Stricter Gun Laws
Several mass shootings in America have elicited debates about the effectiveness of the existing gun laws enshrined in the constitution. Gun violence is now drawing national attention due to rampant cases of mass shootings. Several cases have been reported in the US, and almost all states are affected. Public institutions and level one schools are no longer safe for the American child. According to the information retrieved from the New York Times magazine, gun violence in schools account for 65 percent of the total mass shooting cases in America. With the menace now encroaching the learning institutions like a plaque, questions are now evolving around the stricter laws. Some scholars argue that more stringent gun laws are not needed in the US. The US, as a state, does not balance the stricter laws such that they become equal in all states. Crossing over with guns to some other states with such stricter laws is therefore not an issue. Although it sounds like more rigorous gun control laws would protect American citizens, the fact that criminals do not follow laws, taking guns from law abiding citizens makes them more vulnerable to crime, and increasing government control proves otherwise.
Research Background
The rampant mass shootings in the US have resulted in the amendment of the existing gun laws that included stricter laws. Criminals who use guns to conduct mass shootings do not follow the law. They shoot and kill innocent citizens who perhaps are not armed at the time of the shootings. The history of gun killings in the US can be traced back to the late 1800s[1]. However, the 1966 killings marked the beginning of the darkest history mass murders in the US where a sniper at Texas tower killed 16 people and wounded 31 more in 90 minutes. Such public shootings have been rampant in the US; some attributed to terror threats. In 2017, another deadliest mass murder took place in Nevada Las Vegas during a music festival. A shooter killed 58 people, leaving 546 wounded in ten minutes using an assault rifle.
Some of the gun deaths in the US are not mass shootings. Some are related to homicides and gun suicides[2]. With an increasing number of gun killings, the US government thought of adopting stricter laws alongside the existing gun laws to protect the citizens. Some of the stricter laws suggested that law-abiding citizens be disarmed. In doing so, the government thought it was helping the citizens to be safer. Nevertheless, the objective is not coming to be true. These stricter laws would not protect American citizens since criminals do not follow the law, and taking guns away from the citizens poses more harm than good to the law-abiding individuals. This is the primary argument forming the basis of this research work by utilizing the existing research materials and books.
Research Findings
Stricter gun laws are not uniformly and equally amended in all the states in the US. From the report documented by the University of Pennsylvania, states with stricter laws have more gun-homicide cases when they border the states with lax ones[3]. Tighter gun control tends to be patchily legislated in the United States, and thus the need for federal gun laws. When only some states are allowed to own guns, gun trafficking becomes the order of the day because of the less restrictive laws. According to the results published in the journal of trauma and Acute Surgery from the Pennsylvanian School of Medicine, criminals from the states with lax laws tend to take advantage of the law abiding citizens in the states with stricter rules[4]. In this regard, the efforts by the US government to lobby for stricter laws are only felt in individual states, and thus do not root out unjust gun killings to the core of the society. The normal law abiding American is thus in a constant siege, with threats emanating from the criminals in other states. Therefore, the benefits of stricter laws may not be realized until all the sates reach a certain threshold level of firearm legislation. The same may be realized if universal firearm legislation is enacted.
The stricter laws do not provide for gun ownership as a method of self-defense. Those who acquire guns legally under lax laws mainly use them for self-defense. According to the statistics from the Harvard Injury Control and Research Centre, guns are not used a million times every in self-defense. This means that these individuals only use their guns when it is necessary. Nevertheless, stricter laws prohibit the use of guns for self-defense. Consequently, many individuals have been disarmed and denied the rights of owning guns for the same purpose. In the midterm elections of 2018, the Democrats campaigned for tougher gun laws as means of change in the wake of mass killings such as the deadly shooting at a Florida High School[5]. Such campaigns are championed by the federal government as a method of reducing gun killings in some states, whereas the criminals themselves enjoy the use of guns in states with lax laws. The efforts by the government to implement stricter laws thus become futile and unproductive in such cases.
The stricter laws should not completely take away guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens but provide for the ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles. Canada is one of the countries that have tried to implement stricter laws by allowing the ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles[6]. In the United States, the narrative seems different because handguns execute some of the mass shootings. Handguns require extra training and thus become “restricted” firearms under the initial gun laws[7]. Besides, the handguns must be registered and must meet certain caliber requirements and size. It is technically possible to carry the handguns in public via a special permit. The permits require a special showing of justification[8]. In this regard, the person must prove that he is an imminent danger, and that police protection is deemed insufficient. This approach is not well outlined in the stricter laws. The laws are “strict” because they do not consider the life of the endangered individual. The resultant effect is the failure of the government to protect lives it is obliged to protect under the constitution.
