Gun Control in the US: Public Safety, Legal Debates, and the Need for Reform

Introduction

The Second Amendment is one of the ten amendments to the US Constitution that were ratified barely three years after the ratification of the Constitution. Collectively, these amendments were dubbed the Bill of Rights and anchored as fundamental rights accruing to every American citizen. Among other things, the Second Amendment, together with a Supreme Court ruling, confers the individual right to bear arms on Americans. Since then, advocates and opponents of gun control have debated the merits and demerits of such a policy as situations and circumstances continue to evolve.

Specifically, the US is currently grappling with an increase in the number of mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence. In addition, suicide rates through the use of a gun have increased tremendously, making it necessary to limit the availability and type of firearms in the hands of Americans. Consequently, this essay will argue in favor of establishing gun control since such a policy is essential for public safety and mitigates risks associated with gun availability.

The Scale of Gun Violence and the Need for Reform

Gun availability and relaxed laws on their acquisition in the US mean that hundreds of millions of guns are in the hands of millions of Americans. Naturally, this has led to an unimaginable increase in the number of gun violence incidents. For example, in one hundred and fifty days of 2023, there have been at least two hundred and two mass shootings (Salam). In large cities such as Chicago, dozens of people are killed or injured each day as a consequence of gun violence (Mignot).

Given these statistics, there has been considerable pressure to make changes to laws to ensure gun control. However, these attempts are often thwarted due to powerful lobbying by organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and resistance by a significant portion of the population. Yet, evidence from studies and polls shows gun control considerably reduces gun violence.

Gun control policies should be enacted because they can lead to an effective reduction in gun-related violence. A research study by Hurka and Knill demonstrated a correlation between the extent of gun control laws and a decrease in gun-related homicides and suicides. Their study revealed that countries that had adopted stricter gun control had significantly lower rates of gun-related fatalities.

For example, in Japan and Australia, where gun laws are among the world’s strongest, suicides and homicides involving firearms were several times lower than in countries with loose gun control laws, such as the United States (Hurka and Knill). These figures suggest that countries where citizens cannot easily purchase a gun experience lower rates of gun-related violence than countries where gun availability and purchase are easier.

An alarming rise in mass shooting incidents in the US lends credence to the increased urgency for gun control. The number and severity of mass shootings in the US have seen a rapid increase over the years as more and more people acquire guns. A cross-sectional time series analysis by Reeping et al. established that states where gun laws were stricter had lower numbers of mass shootings.

These findings highlight the need for other states to emulate those that have more stringent controls on guns. Additionally, the findings in Reeping et al.’s study conform to a report by Molteni, which established that lower rates of mass shootings are likely to be experienced by states where gun laws are stricter. These studies provide evidence that necessary actions on gun control would reduce gun violence if they were enacted.

Public Opinion, Legal Debates, and the Path to Safer Communities

While politicians, lobbyists, and other policymakers are always hesitant about creating gun regulations, the majority of the public favors such action. According to an AP-NORC poll, a significant majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws (Burnett). This shift in attitudes towards gun control by a majority of the people in the US is indicative of a recognition that some controls are necessary to reduce gun violence. In addition, this shift indicates an admission that the right to bear arms is not inherent in American citizens and that it can be limited due to public safety concerns. Thus, the public understands that higher gun ownership translates to increased risks of gun violence.

Measures such as implementing a more vigorous background check, storing guns away from children’s reach in a safe space, and reducing access to high-capacity magazines are popular among the general public. However, despite the potential benefits of these policy initiatives, only a few states have implemented them. Unfortunately, the federal government has been unable to make any tangible gun control policies.

The most aggressive critics of gun control argue that it infringes on the rights of American citizens. However, Constitutional law experts maintain that the Second Amendment envisioned the regulation of gun ownership by stating that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” but emphasizing the need for a “well-regulated Militia” (Weatherup). Thus, it is arguable that the founding fathers and the drafters of the Constitution sought to balance the right to bear arms with public safety (Reeping et al.).

