Right: Former President Donald Trump, speaking at a National Rifle Association convention, called for schoolchildren to be protected by armed teachers and administration staff.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments supporting gun law reform in the United States
1. The Constitution of the United States does not give United States citizens the unlimited right to bear arms
It has been claimed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does not guarantee United States citizens the unrestricted right to gun ownership that its advocates claim.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, '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.' Many gun advocates have interpreted this amendment as giving the unlimited right to American citizens to gun ownership.
However, the amendment has a vexed and contested history. Supporters of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to states the right to operate militias. There have been two key Supreme Court rulings on the amendment. The first in 1939, the second in 2008.
For almost seventy years following its ambiguous decision on U.S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court avoided resolving the issue. The Miller ruling was subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second view of Miller is that the Amendment guaranteed no gun rights to individuals at all, as the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia.
In 2008 this limiting view of the rights conferred by the Second Amendment was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia (D.C.) vs. Heller. The Heller ruling overturned a D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. Justice Scalia ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right that was consistent with the overriding purpose of the Second Amendment, to maintain strong state militias.
However, the Court refused to announce guidelines to apply in future challenges to gun regulations. The Court also stated that its decision should not 'cast doubt' on laws restricting gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill, and that bans on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld. Heller also left open the question of whether the right to bear arms was enforceable against state regulations as well as against federal regulation.
Thus, though the 2008 Supreme Court ruling has made it difficult for the federal government to restrict gun ownership, the individual states still have the capacity to do so. In an article published in The Conversation on May 26, 2022, Christopher Poliquin, Assistant Professor of Strategy, University of California, Los Angeles, noted the states' capacity to act on gun laws. He indicated that between 1990 and 2014 there have been more than 20,000 firearm bills and nearly 3,200 enacted laws. Some of these loosened gun restrictions, others tightened them, and still others did neither or both - that is, tightened in some regards but loosened in others.
The direction that gun laws take in individual states seems to be determined by the political persuasion of the state government with Democratic state governors favouriing stricter controls on gun ownership and Republican state governors supporting freer access to firearms. California, a Democrat controlled state, enacted several new gun control laws following a 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino. After the Buffalo shooting in early May 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that she would work to increase the age for legal gun purchasing from 18 to 21 'at a minimum.' On the other hand, in 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a new law that eliminated a requirement for Texans to obtain a license or receive training to carry handguns. This came two years after a 2019 mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas.
The activism of student led movements calling for gun control has also been noted as likely to influence state legislatures to impose restrictions on gun ownership. Advocacy groups like Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Community Justice Reform Coalition have been fighting to end gun violence on a local and state-based basis for decades.
These movements have developed in Republican as well as Democrat states. Whether such pressure will be sufficient to induce state governments of different political persuasions to limit gun ownership is uncertain. 2. Easy access to guns increases the likelihood of gun crime
Supporters of restrictions on gun ownership claim that easy access to gun ownership increases the likelihood of gun-related crimes.
Numerous studies have demonstrated a connection between easy gun access and increased homicide rates. In 2004, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center released a study titled 'Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.' The review examined the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. It found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. This was true not only in the United States but in other nations studied. It analysed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 US states over a ten-year period (1988-1997). It found that people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide. It also found that law enforcement officers were three times more likely to be murdered in states with high gun ownership.
It has also been noted that easy access to firearms is a particular risk factor for school shootings and that the risk has grown in the COVID era with even higher rates of gun ownership in many American homes. On December 2, 2021, The Conversation published an article by three US public health authorities in which they stated, 'As experts on firearm violence and firearm injury prevention, we know that active shooter events within school settings in the U.S. have increased substantially in the years running up to the pandemic. Meanwhile, our research indicates that in the early months of the public health crisis, more families with teenage children purchased firearms - increasing the potential risk that a teen could gain unsupervised access to a firearm.'
