Gun Control And Gun Violence
In the last few years, several events have shaken the foundation of American society: The Covid-19 pandemic has ravaged American cities and rural areas to unimaginable levels since 2020. The wildfires in the west in 2019 propelled by climate change disrupted Americans' lives in the areas affected. Police brutality demonstrated by the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, and others like him have led to mass protests across US cities clamoring for racial justice. Despite the gun violence reducing considerably during the Covid-19 pandemic season, they picked up immediately restrictions were lifted, and the cycle has continued. Moreover, the disruptive 2020 presidential election threatened to tear the US apart, with then-President Trump refusing to concede and an insurrectionist mob breaching Congress. All these grave challenges would call for a united political system to compromise and develop a solution that could heal. The political system has been unable to weather the storm and develop solutions to these pertinent issues affecting Americans across the country. Americans are more divided than ever, and the two main political parties, Democrats and Republicans, have retreated to party loyalty at the expense of serving a united America. Gun controls regulating the manufacture, trade, possession, transport, and use of firearms are essential to taming the spiraling violence that results from the ease of access to dangerous guns by criminals and people with questionable backgrounds. Gun politics in America is defined by two primary opposing sides about civilian gun ownership unwilling to compromise. Those who advocate for gun control, gun safety or criminal and illegal access to guns, who support increased legislation on controls relating to gun ownership and the second group advocate for gun rights as stated in the second amendment of the US constitution and they favor decreasing gun-related regulations related to civilian gun ownership. People disagree on the interpretation of the constitution. Only a united America can bring the problem of gun violence to an end. In this paper, I argue that stricter gun controls can reduce all forms of gun violence in America.6272
Gun violence is a contemporary human rights issue threatening the most fundamental right, the right to life. It involves firearms that can take many forms, such as mass shootings, homicides, suicides, and assault with deadly weapons. More than 500 people die every day from gun violence globally, with 44% of all homicides involve gun violence (Brent et al. 334). Millions sustain injuries globally from gun violence each year. The majority of the victims and perpetrators are young men with women and children being at a higher risk of violence from firearms from their intimate partners within their domestic setting. Guns can also facilitate sexual violence. According to research, 75% of all the guns are in civilian hands globally, and of these guns, 48% are found in the US (Alpers). The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and 11th highest gun violence in the world, by far the highest among developed countries, placing it among less developed countries in the Americas such a Venezuela, Colombia and Guatemala. The US gun-related violence is 50 to 100 times that of peers such as South Korea and the United Kingdom; these countries have stricter gun control laws (Aizenman).
America is the only country where the number of guns exceeds the number of people, with about 300 million guns in civilian hands (Karp). One would expect that there should be a correlation between gun ownership numbers and more regulations in place, but this is not the case as America has one of the laxest regulations on gun ownership in the world. Research has shown there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and violence. The effects of gun violence are severe and life-changing to the victims and leave an indelible mark on the victim's long-term mental and physical health. Some will require permanent and lifelong care, loss of ability to take up employment, particularly in physical jobs. Programs that would help the victims by offering adequate long-term care, rehabilitation and job training are almost nonexistent, thus exposing the victims to untold suffering.
According to a cross-sectional study conducted on all US states, about six states with the strictest gun laws had suicide rates lower than others (Medoff and Magaddino 364). The study found out a correlation between strict gun laws and suicides among both males and females. Firearms act as an enabler to crime, suicide or homicide. The ease of acquisition of guns plays a part in if some violence will take place. A higher number of gun control laws in states have been found to reduce firearm mortality since people have fewer means to reach the goal of violence (Fleegler et al. 732). Other studies have shown that stricter state gun controls result in lower discharge rates for gun injuries. Children living in states with stricter gun controls are safer, with families and communities not bearing gun violence's physical and emotional brunt. Handgun laws such as waiting period, expanded universal background checks, gun locks, and stricter open carry regulations have contributed to lower gun violence, and laws in that direction should be pursued. The critical regulation regarding gun control should be a thorough review of high caliber assault weapons and high-capacity magazines used in mass shootings such as AR-15. These should be banned as the primary purpose of owning guns is protection and not aggression, and thus high caliber weapons should only be issued with extra checks.
