While the US prides itself on upholding individual liberties, the devastating consequences of permissive gun laws, as enhanced by the Second Amendment, cannot be ignored. Statistics reported by Alfonseca (2023) indicate that over 40,000 firearm-related deaths occurred in 2023. Similarly, Jehan et al. (2018) specify that permissive gun laws have resulted in the loss of 32 lives and the treatment of 140 people every single day for gun-related violence. These statistics underline the urgency and significance of exploring more restrictive gun laws as a means to address the problem of gun violence. This take is justified by Reeping et al. (2019) study, which shows that a 10% increase in state gun ownership leads to a significant 35.1% higher rate of mass shootings. Reeping et al., (2019) study conclusively established that the US- statistics indicate that states with more permissive gun laws had higher rates of firearm-related deaths and injuries than states with restrictive gun laws. As such, although the Second Amendment advocates for Americans’ rights to keep and bear arms, permissive gun laws in the US have contributed to the pervasive threat of gun violence, and more restrictive gun laws, including comprehensive background checks, should be implemented to address the problem of gun violence.
Comprehensive background checks (CBCs) serve as a critical tool in restricting firearm access to high-risk individuals. CBCs help in the identification of high-risk individuals, reduction of criminal access, and integration of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs). Additionally, CBCs mitigate mental health risks by restricting access to guns by people with cognitive health issues and preventing straw purchases, promoting responsible gun ownership. Based on the information provided by the RAND Corporation’s study on gun policy in America, comprehensive background checks (CBCs) have been shown to limit access to firearms for high-risk individuals (Smart et al., 2020). The study highlights that laws prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by individuals with certain forms of mental illness have demonstrated success in reducing violent crime, homicides, total suicides, and firearm suicides, with limited evidence that these laws may also reduce total suicides and firearm suicides (Smart et al., 2020). The findings suggest that comprehensive background checks can help to identify and restrict access to firearms for individuals with known mental health issues, reducing the likelihood of these high-risk individuals causing harm to themselves or others with firearms.
Need answer to this question?
Order an original paper Now!
We’re giving you a 15% discount on your first Order.
Discount Code: SKILNEW15
Use the above discount code during checkout
Contributing further to the discourse, Zeoli et al. (2022) highlight that comprehensive background checks (CBCs) are vital in limiting access to firearms for high-risk individuals. The evidence presented in the Zeoli et al. (2022) study indicates that well-implemented firearm policies, specifically those involving CBCs, based on evidence-based risk factors, can be highly effective in reducing firearm-related injuries. Zeoli et al. (2022) list various effective laws targeting comprehensive background checks and their justification. The most significant is the Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), also known as red flag laws, and provide a legal means to temporarily remove firearms from individuals considered high risk for self-harm or harming others. These orders aim to restrict access to firearms for individuals displaying warning signs of suicidal tendencies, intimate partner violence, or other dangerous behaviors. Additionally, firearm purchase prohibitions are emphasized as an effective measure to limit access to firearms for individuals convicted of misdemeanor violence or those at a high risk of violence against themselves or others. This prevents individuals with a history of violent behavior from legally acquiring firearms.
Further, the impact of handgun purchaser licensing on reducing gun violence is highlighted in the Zeoli et al. (2022) research. Licensed firearm dealers play a crucial role in restricting access to firearms for high-risk individuals by ensuring that only eligible and law-abiding individuals can purchase firearms. Furthermore, Zeoli et al. (2022) study demonstrates that well-implemented comprehensive background check policies are associated with reduced firearm homicide and suicide rates. These policies aim to prevent individuals with a criminal history or high-risk behavior from quickly obtaining firearms through legal channels. The evidence provided by the Zeoli et al. (2022) study underscores the significance of effectively implementing comprehensive background checks in limiting access to firearms for high-risk individuals, thereby contributing to the reduction of firearm-related injuries and fatalities.
Comprehensive Background Checks (CBCs) are critical to preventing straw purchases and promoting responsible gun ownership. A straw purchase is when someone with legal clearance purchases a firearm for an ineligible individual (Zeoli et al., 2022). Comprehensive background checks are designed to vet the background of a person trying to purchase a firearm. By requiring a background check for virtually every gun sale, not just those from licensed dealers, CBCs close loopholes (like private sales and sales at gun shows) that previously allowed individuals to avoid checks (Smart et al., 2020). This approach could significantly help ensure that the person buying the firearm is the end-user. This way, when checks are comprehensive, they might reduce the likelihood of straw purchases since each buyer’s past would be thoroughly scrutinized, making such a deceptive transfer more challenging to achieve.
Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (2023) underlines that restrictive gun laws play a crucial role in preventing unlicensed gun ownership by enabling regulation of online marketplaces. By imposing strict regulations on online platforms where firearms are bought and sold, these laws can ensure that every transaction, especially those involving unlicensed sellers, is conducted in compliance with background check requirements and other legal protocols. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (2023) stresses that such oversight helps to minimize the risk of individuals with criminal backgrounds, prohibition orders, or other disqualifications from acquiring guns through unauthorized channels. By regulating online marketplaces, restrictive gun laws can uphold public safety by mitigating the potential misuse of firearms.
Furthermore, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (2023) maintains that restrictive gun laws contribute to preventing unlicensed gun ownership by promoting record-keeping and traceability of firearm transactions, including those conducted online. These laws mandate meticulous documentation of every gun sale, which aids law enforcement agencies in tracking the origin, ownership, and movement of firearms. By ensuring that online transactions adhere to stringent record-keeping requirements, including background check records and buyer-seller information, restrictive gun laws facilitate the creation of comprehensive databases crucial for monitoring and investigating potential illegal firearm activities (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2023). This traceability enhances accountability and reduces the likelihood of unlicensed gun ownership.
At the same time, restrictive gun laws are designed to prevent unlicensed gun ownership by establishing clear guidelines and legal frameworks for all firearm transactions, including those occurring in the online space. As discussed by Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (2023), these laws mandate that all sales, regardless of the platform, comply with background check regulations, dealer licensing requirements, and the prohibition of specific individuals from gun possession. By establishing stringent protocols for online gun purchases, restrictive gun laws act as a deterrent to unauthorized individuals seeking to acquire firearms without undergoing thorough background checks or complying with legal prerequisites. These laws are vital for advancing public safety and mitigating the potential dangers of unauthorized firearm acquisitions through online channels.
Restrictive gun laws have a substantial impact on firearm trafficking, including inter-state trafficking. Andrade et al. (2020) study found that implementing stricter regulations on private sales and transfers, such as mandating background reviews for all firearm buys, de facto registration through record-keeping requirements, and enforcing permits to purchase and waiting periods, can significantly limit firearm trafficking. When robustly enforced, these regulations make it more difficult for illicit firearms to enter the market, as they create barriers to illegal transactions and establish a traceable record of firearm ownership and transfers (Andrade et al., 2020). By upholding record-keeping requirements for all firearm sales and transfers, including private transactions, the potential for firearms to be diverted into illicit channels and trafficked across state lines is diminished.
At the same time, Andrade et al. (2020) present evidence showing that enforcing stringent penalties for firearm trafficking is crucial in deterring and disrupting the illegal flow of firearms across state borders. By imposing severe consequences for individuals or groups involved in illicit firearm trafficking, including those who engage in the purchase, transport, or sale of illegal firearms, states can act as a deterrent against such criminal activities. Substantial penalties serve as a disincentive and contribute to reducing the incentive for trafficking by increasing the risks and potential consequences for those involved in this illegal activity. The same applies to international collaboration and monitoring since it plays a vital role in addressing cross-border firearm trafficking.
Practical international cooperation via sharing intelligence, best practices, and coordinating efforts can substantially prevent and combat transnational firearm trafficking. Esparza et al. (2019) mention that changes to US gun policy increased the supply of firearms at the Mexican border, which consequently affected firearm trafficking into Mexico. Stricter regulation of private sales and transfers can help reduce the availability of firearms for trafficking. Implementing laws that require background checks for every firearm sale, regardless of where the sale takes place, can make it more challenging for individuals to obtain firearms for illegal purposes. By facilitating information exchange and collaborative efforts, countries can enhance their capacity to identify and interrupt the illicit flow of firearms, curbing the cross-border movement of illegal weapons.
Restrictive gun laws often face criticism for potentially infringing upon civil liberties and rights protected by the Second Amendment. The debate centers on the balance between public safety and individual rights. Ulrich (2023) implicates the Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, where the Court expanded the right to carry firearms beyond the home. Ulrich (2023) continues to argue that restrictions may impede the ability to exercise Second Amendment rights without a justifiable cause, potentially violating individual liberties. Contributing to the debate, Zick’s (2019) discussion accentuates the adverse impact of restrictive gun laws on self-defense and personal security. It highlights how laws such as Stand Your Ground are perceived to protect individuals’ ability to defend themselves. There is an emphasis on how these laws could be affected by restrictions and how they may intersect with race and gender. It raises the idea that addressing underlying social determinants of crime, such as poverty and violence, could be more effective in curbing criminal behavior than strict gun regulations. Ultimately, the opponents cite inconclusive results of restrictive gun laws in reducing gun violence, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced approach (Zick, 2019; Ulrich, 2023). While some data and research on gun violence deterrence guidelines, such as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), suggest potential effectiveness, concerns are raised regarding the limitations of such laws and their impact on public rights.
