Gun Reform
The topic of gun control is fiercely debated not only in America, but the whole world as the number of tragic events continue to rise. Issues of mass shootings, suicides, and homicide continue to increase as perpetrators use firearms to spread terror across society. Just the other day, Dayton and El Paso experienced mass shootings that left many injured while others dead (Irby and Cadei, 2019). These are not the only cases of mass shootings in America that have been reoccurring frequently since the beginning of the 21st Century. In contrast to the rest of the world, America tends to support the purchase of firearms under less strict rules. However, this does not mean there are no adequate laws in place to control the purchase and use of weapons. There is no need to include more laws as those that are present are enough. Instead, the United States needs to follow up with the present rules by finding means of ensuring the laws are executed to the letter. In all fairness, current gun laws in the United States are strict, adequate, and only need proper execution to ensure Americans maintain their constitutional rights while at the same time curbing mass shootings.
There is no assurance that stricter gun laws will mean an end to the mass shootings that are endangering schools, concerts, or public streets (Perry, 2017). Gun violence is an epidemic that everyone is trying to overcome, whether they side with the current laws or not. There seem to be two sides of thought when evaluating gun control: those who perceive that schools should be armed more and those who suggest stricter gun laws. Both these ideologies are wrong since there have been strict gun laws since the late 20th Century. During the years 1994 – 2004, there even was a ban on Assault weapons, but still, the shootings at Columbine took place in 1999. During 20th April 1999, two students were able to walk into their school with firearms and kill 13 people before turning the guns on themselves and ending their lives (Hummer, 2016). This horrific historic event shocked the nation since such actions were infrequent. Ever since 1999, mass shootings seemed to pick up regardless of the laws in place. There is no saying that stricter gun laws will prohibit mass murderers from using firearms.
Furthermore, it is not within reach of the law to control the intent of a criminal who wants to execute his/her evil ideas. The media has been quick to spread intensified terror across the nation, which has led to people believing that the laws in place are not sufficient (Hummer, 2016). Just after the Columbine shootings, the Virginia Tech massacre took place, followed by the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, then the UCSB killings, and the Umpqua Community College. All these gunmen randomly woke up one day and decided to carry a firearm to kill other people. Since the act is randomly executed on random people, it becomes difficult to enforce laws on such scenarios. Having stricter rules will not make a difference if the laws in place are not used by relevant institutions to detect, identify, or mitigate such attacks. Present laws only need proper execution, which has been hard to achieve across state governments. In the year 2017, there were 40,000 gun-related deaths, even with the implemented gun laws (Gramlich and Schaeffer, 2019). These acts show that the rules in place are already enough, and all that is needed is for state governments to polish their implementation strategies.
Strict laws on gun purchases entail firearm sellers to confirm eligibility of the buyers, which is a practice that is adequate for profiling gun owners. As if this law isn’t enough, there are other statutes across various states that insist on the removal of firearms from individuals in distress. The federal law and state law already prohibit the purchase of firearms to people who have been hospitalized or diagnosed with several histories regarding mental health (Pinals et al., 2015). The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) provides a system for firearm dealers to check the status of a client who requires to purchase a firearm. Through running a background check, the NICS avails the information of the buyer stating their eligibility. Sadly, mass shootings continue to prevail, as seen during the Virginia Tech Shootings (Pinals et a., 2015). Even with systems such as NICS, State governments have failed in following up with institutions that need to update their NICS database. Such failure has formed a considerable gap between the availability of firearms and mentally unstable individuals, thus giving way for random violence against strangers. Since dealers don’t have updated eligibility of clients, there is an increased likelihood of guns being purchased by mentally ill people.
The gun laws are not the problem, but rather the ability of state governments to ensure that the rules are implemented thoroughly. Another reason why gun violence continues to harm strangers is the inability to execute existing laws such as the removal of firearms from distressed individuals (Pinals et al., 2015). Today, a good number of people have guns in their homes. These weapons can be used by individuals to harm themselves or others during a period of distress. When personal firearms are not considered as “readily available” weapons, then the law is merely overlooking potential gun violence. Some states, but not all, enforce statutes that allow firearm removal from people that are diagnosed with mental health emergencies or those perceived to be a danger to themselves or others (Pinals et al., 2015). The national gun registry can be used to show the firearms in possession by an individual in distressed and removed from the access of the person through the power of a court of law. However, the inability of some states to enforce such statues enables scenarios that lead to the much-feared violence against strangers.
Some insist on the need for stricter gun laws claiming that the current ones are not adequate. These claims often arise after a mass shooting, and the recent Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton shootings are used as an example to request for more laws (Irby and Cadei, 2019). After those tragic mass shootings that left over thirty people dead and sixty-three others injured, the nation went into a fit of rage, claiming that the current laws were not strict enough. There may indeed be loopholes in the system that need to be closed, especially with advancements in technology. Online sites have enabled buyers to purchase items without having a face to face interaction with dealers. All three shooters in the Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton shootings acquired their firearms legally, with the Gilroy shooter having ordered his gun from an online store (Irby and Cadei, 2019). Sadly, the ease at which Americans can acquire a firearm is relatively worrying since online purchases are harder to control. However, this counterargument does not negate the fact that determined shooters will go to any extent to execute their ideas. The laws in place are already adequate, and any more laws will mean denying Americans their constitutional rights (Taylor, 2019). The Second Amendment allows Americans to bear arms and defend themselves when the need arises. Having stricter rules with the hopes of controlling gun use will translate to Americans having to compromise on their rights.
In conclusion, current gun laws are strict and adequate. The inability of state governments to properly execute the laid directives has been the cause for loopholes in the system, enabling an individual to carry out mass shootings. The institutions that have the authority to determine eligibility and possession of firearms are to blame since they delay with NICS updates or fail to serve court orders for firearm removal. Having more laws will only overburden the system with more requirements that need to be followed when the present ones are not receiving the required attention. Those who claim that the current laws are not enough to need to consider the second amendment and what stricter laws on guns will mean for Americans. Technology and online purchasing have indeed made a difference in society that needs legal consideration. Still, that fact does not overrule the randomness of mass shootings by assailants who acquired the guns legally. It is, therefore, necessary for each state government to give current gun laws attention before requesting for implementation of more laws.
References
Gramlich, J. & Schaeffer, K. (2019). 7 Facts about guns in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/
Hummer, C. (2016). Gun Control in the United States: an Analysis of Federal and International Policies and Applications.
Irby, k. & Cadei, E. (2019). Fact Check: Were existing gun laws enough to prevent Gilory, El Paso and Dayton Shootings? Retrieved from https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article233541837.html
Luca, M., Malhotra, D., & Poliquin, C. (2020). The impact of mass shootings on gun policy. Journal of Public Economics, 181, 104083.
Perry, C. (2017). Why Gun Control is not the Answer and What we can do to Stop Gun Violence. University of Maine Farmington. Retrieved from http://www2.umf.maine.edu/flyer/archives/2013-spring/issue-2-3-7-2013/why-gun-control-is-not-the-answer-and-what-we-can-do-to-stop-gun-violence/
Pinals et al. (2015) Resource document on access to firearms by people with mental disorders. Behavioral sciences & the law 33.2-3 (2015): 186-194.
Taylor, A. (2019). Local Gun Dealer says Current Gun Laws are Strict Enough. Retrieved from https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/local-gun-dealer-says-current-gun-laws-are-strict-enough

Published by

Essays

View all posts