It has only been a month since Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School etched it’s name in stone as yet another victim to mass shootings in the United States. In that time, grieving students launched a nationwide movement that could stimulate new laws. The outcry for reform seems to begin gaining traction in the state legislature and real regulation could be in place for the first time since the ratification of the second amendment. Like most Americans know, Parkland is not the first of its kind with fifty mass shootings in schools since Columbine. Aside from that, there have been 1,624 mass shootings in the past 1,870 days. In essence, that means there are nine shootings for every ten days on average. Staggering statistics like these should have resulted in action long ago. Now with the debate of guns being center stage, the bigger question forms: where is the fine line between self-defense and deadly force? However, due to disputes regarding the constitutionality of regulation, lobbying of the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the last fear of government, we lack the basic restrictions needed to create a more safe environment for the people. The United States should impose federal laws regarding gun policies for the following: increased backgrounds checks, mental examinations, exams for use and studies of implicit bias, limits of the amount of ammunition, as well as training for gun use every five years.
The United States is not known for having regulation towards guns, but perhaps the furthest attempt was the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993. This mandated background checks and a waiting period on individuals attempting to purchase firearms. Although this was held on the federal level, there existed substantial variability in state laws on what should be included in background checks— such as criminal history, restraining orders, mental illness, fugitive status, and misdemeanors. There is also a lack of participation among the states to input information into the National Instant Criminal Background System (NCIS) which determines the eligibility of a prospective gun purchaser. The prevention act of 1993 makes it only voluntary and pursuant to law in each state. The fact that the law is so outdated complimented by the lack of enforcement/participation shows the absence of uniform law, despite the act of 1993 being held at a federal level. Every state should be held to the same requirements of background checks and inputs to not only verify eligibility, but to prevent potential threats who lives in a more strict zone to access guns from a more lax area.
Variability among states in what they include for background checks makes areas with strict gun laws more prone to violence. One of the main arguments against gun laws and whether they are effective or not is mentioning the violence that occurs in Chicago. This city is amongst the most strict in gun reform, yet they also have the highest total count in gun related violence. However, this statistic is flawed as there are other countermeasures that oppose these reform since there is not uniform law at the federal level.
“Even if Chicago or Illinois had the toughest gun laws in the country, it borders two states, Wisconsin and Indiana, that have lax gun laws. A 2015 study from the University of Chicago demonstrated how permeable borders contribute to gun violence in Chicago. Researchers traced all new guns recovered from crimes between 2009 and 2013, and they found that 60 percent of the new guns used in gang-related crimes in the city, and nearly 32 percent of the new guns used in non-gang-related crimes, were purchased in other states” ().
Although Chicago is listed as one of the highest counts in gun violence, it actually has one of the lowest rates per person in gun related violence. The usage of the total count is a skewed form of measurement as it does not take into account the significant population urban areas have over rural areas. By taking population into account, the rates of which gun violence occurs in each state provides a better indicator on whether overall gun control is effective or not. For example, Alaska ranks 44th in being lenient on gun control, but have the highest rates of gun deaths. Also, Louisiana, ranking 43rd, owns the second-highest rates for deaths. Our current status shows that states with more requirements in eligibility also have the lowest rates and vice versa. The measure of total count is a form of misleading information that creates a misunderstanding within anti-gun control advocates. Even then, states with the highest forms of regulation do not compete with standards set in other countries. Just as the trend before indicates, the United States who have the highest rate of gun related violence among developed nations also have the lowest set of regulations. Other countries, specifically Australia, has had their own share of gun violence and through action, has not experienced a single mass shooting since 1996.
Considering the status of the United States among developed nations, it is unusual to have such high rates of gun violence. With the homicide rate being seven times higher than the combined rates of twenty two other high income countries, there is enough cause for immediate change. In 1996, a man armed with two military-style semi-automatic rifles shot dead 35 people and wounded 18 others. The massacre was deemed the worst in Australian history. The very next month, a list of reforms were passed. Notable reforms include-
“First the ban on importation, ownership, sale, resale, transfer, possession, manufacture, or use of guns with the exceptions of low-powered .22s and pump-action shotguns for primary producers. Next a compensatory "buyback" scheme funded through an increase in Medicare levy. Here owners would be paid the market value, otherwise prohibited guns would be worthy of prosecution after the 12 month amnesty period. Third, they incorporated a licensing scheme though National Exchange of Police Information (NEPI). Fourth, a minimum age of 18 was set and criteria for "fit and proper person" such as refusal of licenses to those convicted for violence or subject to domestic violence restraining order within the past five years. Gun safety training is required. 28 day waiting period for license. Storage requirements. Limits placed on quantity of ammunition”
Prior to the most unprecedented forms of gun control in history, the Australian culture held a massive gun culture just as America holds today. Yet, these models have proven that in a similar culture, strong reform works just as well effectively. The United States can no longer hold themselves to a different standard and continue to rule out potential benefits. To elaborate on the benefits of federalization, it is important to note that a mental examinations will also become a requirement.