While the right to bear arms is essential, no right is absolute. As with other civil liberties, reasonable restrictions may be imposed when there are compelling government interests, such as public safety. The Second Amendment right to bear arms can be balanced against the government’s interest in regulating firearms to reduce gun violence. Constitutional rights have never been interpreted as absolutes that trump all other concerns (Zick, 2019). International and interstate comparisons indicate that countries with more rigid gun rules often have lower rates of gun-related deaths, highlighting the efficacy of regulations in promoting public safety without eliminating Second Amendment rights (Ulrich, 2023).
Moreover, the US is an outlier globally and even among US states in its loose firearm regulations, suggesting it could adopt more restrictive laws without severely infringing on rights. Most firearm regulations, like assault weapons bans, do not prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing many types of legal firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes (Ulrich, 2023). Implementing sensible restrictions, such as universal background checks and red flag laws, can align with the Second Amendment’s intent while addressing contemporary public safety concerns (Zick, 2019). Therefore, the argument that restrictive gun laws infringe on Second Amendment rights is rendered null by emphasizing the imperative of balancing rights with public safety, considering international and interstate comparisons, and adapting constitutional interpretation to present-day realities.
The implementation of restrictive gun laws in the US is crucial to diminish the pervasive threat of gun violence while simultaneously ensuring a balance between individual rights and public safety. By instituting comprehensive background checks, the potential for criminal purchases and unlicensed gun ownership by ineligible and high-risk individuals can be effectively mitigated. Moreover, there is an urgent need to bolster stakeholder collaboration and heighten public awareness of gun control in the US. This collaborative, multifaceted approach is essential for addressing the complexities of firearm trafficking and ensuring that stringent regulations are reinforced across state borders. Through this concerted effort, it is feasible to enhance the effectiveness of firearm legislation, reduce the flow of illicit firearms, and ultimately contribute to a safer and more secure society for all. By prioritizing these measures and fostering a united front in advocating for enhanced gun control, the US can potentially take significant strides toward curbing gun-related violence and promoting a more comprehensive culture of safety and responsibility regarding firearms.
References
Alfonseca, K. (2023, December 8). More than 40,000 people killed in gun violence so far in 2023. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/116-people-died-gun-violence-day-us-year/story?id=97382759
Andrade, E. G., Hoofnagle, M. H., Kaufman, E. J., Seamon, M. J., Pah, A. R., & Morrison, C. N. (2020). Firearm laws and illegal firearm flow between US states. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 88(6), 752–759. https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000002642
Esparza, D., Johnson, S. D., & Gill, P. (2019). Why did Mexico become a violent country? Security Journal, 33(2), 179–209. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00178-6
Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023, October 3). Unchecked: An investigation of the online firearm marketplace. Everytown Research & Policy. https://everytownresearch.org/report/unchecked-an-investigation-of-the-online-firearm-marketplace/
Jehan, F., Pandit, V., O’Keeffe, T., Azim, A., Jain, A., Tai, S. A., Tang, A., Khan, M. W., Kulvatunyou, N., Gries, L., & Joseph, B. (2018). The burden of firearm violence in the United States: stricter laws result in safer states. Journal of Injury and Violence Research, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5249/jivr.v10i1.951
Reeping, P. M., Cerdá, M., Kalesan, B., Wiebe, D. J., Galea, S., & Branas, C. C. (2019). State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross-sectional time series. The BMJ, l542. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l542
Smart, R., Morral, A. R., Smucker, S., Cherney, S., Schell, T. L., Peterson, S., Ahluwalia, S. C., Cefalu, M., Xenakis, L., Ramchand, R., & Gresenz, C. R. (2020). The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of research Evidence on the effects of gun policies in the United States, second edition. In RAND Corporation eBooks. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr2088-1
Ulrich, M. R. (2023). Finding balance in the fight against gun violence. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 51(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.37
Zeoli, A. M., McCourt, A., & Paruk, J. (2022). Effectiveness of firearm restriction, background checks, and licensing laws in reducing gun violence. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 704(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162231165149
Zick, T. (2019). Framing the Second Amendment: Gun rights, civil rights, and civil liberties. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450947
Reflection Questions
1. What was the central argument of your essay, and how well did you support it with evidence?
The main argument was that more restrictive gun laws, such as comprehensive background checks and regulations to prevent unlicensed ownership and trafficking, can help address the threat of gun violence in the US. This was supported by statistics on gun deaths and studies showing the efficacy of stricter laws.
2. What assumptions did you make in your essay, and how did they affect your argument?
An assumption was that gun laws directly impact gun violence rates. This shaped the argument that stricter laws contribute to lower violence. Other factors that likely play a role, especially mental health, were covered by the requirement for thorough background checks and psychological evaluations.
3. How did your evidence and logic contribute to your essay’s structure and coherence?
Evidence like death statistics and research on background checks backed the stance on restricting access. The essay built coherence by logically structuring the argument to establish the problem and discussing specific laws as solutions. Counterarguments were addressed to strengthen the overall reasoning.