Stricter Gun Laws Could Prevent Mass Shootings Essay

According to Karimu (2015) study, there have been 119 mass shooting globally between 1984 and 2013 in which 78 (66%) occurred in the US. The data shows that the US is the leading country with the highest incidence of the mass shooting in the world as highlighted by an incident in Las Vegas on 1st October 2017 in which 58 people died while 500 others were injured making it the deadliest mass shooting since 1949. The high rate of mass shooting in the US is attributed to the number of guns owned by US citizens estimated to be more than 310 million CITATION Sri13 \l 1033 (Bangalore & Messerli, 2013). The ratio of gun ownership in the US is 89 guns per 100 people, which is the highest globally. Due to the spiraling nature of mass shootings, there have been numerous measures implemented to regulate the ownership and usage of guns. Since the adoption of the Second Amendment in 1791, the rate of gun ownership increased in the US causing a consequential rise in gun violence. Despite the recent policies and regulations to control the use and ownership of guns, they have not been effective in reducing mass shooting. Anti-violence activists are continuously pushing for gun laws which are stricter such as an all-out ban on the use and possession of assault weapons. However, advocates supporting the use of guns contend that tougher rules and banning of firearms violates the rights of individuals. The essay discusses the disadvantages and advantages of stricter gun laws in the efforts to reduce mass shootings and provide supporting argument regarding stern policies and laws in the utilization and ownership of guns.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Other than infringing on the citizens' rights to safety and self-protection enshrined in the constitution, making gun ownership and usage laws stricter has numerous disadvantages. First, tougher laws will not reduce mass shooting but will make citizens vulnerable and unarmed hence the inability to avert mass killings from occurring. Karimu's (2015) comments supporting the futility of stern gun laws state that they do not avert the actions of evil people because of the inability to legislate human nature but makes law-abiding citizens vulnerable to criminals. As evident from the case of South Carolina, gun control laws have a single agenda of decreasing guns in the hand of citizens but do not keep individuals safe from mass shooters. Since stern gun laws reduce the amount of gun owned by citizens, people search for alternative ways of protecting themselves hence increasing the rate of mass shooting committed using alternative weapons. For instance, although Australia has a low level of mass killings and reduced gun ownership, the violence committed using alternative weapons is high (Chapman, Alpers, Agho, & Jones, 2006). According to Karimu (2015), stern gun laws will not reduce mass shooting because they will increase black markets and the sale of automatic and semiautomatic guns without background checks. In Collins et al. (2018) research, close to 42% of gun sales in the US are done without conducting background checks thus the stricter gun laws will encourage mentally ill individuals and convicted felons to access firearms in the black markets. Even using background checks as a measure to reduce mass killing is still ineffective considering the fact that criminals obtain guns from straw purchasers and gun peddlers who pass mental and backgrounds tests. Because mass shooting is a planned action, strict laws may not prevent one from getting the guns. It is evident from the case of the Paris attack in 2015 in which the weapons used were bought in Phoenix, Arizona and smuggled into France (Collins, et al., 2018).

The proponents of stricter gun laws state that it is the beginning of ending gun culture in the US (Smith & Spiegler, 2017). Tougher gun laws mean that guns become hard to find thus reducing irresponsible usage and consequently reducing the occurrence of mass shootings. The US should borrow from Australia which implemented stringent gun laws in 1996 and is currently one of the nations in the world with virtually zero incidences of a mass shootings (Chapman, et al., 2006). In Australia, the implementation of Firearm Buyback measure and stricter gun laws in all territories in 1996 made the purchase and illegal ownership of firearms practically impossible. The territories united to ban the possession of rifles, pump-action, and semi-automatic guns among the civilians. Consequently, the nation has not witnessed mass shootings in two decades since the occurrence of Tasmania firearm massacre in 1996 that left 35 individuals dead (Chapman, et al., 2006). Rigorous laws will not only address illegally acquired guns but also those that individuals purchase legally to ensure safe and responsible use. Research shows that 75% of the mass shooting cases are executed using legally purchased firearms thus stern regulations will impose precincts on the legal sale of guns by ensuring comprehensive mental and background checks of individuals (Bangalore & Messerli, 2013). Strict laws mean the abolition of the private-sale exemptions which currently does not need background checks hence the government will close the loophole. Smith and Spiegler (2017) interpret strict gun laws and regulations to include the enactment of the effective and stringent ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and safe storage of firearms. It also includes limiting the presence of military-style firearms that house more than 10 rounds and tightening the procedures involved in the acquisition of guns such as increase waiting periods before handover to provide enough time to conduct background checks on citizens and determine their mental health and criminal records.