The attack at Robb Elementary School was the 137th school shooting to take place in the United States so far this year. In 2021, there were 249 school shootings - the worst year on record.
An article published in The Conversation on December 3, 2021, highlighted the increasing risk of school shootings and the difficulties being faced by individual school communities. The article states, 'Schools are struggling to respond to the overwhelming number of shootings and shooting threats. There have been a staggering 30 shootings just at high school football games so far this year.' The recent mass shooting at Robb Elementary School, Uvalde, Texas, has prompted many experts to call yet again for stricter gun laws in the United States to reduce gun crime by reducing gun access. Members of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions have highlighted that easy gun access results in increased risk of homicide and have called for gun access restrictions to be put in place. They have highlighted that the solutions to this problem are well known, they have simply not been acted on.
Paul Nestadt, assistant professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a core faculty member at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions has stated, 'Research from our Center for Gun Violence Solutions has demonstrated that permits to purchase, child access protection laws, and extreme risk protection orders all reduce the likelihood of firearm deaths. Lessening casual access to dangerous firearms has been repeatedly shown to decrease rates of suicide and homicide, of which this incident [at Uvalde] was arguably both...America suffers more shootings because it is so much easier for even fleeting violent thoughts here to be immediately translated into deadly action thanks to easy access to military grade weaponry. That is a problem we must demand that our legislators address.'
Odis Johnson, executive director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Safe and Healthy Schools, has similarly stated, 'Gun access remains high in the general public. The high number of guns in the U.S. increases the likelihood that young people will access them illegally. Schools and their students are not isolated from the impact and problems associated with the abundance of guns in their homes and communities. Making schools safer requires policymakers to address how young people access firearms. This can be achieved with biometric fingerprint locks for firearms and other gun permit requirements.'
Lisa Geller, state affairs advisor for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions has also argued, 'We know which policies-including firearm purchaser licensing, extreme risk protection orders, and firearm removal for individuals with histories of domestic violence-work to reduce and prevent gun violence...In the case of the mass shooting in Uvalde, we know that the perpetrator shot his grandmother before arriving at Robb Elementary. Identifying those at the highest risk of violence-including those with histories of domestic violence-and ensuring that they cannot access firearms is critical to preventing gun violence.'
3. Easy access to guns increases the likelihood of unintentional shootings, including within families
Supporters of restricted access to guns in the United States argue that easy gun access is a major factor in increasing the risk of 'unintentional' injuries and deaths.
The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence has explained 'unintentional' gun-related incidents. It states, '"Unintentional" is the description used in public health for an injury or death that was not caused purposely (in contrast with suicide and homicide, in which there is an intent to cause harm). Unintentional shootings can be self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else and can happen to Americans of all ages. Unintentional injuries and deaths are often called "accidents," which can imply that nothing could be done to stop them from happening; we do not use "accident" terminology because gun violence is preventable. We must reduce unintentional gun deaths and injuries by, among other things, educating people about the risk that guns pose in the home, avoiding alcohol and gun use, training on proper firearm use, and advocating for safer storage.'
The United States has among the highest rates of unintentional gun-related injury and death in the world. In 2019, 486 Americans died from unintentional firearm injuries - about 1.2 percent of total gun deaths. Like other forms of gun violence, unintentional gun deaths are more likely to occur in the United States than in other high-income countries. Americans are four times more likely to die from an unintentional gun injury than those in comparable countries.
Those who argue for stricter gun laws in the United Sates and reduced access to guns claim that easy access to guns results in increased unintentional gun-related injury and death. The John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions has stated, 'Studies show that higher rates of household gun ownership and availability of guns are associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths...Children ages 5-14 were more likely to die from unintentional gun injuries if they lived in states where guns are more prevalent. This trend holds for adults, too. A 2013 survey found that in New York, 10.3 percent of the adult population owns guns while 48.9 percent of Alabama's adult population owns guns. Alabama's unintentional firearm death rate is 48 times that of New York.'
The John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions has linked increased risk of unintentional injury or death from firearms to regions where there are lax gun laws. The Center states, 'There is wide regional variation in where unintentional shootings occur. More than half of all individuals who die by unintentional gun injuries live in the South. Individuals who live in the South are more than three times more likely to die by an unintentional shooting compared to those living in the Northeast. In 2019, the five states with the highest rates of unintentional shooting deaths were all in the South. Alabama had the highest unintentional death rate, followed by Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, and Georgia. This regional variation may be linked to the strength of state gun violence prevention laws. For example, states in the Northeast region tend to have stronger gun laws than states in the South. States with strong gun laws have been found to be associated with lower unintentional firearm injuries.'
One of the suggestions proposed by the Center for Gun Violence Solutions is the adoption of 'extreme risk laws.' The Center explains, 'Extreme risk laws empower law enforcement and the people closest to an individual at elevated risk of harm to self or others to intervene to help prevent gun tragedies before they occur. These state laws allow law enforcement, and in some states family and household members, among others, to petition a judge to temporarily limit an individual's access to firearms if they are at elevated risk of violence. Extreme risk laws may be an appropriate mechanism for removing firearms from an individual who is at high risk for unintentional injury, including individuals living with dementia or other conditions impairing cognition and judgment. Every state should have its own extreme risk law and continuously monitor and evaluate the law to ensure equitable implementation and ongoing effectiveness.'
4. Stricter gun laws would not deny Americans access to weapons for sporting and hunting
Those who support stricter gun laws in the United States argue that these laws will not interfere with recreational gun users who enjoy hunting and target shooting.
Recreational gun use is popular in the United States, though the number of people who participate in this sport appears to be in decline. According to data from 2016, approximately 10 million people used firearms for hunting, more than 50 percent of all hunters participated in target shooting, and 22 percent of hunters visited shooting ranges. Target shooting is also a popular United States sport. Results from the 2016 survey indicate that 32 million people aged 6 years or older went target shooting with firearms in 2015. However, data from the General Social Survey suggest that hunting has decreased significantly since 1977, when 31.6 percent of adults lived in households where they, their spouse, or both hunted. In 2014, the percentage of households with a hunter was down to 15.4 percent.
Rand's Gun Policy in America initiative provides information on what scientific research can reveal about the effects of gun laws. Rand's goal is to establish a shared set of facts that will improve public discussions and support the development of fair and effective gun policies. Rand has surveyed all available research literature to see if any of the United States proposed gun laws are likely to have a negative effect on sporting shooters or hunters. Rand considered the impacts of 18 proposed gun reforms. These proposed gun reforms are background checks, bans on low-quality hand guns, bans on the sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, child-access prevention laws, concealed-carry laws, extreme risk protection orders, firearm safety training requirements, gun-free zones, laws allowing armed staff in K to 12 schools, licensing and permitting requirements, lost or stolen firearm reporting requirements, prohibitions associated with domestic violence, prohibitions associated with mental illness, stand-your-ground-laws, surrender of firearms by prohibited possessors and waiting periods. Rand found that no studies had indicated that any of these policies would negatively affect recreational shooters and hunters using firearms.
This result was partly due to a lack of acceptable studies. There are those who argue that Australia's stricter gun laws promoted recreational shooting and hunting in Australia because in order to own a firearm Australian citizen either have to be in an occupation that requires the use of firearms, such as a farmer, or a member of a shooting or hunting club.
The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) has been vastly increased in membership, wealth, and influence through the requirement that all non-occupational gun owners in Australia have to be members of a gun club. From 50,000 members in 1996, the 400 SSAA shooting clubs have grown to a national membership of 180,000 gun owners. Today, just seven top SSAA branches declare income of $20 million and net assets of $34 million, while the national branch alone collects $10 million in annual fees. Sporting shooters have become a powerful pressure group with the capacity to influence governments in the interests of their members.