After a long history of mental illness being in the same sentence as insanity, society has evolved to tear down certain stigmas. Years of study show that mental illness is not as easily identifiable as most would perceive. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that every gun owner is a responsible user. We can no longer tolerate mental illness as an excuse for the murder of 17 students in Parkland. By understanding the value of mental capacity, we set ourselves in a position to prevent future shootings. Even during development of the youth during schooling, setting up programs to study and cope with mental illness will have a greater long term effect than simply arming our teachers. In the scenario that Nikolas Cruz did not benefit from getting professional help, he would have been denied purchase of a weapon as it would have been denied by the national background check system. There is not enough evidence from a rap sheet to determine mental stability. The Parkland shooter had many tips sent in to the FBI from the school and with the combination of not having a criminal background, he was able to obtain a gun. “Clearly an individual who suffers from an illness on psychotic proportions can be a danger to both himself and to the community if he is in possession of firearms. It is interesting to note that state mental hospital patients often cannot drive automobiles and may not drive if they are on certain amounts of medication as outpatients” (). However, no restriction is placed on them with respect to possession of weapons. Poor impulse control, history of drug addiction, or any form of abuse should have an impact over determining mental stability. If today's laws restrict instability for driving vehicles, the same, if not more should be incorporated into handling weaponry.
Aside from mental examinations, an important quality all gun users should have is an acceptable level of implicit biases. Everyone has implicit biases. However, this is to prevent possible hate crimes against other races, the police, other sexualities, or any other differences. Providing a required course to educate those who are implicitly bias in order for them to learn and eventually pass should also be readily available. From the shooting of the gay nightclub in Chicago to the one in Kansas who shot two Indian men after screaming “get out of my country”, hate is actively played a role in mass shootings. “Hate crimes in nine major US cities — from desecrations of Jewish synagogues to attacks on Muslims — rose an average of more than 20% in 2016, a rise that the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism” (). The bigotry of the Parkland shooter, who has a recording stating “I hate jews, ni**ers, and immigrants, reflects the kind of hate that is pervasive in our society. There needs to be a sense of accountability that examines the climate and context that creates them. Programs to combat implicit bias in order to attain a weapon should be required to not only citizens, but law enforcement as well.
The origin of the amendment dates back to Colonial America when the nation was fresh out of tyrannical rule and trust in the government was reasonably low. These laws were implemented to also act as defense against a government that might do harm as well. In today’s era, the biggest conflict between people and government is through the police. Just as every gun owner should be required to take an exam, so should the police themselves. Everyone has some form of implicit bias, so they should be required to take the exam to lessen the threat of conflict, especially in urban areas. On top of everything, they should be required to be enlisted to programs to have a better understanding of the effects of their actions on the community. “Cease Fire strategy… The communications to them explain the risks of continued participation in violence and offer services available to them…for it also makes clear that violence cannot be tolerated. Those who continue to make their communities unsafe will face enforcement action and prosecution” (). The implementation of strategic policies to combat the ongoing negative coverage of the relationship between police and community members is necessary to retrieve the trust in law enforcement that has depleted over the years.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure that every gun owner is responsible enough to carry a weapon capable of mass violence. The most basic form of this is through gun safety training. Training, like a permit for driving, should be ensured to test whether every user knows the laws surrounding guns as well as demonstrations to test capability at a gun range. Also, every new owner should be provided with a safe that can be accessed through fingerprint for quick access and safety within the home. This is to prevent children from taking them which has been a major cause for increased suicide rates. “Results indicated that states with any of these laws in place exhibited lower overall suicide rates and suicide by firearms rates and that a smaller proportion of suicides in such states resulted from firearms.. laws requiring registration and license had significant indirect effects through the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms” (). The means of taking away lethal releases from the hands of children is a responsibility of the parents to ensure their livelihoods.
After addressing the needs for gun control, we need to consider the following: Would stricter gun control laws infringe upon the people’s rights to own guns? Also are we taking away guns from the good people? Amendment by definition is change. The area between evolving laws according to current needs and taking away human rights is grey due to the long history of gun rights in the United States. However, a common basis of an argument for the far right is saying that car-related deaths are far more than gun-related, so in that case we should take away cars. As much as that argument is valid in terms of total death count, it neglects the past history of road laws. With cars– as cars grew more advanced with increased speed, we naturally implemented safety policies regarding age limit, seat belts and insurance, lowered speed limits, cracked down on drunk driving, and now 17,000 lives have been saved per year. It is undeniable that injuries and death related to cars are high, yet it's important to note the progress made in this sector. Furthermore, its more notable to address the potential benefits of revising gun laws as well. Although reform would dramatically change the culture of the United States, it is a necessary change to promote the general safety in the form of harming others or oneself.
Gun reform following massacres is not inevitable, as we’ve seen from years of mass shootings, however it takes a planned, strategic use of advocacy to convert anger and outrage into action. The examples and legislation were all pro-reform, however, I believe that owning guns is apart of the constitutional right given to use through the bill of rights. However, it is necessary to adapt to times and value the preservation of life, security, and trust within our society even if it means to restrict the rights of gun owners.