Stricter Gun Control and Its Implications on Gun Violence

Introduction

The recent spate of gun violence and death in the U.S. has, for the umpteenth time, charged up debate on gun control laws. The battle line is clear with proponents and opponents of stricter regulations. Nevertheless, as the debate rages on to become a significant political issue, civilians can still buy guns freely. Proponents of stricter laws argue that, among other things, restrictions on gun ownership would solve gun violence and deaths.

Body

A Divided Nation: Stricter Regulations vs. Individual Rights

On the other hand, opponents of stricter laws also have the same reasoning but think they can defend themselves better in case of gun violence scenarios and that gun ownership is their right. It is a war between the proactive (proponents) and the reactive (opponents). Ideally, stricter gun control laws would reduce gun-related deaths and federal spending on healthcare, protect women and vulnerable people from domestic abuse and stalkers, and prevent the chances of a murder turning into a mass shooting because of high-capacity magazines.

The firearms issue has left the social sphere and into the health sector, becoming one of the leading causes of death in America. According to Resnick et al. (2017), gun violence accounts for over 30,000 deaths every year, costing taxpayers over 48 billion dollars in healthcare expenditure and lost wages. Over the last 15 years, close to half a million Americans have died due to gun-related violence. Faced with these massive deaths and healthcare costs, the existing federal law mandates dealers to conduct thorough checks on people before they buy guns (Aronow & Miller, 2016). The problem with this legislation is that private dealers and online sellers rarely conduct background checks. Resnick et al. (2017) also noted that restrictive gun laws had a positive relationship with decreased firearm-related fatality rates.

Protecting the Vulnerable: Domestic Abuse, Stalkers, and Gun Violence

Banning or restricting the use of high-capacity magazines could prevent an escalation of gun violence situations. According to Campion, Morrissey, Malina, Sacks as well as Drazen (2017), preventing future mass shootings should be based on restricting access of civilians to semi-automatic firearms, especially those that can be easily modified into automatic ones by their owners. Currently, the federal government has strict control over access as well as the use of automatic weapons, but that is not effective if people can just buy and convert their semi-automatic rifles into automatic weapons.

Campion et al. (2017) note that the fatal Las Vegas shooting was facilitated, in part, by a fully automatic gun, which enabled the shooter to kill hundreds of people so effectively and so fast. If semi-automatic rifles cannot be banned, at least they should be manufactured too rigid to convert into automatic weapons. Even then, the magazine capacity of these rifles and their purchase should be restricted. Restrictive firearm laws would also save women from domestic abuse and vulnerable populations from gun-related deaths (Lynch & Logan, 2015).

On the contrary, opponents, particularly Christian nationalists, argue that owning guns is their sacred right (Whitehead, Schnabel, & Perry, 2018). Just like most opponents, this group feels that they need to defend themselves in case of a need. Therefore, gun violence and related legislation should consider the underlying cultural and religious beliefs to allay any fears and prevent resistance to stricter policies.

Conclusion

Stricter gun control laws would decrease firearm-related lethality and national healthcare expenses, save women and unprotected people from family violence and prowlers, and limit the chances of shooting becoming mass because of high-capacity magazines. There is a need to prevent rather than react to gun violence. That requires active preventive measures like stricter firearm legislation, which will ban or restrict the access and use of high-capacity magazine rifles. Hence, this will reduce taxpayer expenditure on healthcare costs related to gun violence and deaths. However, for such strict laws to be effective and fair to everyone, they should consider people’s cultural and religious beliefs.

References

1. “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America” by Adam Winkler
2. “The Second Amendment: A Biography” by Michael Waldman
3. “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible” by Charles E. Cobb Jr.
4. “Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis” edited by Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick