of people. The study found out that strong laws related to firearms in a given state are associated with reduced rates of firearm homicide (Lopez, 2017). On the contrary, counties located in states that have weak gun laws have increased rates of firearm homicide. Moreover, the researcher found out that counties located in states that have in place gun laws that are weaker record reduced rates of firearm homicide if the neighboring states have strong gun laws (Lopez, 2017). This reiterates the fact that when a state makes its gun laws stronger, both the state and those neighboring it can record protective benefits.
Similarly, suicides account for approximately two-thirds of deaths caused by firearms in the United States every year. In 2015 alone, close to 22,000 individuals took their lives with a gun. When Kaufman specifically studied suicide, she found out that strong gun laws in a given state are associated with reduced rates of suicide by gun, and reduced rates of suicide overall, showing that individuals did not just get another means to kill themselves (Lopez, 2017).This remains the same irrespective of the strength of firearms laws in the neighboring states. The finding is in line with other prior studies that found out that majority of the firearm suicides involve individuals who own a firearm or related to someone who owns a gun and mostly encompasses legally purchased guns obtained for different purposes. For instance, a study conducted in 2016, on gun deaths, by David Hemenway, Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and professor of health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, revealed that majority of the suicides are impulsive, and the feeling to die fades with time. Guns are a lethal and quick method of suicide, which has a high rate case-fatality (Lopez, 2017). Therefore, if people do not have access to firearms when their urge to kill themselves is high, they would not commit suicide after all, reiterating the need to have gun control laws, which would ensure that few firearms are held by the civilians.
Furthermore, a research that was conducted this year by those who support gun control laws shows that passing of an assault weapons ban may prevent one hundred and seventy mass shooting deaths in the United States, every year. The study also estimates that putting in place a universal background check law may prevent one thousand, one hundred gun homicides every year (Welch, 2018). Also, increasing the age limit for purchasing guns would prevent one thousand, six hundred suicides and homicides. The figures are the estimates of groundbreaking research of the possible effect of American gun control laws. When people acquire guns at higher age, they are most likely to use them responsibly (Welch, 2018). However, youths who have access to guns may misuse them, leading to fatalities and gun violence in the community. With proper gun control regarding age, such incidents can be minimized.
Moreover, America’s state with guns is unique among the developed countries. To make it clear, it is important to be aware that the country stands alone when it comes to firearms. Not only does it have the most guns than any nation across the world, but also far more deaths caused by guns than any other developed country (Welch, 2018). Based on the information collected by the Guardian from the United Nations, the homicide rate in the United States of America is six times that of Canada, over seven times that of Sweden, and approximately sixteen times that of Germany. Gun deaths account for majority of these homicides. Consequently this reiterates the need to have policies that would ensure guns are controlled, and their availability is regulated. Additionally, the United States by far has the highest number of firearms in the world. In 2007, it was estimated that the number of guns that were owned by civilians in the country was 88.8 firearms per hundred individuals. This implies that there was nearly one privately-owned firearm per each American and more than a unit per each American adult (Welch, 2018). The study concludes that, the more the guns in the hands on the civilians, the more the gun deaths. The only solution to this challenge is implementing an effective gun control policy.
Furthermore, gun laws have worked in countries, such as Australia, whereby measures, including gun buybacks, are used to reduce the number of guns held by the public. Mary Vriniotis notes that Australia’s gun laws seems to be unbelievably successful in terms of lives saved (Beckett, 2018). In the year 2010, a research was done by Andrew Leigh from the Australian National University and Christine Neil from Wilfrid Laurier University. The study shows that buying back three thousand, five hundred firearms per a thousand individuals correlated with up to a 50% reduction in gun homicides and 74% reduction in firearm suicides (Beckett, 2018). The reduction in homicides was not statistically significant, mores o due to the fact that the nation’s rate of homicides resulting from the use of firearms is too low such that is difficult to tease out even sharp reductions with high certainty. However, the reduction in the number of suicides remained statistically significant. Most tellingly, the research found out that the biggest reduction in gun deaths took place in states where the highest number of firearms was bought back. Vriniotis and Hemenway reached similar conclusions in their study, adding that: one, the reduction in gun deaths is largest among the type of guns most affected by the buy back; two, gun deaths in states that have higher buyback rates per capita dropped proportionately compared to states that have lower buyback rates. They add that, in Australia, the buyback program and other changes that were brought about by the 1996 law reduced firearm deaths (Beckett, 2018).
Another research that was done in Australia in 2011 on the effect of gun control laws on the rates of homicides reveals that the enactment of such regulations is followed by a significant reduction in the number of homicides that involve a gun, a reduction of 5% to 10%, dependent on the province (Beckett, 2018). The reduction was most evident in the homicides that are committed with a hunting rifle and shotgun. The outcomes of the study show that the regulation’s effectiveness is high due to the decreased access and availability of guns, rather than the deterrence measures, including severe criminal sentences that were also incorporated into the legislation. Moreover, regarding gun accessibility, a research done in the United States accessed the effect of gun regulation on male suicide rates. The study highlighted that, gun control regulations that aim at lowering the overall availability of guns causes a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates, and that regulations that seek to prevent high-risk people from owning guns have a lesser deterrent effect (Beckett, 2018).
