Draft #2 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.

The meaning behind the amendment changed when 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

Mass shootings and gun-related crimes shape up the American society. Mark Gius studies this and discusses it in his article Gun Laws and Crime, how these violent crimes have become part of the culture, which has influenced changes in the laws of the United States. This can be seen through the statistics, as Gius states that “[i]n 2012, there were 12765 murder victims, but only 72 of them were as a result of a mass shooting” (Gius 6). Crime rates begin to increase as time passes, showing how dangerous and common gun violence has become in these past years. This has even caused a change in the gun laws recently mainly because of the Sandy Hook incident. Gius states, “At the federal level, one of the measures that was considered in the post-Newtown era was a revival of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons… [which] was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and outlawed semi-automatic weapons that had certain distinguishing features, such as pistol grips, flash hiders and folding stocks” (Gius 8). This became a tremendous issue that they needed to bring an expired law to see if there would be any changes in the future. These laws that are being revived demonstrate that gun violence is an issue that should be taken seriously, but for this to situation to be solved, there needs to be a change in the way a person can obtain a weapon.

            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. This could also benefit from the amount of money the government needs to pay for all the gun-related crimes in the process.

            Gun violence is a very expensive crime, and by creating a more stricter process for obtaining a weapon, American taxpayers could pay less for crimes and more for beneficial programs. Business Insider examines this in their article A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year where they talk about how much these crimes cost. In this article, they explain the issue of the Aurora theater shooting, one of the mass shootings in American history, in which the “Legal proceedings for the Aurora movie theater killer reached $5.5 million before the trial even got underway this spring” (Business Insider). Most of these mass shootings cases, if not all, take too much money before the trial has even begun. Not only is it expensive for the big crimes, the government and taxpayers have to pay up to “ $5.2 billion annually” just to keep individuals charged with gun-related crimes (Business Insider). These are not the only problems people have to pay for, there are many medical payments that every citizen paying taxes pay for without their knowledge. Not only do victims have to pay for these crimes, but regular citizens of the United States.

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.

            Guns are used mainly for protection, which is why most of the gun control laws are infringing on the people’s right to obtain a gun. A research conducted by Pew Research Center on their article Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason indicating the change that has happen between 1999 to the present day, demonstrating the population of gun owners and their reasoning for owning a gun. After surveying gun owners in America, they discovered that “nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for

protection; just 32% say they have a gun primarily for hunting and even fewer cite other reasons, such as target shooting,” which is 22 percent higher than the statistics of 199 (Pew Research Center). American gun owners are now getting their weapons since protection is needed now more than ever, and these gun control laws can probably negatively affect their chances of having one for their safety. Although this is possible, statistics of these cases proves this to be wrong. The Violence Policy Center studied cases of homicide in the year 2012 mainly in the United States, and indicated that there were only “259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm and that 13 states reported zero justifiable firearm homicides that year. That same year, there were 8,342 criminal firearm homicides” (Violence Policy Center). Citizens of the United States are more likely to use their firearms for their own gain than for their own protection, which makes it unlikely that the majority of those who buy a weapon only use it for safety purposes.

Work Cited

Gary, Kleck, et. al. “Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime?” Criminal Justice Review (Sage

Publications), vol. 41, no. 4, 2016, pp. 488-513.

Gius, Mark. “Gun Law and Crime.” Significance, vol. 11, no. 2, 2014, pp. 6-8.

Ratliff, Bradley C. “The Second Amendment: An Analysis of Interpretations.” Appalachian

Journal of Law, vol. 15, no. 1, 2016, pp. 83-97.

Vernick, Jon, et. al. “Background Checks for All Gun Buyers and Gun Violence Restraining

Orders: State Efforts to Keep Guns from High-Risk Persons.” The Journal of Law,

Medicine & Ethics, vol. 45, no. 1, 2017, pp. 98-102.

“Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, Study Finds.” Violence Policy Center, 17 June 2015,

http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/.

“Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason.” Pew Research Center, 9 May 2013,

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/09/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/.

“A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every

year.” Business Insider, 24 Apr. 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4.