The proponents of stringent background checks as a regulatory requirement in sale and purchase of guns give an example of 2017 mass shooting in Sutherland Springs in Texas in which Patrick Kelly, the shooter, did not receive appropriate background checks because he had a history of domestic violence when he was in the military (Collins, et al., 2018). FBI had little knowledge of the shooter's history because Air Force failed to raise the alarm hence the shooter purchased the gun. Enhancing the strictness of the gun regulations also entails prohibiting bump stocks (Smith & Spiegler, 2017). The push for bump stock prohibition in the US follows the recent mass shooting by Nikolas Cruz in Florida who used a semiautomatic weapon to kill 17 individuals. Any semiautomatic weapon such as M&P 15, AK-47, and AR-15 requires the pulling of trigger for every shot but fitting them with bump stocks enable continuous firing when the shooter hold the trigger. Furthermore, the use of bump stocks was evident in Nevada shooting by Stephen Paddock during the Harvest Festival show. Paddock used bump stocks to modify the firearms to produce automatic fire killing 58 individuals, the highest number ever recorded in the US' mass killing incidents.

Conclusion

In summary, making gun laws and regulations stricter has both negative and positive consequences. It is an infringement of the citizens' rights to safety as enshrined in the constitution. Although the use and possession of guns an American tradition, it is a matter that requires reasonable regulations because the recent incidences and profiling of the US as the leading nation in mass killings demonstrate the dire consequences of less severe gun laws. The recent killings act as reminders that citizens' lives are precious and protecting their deaths in masses is one way of respecting the precious and limited time they have on earth. It is evident that the causes of mass shootings are illegal possession and acquisition of firearms because the regulations and laws already enacted have loopholes that criminals use to execute their evil plans. While the opponents of stern gun control actions cite other means of reducing mass killing such as education and awareness creation, an effective method is imposing strict rules and legislation that decrease the availability of semiautomatic guns in the society. Severe gun control regulations traverse the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons closure gun shows which is currently creating loopholes in the acquisition of dangerous firearms used in mass shootings. The focus needs to shift to the enforcement of harsh laws and regulation such as consolidating the existing background check and mental health examination systems to ensure that gun lands in the hands of responsible and law abiding citizens. Stringent gun control legislation will be effective when coupled with other common-sense strategies like empowering and educating people to avoid capital offenses.

References

Bangalore, S. & Messerli, F. H., 2013. Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths. American Journal of Medicine, 126(10), p. 873-876.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.012.

Chapman, S., Alpers, P., Agho, K. & Jones, M., 2006. Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Injury Prevention, 12(6), http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ip.2006.013714.

Collins, T. et al., 2018. State Firearm Laws and Interstate Transfer of Guns in the USA, 2006-2016. Journal of Urban Health, 1(4), DOI: 10.1007/s11524-018-0251-9.

Karimu, O. O., 2015. Two Sides of Gun Legislation and Control Debate in the US. European Scientific Journal, 11(7), pp. 400-413.

Smith, J. & Spiegler, J., 2017. Explaining Gun Deaths: Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Policymaking in the American States. Policy Studies Journal, 2(4), https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12242.