Due to a rise in mass shootings in recent years, debate over implementing stricter gun laws has seized the United States yet again. While it is impractical to ban firearms altogether, enforcing tighter gun control would not restrict or threaten any basic rights that gun enthusiasts currently enjoy. It would simply make the country more secure. However, due to nonuniform controls throughout states and powerful pro-gun lobbies on elected U.S. politicians, namely the National Rifle Association (NRA), a change in present regulations is difficult for Congress to achieve, no matter the benefit to society.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those who favour the current gun laws in the country believe any infringement upon this freedom would be unconstitutional, and support the claim that self-defense is a basic human right. However, the relationship between the amendment’s original meaning and present day application is still questioned, due to the amendment’s ambiguity and to centuries’ worth of technological improvements that have allowed people to exchange muskets for semi-automated weapons: particularly, for those with larger ammunition capacity.
The ongoing gun debate was recently provoked by numerous mass shootings. In July 2012, a man, 24, opened fire at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado. Six months later, in December 2012, a gunman, 20, targeted an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut where he killed 20 children, seven women, and himself. Both men used semi-automatic assault rifles with high-capacity ammunition magazines (large bullet storage, allowing more rounds to be fired at a quicker pace). And only last month, on September 16, 2013, a former naval officer, 34, armed with a shotgun killed 12 people inside the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.
All three assailants, in addition to being relatively young males, experienced mental illnesses or a potential brain-related developmental problem, for which some had sought treatment and were on medication. In addition, the former naval officer had previous legal indiscretions. Despite this, two of them were still able to purchase firearms, while the Connecticut shooter stole the guns from his mother, whom he also killed.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, enacted in 1993, ruled that individuals are subject to background checks when buying firearms from federally licensed dealers. Among the list of those who are ineligible to purchase firearms are those convicted of felonies and those who have been adjudicated as being dangerously mentally ill or handicapped. Some states, such as New Jersey, enforce stricter gun laws in addition to this, in which background checks are required for all purchases, no matter the dealer. Other states favour liberal rules that allow people to buy guns without background checks, as is the case at gun shows and fairs in West Virginia, for example. This makes it very easy for someone to hop a few state borders in order to purchase a gun without a background check, whatever their mental stability or criminal history.
A nationwide ban on military-style assault weapons, such as the semi-automatic rifles that were used in the Colorado and Connecticut shootings, ended in 2004 when the Bush administration did not renew it due to pressure from the NRA. This ban also included a restriction on magazines that hold more than ten bullets at a time. Such bans still exist at the state level, however. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence found that these states include New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, which also experience lower gun violence and crime, although correlation does not prove causation. Nevertheless, in the case of the Connecticut shooting, gunman Adam Lanza took just five minutes to kill 26 people by shooting 152 bullets with only four magazine changes. If he had gotten access to ten-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines, he would have had to reload 14 times, according to the Hartford Courant. Such an alarming difference would undoubtedly have saved lives, most of which were of first graders.
Following the aftermath of these tragedies, in particular the Connecticut shooting, the Obama administration expressed its intent to pass legislation improving gun safety. This includes performing stricter background checks on all gun sales and restricting high-capacity ammunition magazines again, which are unnecessary for civilian ownership anyway. As of yet, no new laws have been passed.
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the U.S. firearm murder rate tended to fluctuate between states, but rested at 3.2 per 100,000 people in 2010. This rate places the U.S. 26th in the world for gun murder, behind many Central American countries, according to UN data, but it provides a stark contrast with other developed nations such as Australia and Germany, whose gun murder rates do not even reach 1 per 100,000. Such a high rate in the U.S. is no doubt a result of lax gun laws. According to data compiled by Mother Jones, there have been 62 mass shootings in the U.S. since 1982 – an average of two mass shootings per year – and of which, 49 of the shooters had obtained their guns legally, and 40 of the shooters had shown signs of mental illness.
At the memorial service for the Washington Navy Yard victims in September, President Obama urged that change must come from the American people instead from Washington, where stagnation and refusal have been recurring themes on gun control. He was no doubt referring to the NRA, which holds too much power over Congress by issuing powerful lobbyists on representatives that might vote in favour of anti-gun laws, and funds their opponents instead. The NRA, along with huge American gun manufacturers, such as Remington or Smith and Wesson, invest millions of dollars to help fund politicians during their elections, causing Democrat and Republican representatives alike to vote in favour of pro-gun legislation.
Change from the American people may be just as difficult to achieve, however, when media coverage of mass shootings border on sensationalism and their high prevalence is desensitizing the country. At the memorial service in September, President Obama stated, “Sometimes I fear there is a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is, that this is somehow the new normal. We cannot accept this.” The media reflects an American culture obsessed with guns and violence, making gun ownership seem normal, even necessary.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the annual production of rifles and shotguns increased almost 40 percent between 2002 and 2011. It is ironic that Wal-Mart, America’s largest department store is also the nation’s largest seller of guns and ammunition. In October 2012, after the shooting in Colorado, Wal-Mart stated that they experienced an alarming 76 percent increase in gun revenue during the first half of its fiscal year. Suggested reasoning for this odd correlation is supported by the idea that people buy firearms after mass shootings because they fear for their safety, while others hurry to buy guns for fear that mass shootings will instigate tighter restrictions on gun ownership. The size of the gun industry is roughly $4 billion a year, as estimated by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It is no wonder that the NRA and gun companies push to keep laws down and sales up.
The country needs to focus on protecting civilian safety. Citizens’ right to self-defense and gun ownership does not mean they should have to exercise these rights extensively. Due to stark variations between state laws, a federal ban on semi-automatic assault weapons should be reinstated, as should restrictions on high-capacity magazines. Background checks should be mandatory for all firearm vendors, not only those federally owned, and licenses or permits for all types of guns should be required.
This is not about criminalizing or prohibiting private gun ownership, but about making sure it does not fall into the wrong hands, and regulating the type of guns allowed to be held at all. Self-defense is an important human right, but the implications of the Second Amendment are not unlimited. Even though the amendment professes the right to bear arms, it does not mean any individual can possess any weapon they choose for any use they desire, as was clarified in the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008. Individuals and hunters do not need to own guns such as semi-automatic firearms that are capable of committing mass shootings. And although it is no secret that heavy-handed lobbying permeates American politics, primarily in the name of money, it is alarming when they allow civilian safety to pay the price. Nevertheless, despite rises in mass shootings and President Obama’s claim that change must come from the American population, polls still show that people are more concerned with protecting their constitutional rights than enforcing stricter gun control, which inherently protects American lives.