Furthermore, two United States researches reveal that the legal buying of handguns elevates the risk of violent deaths resulting from those guns. More precisely, for both homicides and suicides, the increased relative risk persists for over five years after the purchase of the handgun. The second research reveals that people who possess a gun are 4.46 times more likely to be shot during an assault compared to the ones who do not possess a one ( Fleegler, Lee, Monuteaux, Hemenway, & Mannix, 2013). On average, firearms do not safeguard people who own them from being shot during an assault. In any case, when a criminal with a gun realizes that the target victim in an incident has a gun, he or she is quick to shoot at him or her. This is due to the fact that the perpetrator is aware that his or her life is in danger. On the other hand, when the victim does not possess a gun, the criminal feels secure, and may not be quick to shoot. This reiterates the fact that possession of a firearm may not always protect people from being shot at during assaults.
Additionally, child access prevention laws would keep firearms away from children’s hands, reducing the possibility of such innocent children harming themselves or others using such guns. The Law Centre to Prevent Gun Violence estimates that close to 1.7 million minors can access unlocked and loaded firearms at home ( Fleegler, Lee, Monuteaux, Hemenway, & Mannix, 2013). As a result, such children may be lured to misuse the guns that are within their reach. Consequently, the minors may hurt themselves or people close to them using the unlocked guns. Therefore, gun regulations aimed at reducing the possibility of exposing such children to guns is a great way that can be implemented to reduce cases of gun violence carried out by children. For instance, gun control would ensure that those parents and other people who possess guns, but do not keep them out of the reach of children face dire consequences ( Fleegler, Lee, Monuteaux, Hemenway, & Mannix, 2013). The government should impose heavy punishments on those who are negligent of their duty to keep firearms away from children.
On the same vein, regulations that compel individuals to use safe methods of storing guns may be implemented. It is a fact that most people keep their firearms in the living rooms, where young children can reach them, exposing them to harm and even the possibility of harming their close associates. Therefore, strong safes may be used to assist them to deter their children from obtaining guns. Moreover, it should be made a requirement for gun dealers to offer safety information when they sell guns to civilians ( Fleegler, Lee, Monuteaux, Hemenway, & Mannix, 2013). This is critical in assisting people to avoid mistakes that they make while using a gun, which may lead to fatalities.
Similarly, background checks would lower gun violence. Mr. Wells, the Director of International Firearm Injury Prevention and Policy, opines that one of the basic flaws in the American gun laws is the fact that background checks are not conducted to find out people who purchase guns from unlicensed dealers ( Anestis & Anestis, 2015). Such dealers, unlike the ones who are licensed, do not conduct background checks on individuals who purchase firearms from them. As a result, there is a loophole that allows thousands of individuals who may not be eligible to own guns, including domestic abusers, convicted felons, and the dangerously mentally ill, to purchase them every year. Consequently, such firearms are used in conducting violent gun activities. Some of those guns end up in the hands of drug traffickers and gang members. In a study that was done on urban convicts, respondents said that they had used a firearm to traffic drugs and other illegalities. 23% of the interviewees who possessed a gun accepted to have used it in committing a crime ( Anestis & Anestis, 2015). Therefore, state regulations have to expand to include background checks in unlicensed gun sales. These include sales conducted via the internet, gun shows, and others. Consequently, firearms reaching the wrong hands would be reduced considerably, translating into a reduction in gun violence.
Moreover, mental health gun prohibitions would lower violent crimes. It is true that some cases of gun violence are due to mental illness. When people who are mentally-ill have access to guns, they misuse them, leading to death and even injuries ( Anestis & Anestis, 2015). Therefore, loopholes that allow firearms to reach the mentally-ill should be sealed to ensure that they do not access them, protecting the public and themselves from harm that may be caused by the firearms. Gun regulation would also ensure that gun violence is prevented in different circumstances. Reporting of persons who are barred from carrying guns due to mental illness, through Federal Law; via agency oversight or a court order; authority given to law enforcers to stop dangerous people from accessing guns; making it a necessity for colleges, universities, and schools to offer reports of violent and suicidal individuals to a court or an administrative agency; offering the courts the authority to offer gun violence restraining orders when the public bring to their attention dangerous or suicidal persons; and temporarily barring people who are hospitalized as a result of mental illness to own guns ( Anestis & Anestis, 2015).
However, despite the various merits discussed so far regarding the advantages of gun control in protecting the lives of innocent civilians, there are other reasons showing that it is not a solution to gun violence. Gun ownership is only a single factor contributing to gun violence, but it is not the only factor (Haynes, 2016). Some issues, including alcohol consumption, urbanization, and poverty, influence gun violence. It has been discovered that majority of the incidents involving firearms involve people who are drunk. When an individual is in such a state, he or she is most likely to misuse his or her firearm, contributing to the increased statistics of gun violence. Similarly, poverty has a role to play in the use of guns in violent actions. Most of the unemployed youth in poor neighborhoods have been found to be the main gun criminals (Haynes, 2016). Most of them are involved in robbery with violence incidents. Some of them are also involved in drug-related activities and alcoholism due to poverty. When people are poor, they are bound to use guns so as to obtain money from the ones who have it. Therefore, this leads to violent activities involving guns. Additionally, urbanization has made the lives of people to change, and most of them find themselves on the wrong footing (Haynes, 2016). Urbanization is the cause of increased costs of living, which people from poor neighborhoods cannot afford, resulting into heinous activities, most of which involve the use of guns.