Numerous commentators have claimed that shooting is growing in importance in Australia. Statistics from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (DPI) showed that in the 2019-20 financial year, hunting was worth more than $1.4 billion to the state's economy. Professional shooter Brent Twaddle has noted that the popularity of hunting was growing and it could be a major tourism industry for regional Australia, like it was in New Zealand.
There are those who argue that greater regulation of gun ownership could see a similar promotion of recreational shooting in the United States as it has in Australia.5. Other countries have successfully imposed stricter gun control laws following mass shootings
Advocates of stricter gun control in the United States criticise their country for being one of the few in the world that has not responded to mass shootings by limiting access to firearms. Supporters of stricter gun laws in the United States praise as examples countries such as New Zealand, United Kingdom and Australia.
Just a week after a white supremacist shot dead 51 worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Arden announced sweeping gun control reforms. Although there was approximately one firearm for every four people in the country at the time, guns were primarily viewed as tools, used by farmers and hunters. The Christchurch shooting made the risks clear. Arden stated, 'In short, every semi-automatic weapon used in the terror attack on Friday will be banned in this country.'
Gun owners had six months to sell their weapons back to the government under the new law, which cost over 100 million New Zealand dollars ($65 million). As a result, over 60,000 firearms and more than triple the number of components, including high-capacity magazines, were taken out of circulation.
In June 2020, the nation of 5 million people tightened gun laws further, introducing a new firearms registry to track the buying and selling of weapons, shorter licenses for first-time license holders, and a ban on a wider variety of guns.
Legislative reform to gun laws in the United Kingdom became a nation-wide public issue when, in 1996, a gunman killed 16 school children and one adult in the Scottish town of Dunblane using a handgun. At the time, there were no specific regulations on handguns in the U.K., as firearms had mainly only been used on private land in the U.K. for recreational use.
Following pressure from bereaved families and the wider public, the U.K. government introduced a near total ban on handguns within a year, which was subsequently extended to cover all handguns.
Like in New Zealand, the British government initiated a gun buy-back program, which was credited with taking 20,000 weapons out of circulation. In the years following the law change in 1997, markedly lower gun deaths were recorded. The U.K. hasn't experienced a mass shooting since Dunblane in 1996.
Australia had its worst encounter with gun violence in 1996 when a gunman killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Within two weeks, both the federal government and state legislators backed bans on semi-automatic rifles and pump-action firearms. At least 650,000 assault weapons were bought back by the government and melted into slag. Lawmakers also mandated licenses to prove a 'genuine need' to own weapons, and firearm safety courses.
A subsequent mass shooting, in which the shooter killed two students using different types of handgun, at a Melbourne university in 2002 prompted further restrictions: harsher punishment for misuse of handguns, anti-trafficking laws, and restrictions on the types of handguns that can be owned by civilians. Since 1997, the proportion of Australians who hold a gun license has nearly halved, and the homicide-by-firearm rate has dropped dramatically.
Critics within the United States have condemned their country's failure to act in response to not one but repeated mass shootings. Cassandra Crifasi, deputy director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University, has stated, 'Other countries experience horrific, fatal mass shootings with an assault style rifle, and they say, "Never again," and they mean it. In the U.S., we say, "Never again." But then we keep doing the same thing, which is almost nothing.'
Max Fisher, in an opinion piece published in the New York Times on May 25, 2022, similarly stated, 'The world over, mass shootings are frequently met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too... Only the United States, whose rate and severity of mass shootings is without parallel outside of conflict zones, has so consistently refused to answer those events with tightened gun laws... Every mass shooting is, in some sense, a fringe event, driven by one-off factors like the ideology or personal circumstances of the shooter. The risk is impossible to fully erase.
Still, the record is clear, confirmed by reams of studies that have analyzed the effects of policies like Britain's and Australia's: When countries tighten gun control laws, it leads to fewer guns in private citizens' hands, which leads to less gun violence - and to fewer mass shootings.'