Assignment 16: Joseph Craven

Which group of 300 million items are found in America, kills thousands of Americans every year, and sparks one of the most fiercely debated issues in politics? Guns.

Gun control and gun violence are two of the most widely argued  modern-day issues. After all, gun control is the second most debated topic on ProCon, a website dedicated to discussions over controversial issues. Like most issues, people have a vast array of opinions. Both sides claim to want to reduce gun violence. However, one extreme side wants to ban all guns in response to gun violence, yet the other side wants to remove almost all gun restriction under the Second Amendment. Although both sides have slight validity to them, the best way to prevent gun violence is to reach a reasonable compromise. Gun violence would be reduced significantly if stricter background checks were enacted, gun safety was taught to children, and certain bans were set on  dangerous guns and attachments.

In order to discuss the true impact of gun violence, it is important to clear up a few common misconceptions. First, the “gun show loophole” is not as big of an issue as people believe. While it is possible for somebody to sell a gun or two at a gun show without a background check, the vast majority of salespeople at gun shows have a federal license to sell, requiring them to conduct a background check (Whitney). It would be difficult to walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm without proof of age, lack of crime, and mental stability. Another common misconception is that mental illness is the primary cause for gun violence. I initially thought that additional funding for care of people with mental illness would be a way to drastically reduce gun violence, but research shows that less than 5% of gun violence is committed by people with mental illness, and less than 1% of gun-related homicides are mass shootings committed by the  severely mentally ill (“Gun Control-ProCon”). This misconception provides gun activists with a scapegoat to blame violence on and unfairly portrays people with mental illness as unstable psychopaths.

Background checks are an essential component to ensure that guns are sold responsibly. In order to reduce the number of gun casualties in America, background checks need to be mandatory in almost all sales of weapons, and background checks need to be more effective. Even though mental illness should not be an excuse to prevent harsher gun laws, background checks need to be assigned to find out if someone purchasing a gun has a history of violence. Currently, 19 states and Washington D.C. have laws that require background checks (Kirk et al.). The benefits of these laws have important impacts in these states, with 47 percent fewer women fatally shot by partners and a 47 percent reduction of gun-related suicide when compared to states with looser background checks (Everytown). The vast majority of Americans believe in background checks for all gun sales, and enforcing heavier checks in the remaining 31 states would immediately lead to fewer gun-related fatalities.

However, increased background checks will be useless if they are not enforced. The illegal sale of guns has led to an epidemic of violence in America. A Harvard study in 2015 sampled 4,000 adults that owned guns, finding that 22% acquired their guns without a background check, including purchases between family and friends. Even worse, 79% of firearms used in crimes were owned by a different person than the perpetrator (Wolfson et al.). Background checks are obviously a good way to ensure that guns do not land in the wrong hands, but other actions must be taken to prevent these illegal deals. The majority of illegally acquired guns were obtained through theft, so mandatory reporting of stolen guns has  the potential to prevent crimes before they happen. Tracing gun crimes to original owners and sellers would also discourage the illicit gun sales.

Background checks are certainly a good way to reduce gun violence. However, another effective method of reducing gun violence should be implemented: proper education of guns at a young age. Giving children proper education regarding gun safety in schools  could result in a healthier psychological relationship between guns and children, rather than making guns seem like a scary, unknown machine. The significance and the proper handling of guns must be a large part of proper gun education. 62 children were shot and killed from 2007 to 2011 as a direct result of improper gun use from either the victim or another child (Everytown); 62 deaths that could have been avoided if the children were aware of the significance of the situation. However, parents also must serve a responsible duty by keeping their guns contained, unloaded, and out of reach from children.

Gun education and thorough background checks will lead to positive changes over time, but direct bans are the fastest and most straightforward way of enacting gun control. However, a valid argument exists against gun bans: the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms. The most reasonable ban does not address a category of guns, it address an attachment called a “bump stock”. Bump stocks function by using a weapon’s kickback to force the gun against the shooter’s trigger finger, allowing for a much faster rate of fire. Bump stocks were used in mass shootings such as the recent Las Vegas shooting to increase casualties. Banning bump stocks would be able to reduce the lethality of weapons as a whole without infringing upon the Second Amendment.

When the argument moves to banning assault weapons, laws become more controversial due to challenges to the Second Amendment. I believe that a ban on high-capacity assault weapons would be effective for preventing more mass shootings. Fully-automatic weapons and even semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines would rarely, if ever, be used for self-defense. A link also exists between mass shootings and high-capacity weapons. From 1982 to 2012, high-capacity magazines were used in 50% of the mass shootings. High-capacity magazines also result in deadlier shootings, as these types of magazines increase the fatality rate by 63% and the injury rate by 156% (Everytown). However, a line must be drawn when banning guns, as most guns, particularly handguns, should remain legal with a proper background check. Banning all guns would not only be a complete infringement on the Second Amendment, but it would leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals with illegally-obtained guns.

Gun control, through specific bans, proper gun safety education, and stricter backgrounds checks, has the potential to reduce gun fatalities in America. However, misconceptions about guns and bickering over the significance of gun laws prevents proper gun control legislation from being enacted. If the federal government did more to regulate the sale of guns, then hundreds or even thousands of lives could be saved.

Sources

Day, Bill. "Lapierre's Tears." Cagle Cartoons. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2017.

"Gun Control." ProCon. ProCon, 8 June 2017. Web. 29 June 2017.

“Gun Safety in America.” Everytown, Everytown for Gun Safety, 2017, everytownresearch.org/.

Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA. Prod. Michael Kirk, Jim Gilmore, and Mike Wiser. PBS,      2015. KET. Web. 25 June 2017.

Whitney, Craig R. Living with Guns. New York: PublicAffairs, 2012. Print.

Wolfson, Julia A., Stephen P. Teret, Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, Matthew Miller, and Deborah Azrael, PhD. "The US Public’s Preference for Safer Guns." American Journal of Public Health     106.3 (2016): 411-13. US National Library of Medicine. Web. 27 June 2017.