Consequently, given their acquiescence to gun control to ensure public safety, it is apparent that gun control does not infringe on the Second Amendment. Today, the most polarizing debate regarding gun control laws is whether such an action would violate provisions of the Second Amendment. The proponents of the status quo argue, without interrogating the facts, that any minute changes would be an infringement of a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, any possible policies aimed at gun control are debated until they lose relevance.

Of all the legal and other arguments for gun control put forward, the most compelling that should persuade Americans to be decisive is the prevention of the deaths of tens of thousands of people each year. Whether by suicide or outright homicide, guns cut short the lives of tens of thousands each year.

For example, in 2023, at least 13,900 people died due to gun violence by May (Alfonseca). In addition, there was an average of more than one mass shooting each day during the period. Of the more than thirteen thousand dead people, 491 were teenagers, while 85 were children. Further, of those dead, at least 491 of them were due to unintentional or accidental shootings (Alfonseca).

Given these devastating statistics, there is an urgent need for gun control policies for public safety reasons. When the coronavirus pandemic started, the government took extraordinary measures to ensure no American would die unnecessarily. As argued in this essay, only political will can prevent the government from taking such actions.

Building Trust to Strengthen Gun Control Measures

However, the propensity for citizens to embrace gun control measures is also dependent on their level of trust in law enforcement institutions. A study by Ryan et al. (2020) found that people who had higher reliance on police institutions were more inclined to accept stricter gun control policies (731). This research highlighted the importance of building institutional capacity and working with the community to establish mutual trust.

Such trust-building measures are necessary because individuals will have more faith in the regulatory system against the proliferation of guns, if necessary, to maintain public safety, if they have confidence in law enforcement institutions. The findings in this study suggest that the current approach to convince Americans of the need to institute some common-sense gun controls requires a reevaluation and should include measures to enhance institutional trust.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the need for gun control in America is long overdue. The evidence and statistics in this essay strongly support initiatives to institute some gun control measures. In addition, unlike in the past, when most Americans opposed and viewed gun control as an infringement of an inherent right, a significant majority from both sides of the political divide support taking action.

Some of the actions where consensus has been reached include thorough background searches, necessitating the storage of firearms in a safe, and limiting the ownership of military-grade assault rifles. States that have taken some of these measures have seen a dramatic decrease in gun-related violence. At the same time, those yet to enact stricter gun control continue to experience high rates of gun-related suicides and homicides. However, while states have taken smaller steps in the right direction, debate on gun control at the federal level arises only when tragedy strikes and fades even before the flowers on the graves of victims wither.

Works Cited

Alfonseca, Kiara. “More Than 13,900 People Killed in Gun Violence So Far in 2023.” ABC News, Web.

Hurka, Steffen, and Christoph Knill. “Does Regulation Matter? A Cross‐National Analysis of the Impact of Gun Policies on Homicide and Suicide Rates.” Regulation & Governance, vol. 14, no. 4, 2018, pp. 787–803, Web.

Mignot, Suzanne Le. “Chicago Has Had Most Mass Shootings in the U.S. since 2018 — What’s the Solution?” CBS News, Web.

Molteni, Megan. “The Looser a State’s Gun Laws, the More Mass Shootings It Has.” Wired, Web.

Reeping, Paul M, et al. “State Gun Laws, Gun Ownership, and Mass Shootings in the US: Cross-Sectional Time Series.” BMJ, 2019, p. l542, Web.

Ryan, John Barry, et al. “When Trust Matters: The Case of Gun Control.” Political Behavior, vol. 44, no. 2, 2020, pp. 725–748, Web.

Salam, Erum. “US on Track to Set Record in 2023 for Mass Killings after Series of Shootings.” The Guardian, Web.

Weatherup, Roy G. “Standing Armies and Armed Citizens: An Historical Analysis of the Second Amendment.” Gun Control and the Constitution, 2023, pp. 185–226, Web.