The firearm owners need not be disarmed if there is an alternative of providing criminal background check even for the third-parties. In Canada, the citizens have been acquainted with the stricter laws due to the processes followed in obtaining such firearms. A prospective firearm owner in Canada would ideally obtain a firearm license by providing the criminal background check for both the applicant and the third-parties[9]. The process goes to provide the character references and a holistic risk assessment of noncriminal behaviors but indicating a threat of violence. Additionally, there is a firearm safety course, which the individual must pursue and pass, and have the spouse’s consent for the firearm license. Some of these requirements would work in the US if the government and the state governors were committed to ensuring the law-abiding citizens protect themselves[10]. Severely restricting the ability of a law-abiding citizen to protect himself while engaging in lawful activities will not stop mass shootings. Criminals will always access the illegal guns, and will have a plethora of other weapons to choose from, like planes, cars, and bombs.
Stricter laws and disarming the law abiding citizens do not combat gun violence. The concept of gun violence must now not be looked at from the aspect of the availability of guns. The policies governing the implementation of the stricter laws must now focus more intently on the major underlying causes. Many studies have linked gun violence to mental disorders. Untreated mental incapacities have been established to be increasing the risk of suicide and interpersonal violence[11]. Besides, factors that drive the illegal black-market transfer of firearms must be halted. Before the guns reach the hands of criminals, the policymakers of the stricter laws must focus on cutting the supply of illegal guns. The failure to cut the supply of the illicit guns has resulted in several mass shootings in states with stricter laws. The statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the US Census, and Data from the Centers Disease Control indicated that communities in states with strictest laws had 53 percent of mass shootings compared to the 42 percent for communities in states with lax laws.
Conclusion
The introduction of stricter laws tends to worsen the situation from the available statistics. While some statistics show the effectiveness of the more stringent laws in some states, the whole US society is not safe with strict laws. The strict regulations are not uniformly legislated and implemented. This allows for gun trafficking to states with less strict laws, where apparently, the citizens have been disarmed. Under the stricter laws, gun ownership for self-defense is not a guarantee. Therefore, most citizens get disarmed. The harsh laws should provide the ownership of guns, which are easier to use instead of completely disarming law-abiding citizens. Instead of completely disarming the law-abiding citizens, the legal process under the strict laws should provide for the provision of complete information of those who wish to own guns legally. On this note, the governments of the various states must seal the loopholes of illegal firearm vending or trafficking. Taking guns from the law abiding citizens will not stop mass shootings but may increase it in certain circumstances.
References
Coates, Michael, and Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitzz. “Policy Spillover and Gun Migration: The interstate dynamics of state gun control policies.” Social Science Quarterly 98, no. 2 (2017): 500-512.
Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Kerr, Selina EM. “Sandy Hook School Shooting.” In Gun Violence Prevention?, pp. 93-110. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018.
Knight, Brian. “State gun policy and cross-state externalities: Evidence from crime gun tracing.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, no. 4 (2013): 200-229.
Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.
[1] Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.
[2] Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press, 2014
[3] Knight, Brian. “State gun policy and cross-state externalities: Evidence from crime gun tracing.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, no. 4 (2013): 200-229.
[4] Kerr, Selina EM. “Sandy Hook School Shooting.” In Gun Violence Prevention?, pp. 93-110. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018.
[5] Coates, Michael, and Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitzz. “Policy Spillover and Gun Migration: The interstate dynamics of state gun control policies.” Social Science Quarterly 98, no. 2 (2017): 500-512.
[6] Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press, 2014.
[7] Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press, 2014.
[8] Kerr, Selina EM. “Sandy Hook School Shooting.” In Gun Violence Prevention?, pp. 93-110. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018
[9] Knight, Brian. “State gun policy and cross-state externalities: Evidence from crime gun tracing.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, no. 4 (2013): 200-229
[10] Knight, Brian. “State gun policy and cross-state externalities: Evidence from crime gun tracing.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, no. 4 (2013): 200-229
[11] Coates, Michael, and Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitzz. “Policy Spillover and Gun Migration: The interstate dynamics of state gun control policies.” Social Science Quarterly 98, no. 2 (2017): 500-512.