Draft #1 of Research Paper

The American Dream: The Change Needed in Gun Control Laws

Studies show that an estimated 55 million Americans own guns (USA Today). Guns are mainly used for protection, but are often debated whether if that is a fact. Recently, America has faced an attack in Las Vegas which is stated to be the biggest mass shooting in American history. As noted, there are other mass shootings that took place in American history, which sparked the on-going question: Should there be more gun control laws? Although this question has been debated for many years, it is only brought up when these mass shootings happens. In a daily basis, there are multiple shootings that occur throughout the United States, yet the media and politicians do not discuss about this issue frequently. This is an important topic that needs to be discussed to prevent more from happening, although there are multiple sides. Many suggest that although states create laws that create more gun control, there is no change in the crime rates. Although this may be true, there are many ways to prevent violent crimes such as mass shootings from becoming frequent. There must be new gun laws that create a more stricter process of obtaining a weapon, in order for there to be less crimes.

The History

            Before discussing the gun control laws that exist now in the United States, one must understand the history behind the second amendment. In the article The Second Amendment: An Analysis of Interpretation, Bradley C. Ratliff discusses the importance of this amendment and its affects on today’s American society. The second amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” but not most of America’s society knows the reason behind this amendment. Ratliff states that this amendment was “in deliberate response to requests from several states during the Constitutional debates based on prior British efforts to seize colonists’ firearms” (Ratliff 85). This amendment was created in fear that the government would infringe on their right to own a weapon. Since the British government attempted to take the citizen’s weapons or guns away from them, the states decided to create this amendment for there to be no possible way that any government could take away their rights to own a firearm.

This was its main purpose until the Supreme Court created their own interpretation during the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. In this case, “[T]he Court ruled that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. The Court also ruled that two District of Columbia laws, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or triggerlocked, violated this right” (Ratliff 92). This changed the viewpoint of the amendment, not only being an amendment to protect their rights, but also one that would be used as a reason to obtain a weapon for self-defense. Ever since then, this amendment has guaranteed every citizen of the United States can obtain a weapon. 

The Present

            Although the screening process seems to be a great way to prevent criminals from obtaining a weapon, there is a loophole that must be fixed. In the article Background Checks for all Gun Buyers and Gun Violence Restraining Orders: State Efforts to Keep Guns from High-Risk Persons, Jon S. Vernick along with other members studied the process of purchasing guns in different way, such as online shopping or stores. They discovered that although many states enact laws that create a more stricter background check for all those who want to purchase a gun, they have not taken notice of those without a license who sell weapons. They can sell guns to anyone that would like to obtain one, even without a background check. This has been noted to be a very popular business among criminals, “more than three-quarters obtained their firearms from a person not required to conduct a background check under federal law — whether with an acquaintance or ‘street’ source” (Vernick et. al. 98). As this becomes more popular, this creates more gun violence among different states, and crime rates begins to increase.

The Controversy

            Gun control laws that states try to create and use are not changing the crime rate. Gary Kleck and other members in their article Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime? conduct an experiment where they check the cities of United States, see how they are all affected by their own gun control laws, and compare the data. Since each city has different laws and are different in size, they check according to the population and their crime rates. After finding the statistics, they found that “of 57 possible effects of a type of gun law on a type of violent crime, 20 were significantly different from zero—8 negative, 12 positive… [which] indicate that gun control laws are at least as likely to increase violent crime as to decrease it” (Kleck et. al. 507). Although these statistics show that this may not work at all, they do not show the statistics of smaller cases. Many states began to use a new law called the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), which caused a great change in gun violence. The GVRO is an “evidence-based policy that complements policies such as background checks for all gun buyers”, which has helped find “61% [that] listed suicidality or self-injury as a concern… 88% did not have contact with the public behavioral health system in the year before the risk-warrant was served… [and] the study estimated there was one averted suicide for every 10 to 20 gun removals — saving 38 to 76 lives over the period of study.” (Vernick et. al. 101). This is an example of the many laws that can be created and could work, but only if states and the federal government allows it as a law that does not affect the second amendment.