Another important problem that cannot allow gun regulation to deter gun violence is the fact that most of the policies seem to have, in political sense, little to no opportunity in the United States, at least at the federal level. In Australia, some types of guns were outright banned, and a registry was initiated for all guns owned in the nation, and a license was required for all new purchases (Haynes, 2016). Moreover, its buyback program was a must, implying that one had to turn in his or her weapon, which is basically government-mandated confiscation. On the other hand, the United States cannot even attain universal background checks via Congress. The stricter regulations applied in Australia have almost no opportunity of happening in the US. This hampers the possible effectiveness of American laws. Dylan Matthews opines that the milder forms of gun control possess some form of evidence behind them regarding the reduction of gun deaths, but they can be nowhere as strong as the effects attained via stricter policies (Haynes, 2016).
Furthermore, gun control may not be the solution to gun violence since most of such regulations tend to focus on illegal ownership of firearms, ignoring the fact that even licensed guns may be used in violence. Wayne LaPierre, who is the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, says that a different approach has to be taken; instead of gun control (Haynes, 2016). He says that the focus should be on more armed security rather than fewer firearms. Increased armed police patrols would assist in reducing the instances of gun violence. Yes, there may be many guns in the hands of the civilians, but whenever they are aware that there is an increased presence of law enforcement officers, they are not likely to misuse their weapons (Haynes, 2016). In the long-run, such an approach would help lower gun violence without necessarily pursuing regulations and policies that seem not to reach the light of the day.
Additionally, the prior key gun control legislation passed by the United States Congress was the assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, which expired in 2004, after being in operation for a decade. Many experts in gun control legislations opine that the ban failed to reduce the number of deaths caused by guns in the United States, where an excess of thirty thousand individuals are killed by firearms annually, including over twenty thousand suicides (Haynes, 2016). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), rifles, such as assault weapons, account for only 3.55% of gun murders every year. The failure of past gun control policies, such as the 1994’s assault weapons ban, shows that gun control may not bear the fruits it is intended to achieve. Therefore, it is critical for policy-makers and the government, at both the state and federal levels, to seek better ways of addressing the problem (Haynes, 2016). Moreover, it is a fact that gun control only becomes a national focus after a mass shooting. However, such shooting account for only a small portion of the United States’ gun deaths every year. The truth is that gun violence is a common phenomenon in the nation’s poorest, most racially segregated parts, with Blacks, who account for 13% of the overall population, making up more than 50% of gun murder victims (Haynes, 2016). This issue reiterates the need for a different approach to gun control.
Similarly, gun control may seem to be a violation of the US constitution. The Second Amendment of the American constitution allows citizens to trade and own guns. The law offer sovereignty over gun ownership, possession, and acquisition. Therefore, an implementation of the gun control laws would be violating the constitutional provisions extended to the citizenry. Since most Americans are comfortable owning guns in their homes, they would use the constitution to resist any policy meant to deny them access to guns. Consequently, the rights of the citizens regarding gun ownership should be respected (Haynes, 2016). However, it is important that the manner in which individuals use their guns is moderated to ensure that they are not used for criminal activities and to harm others.
In conclusion, gun control is a controversial debate in the United States, more so due to the provisions of the Second Amendment of the constitution and the history of the country. Guns have been a major household item in many homes and taking them away from the public may be a toll order. However, there are various benefits that may accrue with gun control in the United States, especially in regard to saving lives. The presence of guns should be reduced since it has been proved that the high number of guns is the root cause of many cases of homicide and suicide. Strict guns laws have led to a reduction in suicides and homicides in other countries, including Australia and Germany and, therefore, with political will and commitment, such laws would bring better outcomes towards protecting the lives of innocent citizens.
References
Anestis, M. D., & Anestis, J. C. (2015). Suicide rates and state laws regulating access and exposure to handguns. American journal of public health , 105 (10), 2049-2058.
Beckett, L. (2018). Better gun laws could save thousands of lives, major non-partisan US study finds. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/01/gun-control-study-rand-corporation-assault-weapons-ban
Fleegler, E. W., Lee, L. K., Monuteaux, M. C., Hemenway, D., & Mannix, R. (2013). Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States. JAMA internal medicine , 173 (9), 732-740.
Haynes, V. (2016). Gun control in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gun-control-in-the-united-states-2332-0761-1000206.php?aid=74881
Lopez, G. (2017). The research is clear: gun control saves lives. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post
Welch, A. (2018). What impact do state gun laws have on shooting deaths? Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-laws-state-impact-on-shooting-deaths-suicide-study/