A study in 2014 found out that states that required licensing and inspection of gun dealers tended to reduce gun violence (Irvin et al. 1384). Veterans tend to live within states with limited gun controls, and they are more suicide-prone; hence federal controls would greatly help; at the same time, restrictive gun sales laws and gun dealer regulations make it more challenging for criminals to obtain new firearms first purchased at retail outlets. The indirect effects of gun violence such as more emergency services, hospital admissions and social services are fewer in states and cities with more restrictive gun control laws. Another research reviewed previous studies examining the effectiveness of gun laws and regulations aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people with improper background checks or high-risk individuals. Laws preventing gun possession by people involved in domestic violence or engaging in violent misdemeanors have lower violence. The research also pointed that multiple other gun regulations intended to prevent prohibited individuals from obtaining guns, such as the strict permit-to-purchase laws and comprehensive background checks, were negatively associated with the diversion of guns to criminals (Webster and Wintemute 34).
The Second Amendment to the US constitution is the foundation for the opposition to any gun control laws. Attempts to propose legislation to tame the violence that has gripped the US communities are met with resistance and branded an affront to the constitution. High rates of gun mortality and injuries are typically cited as the impetus for gun control globally, but the deep divisions in the US have prevented the debate on how to arrest gun-related violence from bearing any fruits. Despite the mass shootings constituting less than 1% of all gun-related deaths in the US, such incidents are typically preceded by an invigorated clamor for the enaction of gun control laws, a debate that falls through the cracks until the next mass shooting happens in a school or public place. There is scanty research that has been done by reputable organizations on gun control and its relationship to violence. The freeze on conducting such research by the CDC was done through the Dickey Amendment in 1996, prohibiting federal funds to advocate or promote gun control (Stein).
The opposition of gun controls has mostly emanated from gun rights special interest groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), which have grown exponentially in their size and influence. Surprisingly, the NRA used above 100 years fighting for gun safety and control, and it changed in the 1960s and became the association that it is today that refuses to have any form of legislation on gun control despite polls indicating a considerable shift in Americans' preference for at least some form of gun control legislation (Schaeffer). NRA and other gun lobbies have engaged in aggressive messaging opposing any form of debate about gun control and campaigning against candidates soft on guns. These organizations have lobbied against all gun control types, objecting to even basic background checks on gun purchases. Thus, one can conclude that these organizations represent gun manufacturers and dealers and not the members, those who own guns. Arguments such as more guns will make Americans safer and more able to defend themselves is false. NRA and other organizations base their staunch gun-rights defenders on the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, and politicians who attempt to challenge gun ownership are pushed out by aggressive campaign from these groups. Political candidates, especially from the Republican Party, have to oppose gun control to win any election; the NRA has a rating system for serving members of Congress seeking re-election and new candidates. An A rating means a candidate has a higher prospect of winning an election. According to the gun right groups, there should be no government oversight or controls on gun ownership as US citizens have a right to bear arms as guaranteed by the second amendment to the US constitution (Draper, 2020).
In the past, gun control legislation has been immediately countered with new laws limiting their effectiveness or Supreme Court halting ruling them as illegal and, most likely, states passing legislation to counter federal limits on gun ownership. After the passing of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the gun rights organizations lobbied heavily and led to the passing of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 that curtailed the previous Act's restrictions. Additionally, they lobbied for the Dickey Amendment passage of 1996 that prohibited the CDD from advocating or promoting gun control. The law's final results were that the CDC could not research gun violence or deaths nor sell stricter gun control in the public sphere. The lobbyists additionally rejected the renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004.
Gun rights advocacy groups lobbied for the passing of a law, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from taking any responsibility if the guns they sell are used in any form of gun violence. Another legislation passed was the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act 2006 that made it illegal to confiscate legally owned guns in case of a disaster. In 2013, the then-President Obama wanted to push through legislation of Assault Weapons Ban in the wake of Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, but despite polls indicating massive support for the bill and some form of gun control, the bill was defeated as a result of a massive campaign by gun-rights advocacy groups (Draper, 2020). Gun-rights advocacy groups such as the NRA and Gun Owners Association, among others, have played a key role in preventing strict gun control laws from passing in Congress while at the same time advancing favorable gun rights legislation and court cases to fight off gun control legislations.
In conclusion, stricter gun controls can significantly reduce gun violence, and America has failed to keep up with its developed peers in taming this form of violence. The deep divisions and inconsistent regulations have made it even harder to reach a compromise and unite Americans towards gun control measures to guarantee the right to life. The government has a legal obligation to protect life and accordingly a responsibility to protect citizens from gun violence. Stricter gun controls can address gender-based gun violence, reduce gun violence effects among minorities who are disproportionately affected, right to health and education
