Introduction There is plentiful evidence that America needs stronger and more comprehensive gun control laws. There have been hundreds of thousands of shooting deaths in the United States since the 1990s, when the gun control laws were supposedly strengthened. Mass shootings have been going on for years, at schools, churches, shopping malls, theatres, and other public places. These mass shootings are usually caused by high caliber firearms that pose an overt threat to public safety. There has been a documented increase in the number of women in domestic violence situations who have been shot to death in the last three decades of gun ownership proliferation. These domestic shootings most often occur in private, but some have taken place in public thereby involving bystanders and increasing the death toll. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System that was put in place in the 1990s, when gun violence became a noted national crisis, is still ineffective. What Americans need is stronger gun control laws in order to combat what is already an epidemic of gun-related violence and death across the country. In the United States, the number of deaths and injuries caused by civilians armed with handguns and automatic weapons is rising. One of the biggest problems with trying to pass stronger gun control laws in the United States is the extreme opposition voiced by the NRA and the pro-gun lobby against any restrictions whatsoever. Gun control is perhaps the most incendiary problem facing the United States today. Pro-gun supporters, specifically the NRA, have taken a position on firearms that is so uncompromising that there is no negotiation between them and gun control law supporters. The political positions of these two groups are diametrically opposed to one another. The NRA has taken a firm stance against gun control laws and refuses to negotiate with the gun control law lobbyists. Because the NRA has such a powerful hold on Congress, many gun control laws and proposed legislation are dismissed as soon as they come up for a vote. The NRA constantly points to the Second Amendment as the reason civilian Americans should be allowed to have as many guns as they choose. NRA media campaigns ignore outright the injuries and deaths caused by firearms and the wide-ranging effects gun violence have on American society and culture (Cook & Jens, 74). Shooting Deaths and Injuries Between 1999 and 2013 there were more than four-hundred and sixty thousand deaths in the United States caused by firearms (CDC, "Data & Statistics”). During that period guns were used in almost three-hundred thousand suicides, over one-hundred and seventy thousand homicides, and approximately ten-thousand accidental deaths. According to statistics compiled by the CDC, guns are involved in approximately 67% of all murders and 52% of all suicides (CDC, "Data & Statistics”). American children under the age of 15 years old are nine times more likely to be killed in a gun-related incident than children from any other country in the world (Cummings, et al., 397). According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, the fact that Americans can purchase firearms so readily is directly related to an increase in the likelihood that people will be killed by gunfire (Cummings, et al., 397). This is an obvious and logical conclusion. However, NRA supporters still argue that it is not guns that are the problem, but rather that it is the people with the guns who are the problem. This is true; too many people have guns. Take away the guns and the problem of people killing one another with a gun will be greatly reduced. Mass Shootings Civilian ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines ought to be forbidden by law because of the potential for mass shootings. In more than half of public shootings, those classified as mass murders, the gunman or gunmen were armed with automatic or semi-automatic weapons that held high-capacity magazines. These high-capacity magazines also increased the number of people injured in mass shooting events by 156% (Follman & Aronsen, 39). The use of high-capacity magazines means that a gunman does not need to rely on accuracy, a gunman can simply spray a crowd or group with bullets killing and injuring as many people as possible as quickly as possible. One of the seemingly most reasonable arguments in favor of increased gun-control laws is that of registering firearms. Currently, guns permits are easy to obtain, even in the case of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. There is an argument that actual automatic weapons are not easy to obtain, but that argument is rendered specious by the fact that supposedly semi-automatic weapons are quickly and easily converted to automatic weapons. Because automatic and semi-automatic firearms are sold widely in many venues across the United States, Americans are faced with the daily threat of mass shootings. The image of the single shooter equipped with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon has become the focal point of many campaigns in favor of stricter gun control laws. These single shooters who commit mass murder with guns have garnered a great deal of attention in the press and are a major catalyst for today’s more vocal pro-gun control lobby (Soraghan, 68). The NRA, on the other hand, dismisses these single shooter, mass shootings as unrelated to firearm permit requirements and gun ownership. Without any evidence to support its claims, the NRA contends that increased gun control laws and permit requirements will not reduce the number of mass shootings. The NRA habitually falls back on the argument that restricting gun purchases would result in nothing except a violation of America citizens’ rights (Webster & Vernick, 44). Unfortunately, examples of mass shootings using automatic and semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines are many. In the June 2016 Orlando Florida nightclub mass shooting, the gunman bought his firearms legally just days before the killings. The shooter used a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm Glock 17 semi-automatic pistol in a one-man attack that left 50 people dead and 53 people injured. Because of the automation of the guns, he was able to fire off more than 110 rounds and still had hundreds of rounds left (Harris, 2016). Recently in Texas, a lone gunman was able legally to purchase a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun, which he then used to ambush Dallas police officers. Because the Izhmash-Saiga 5.45mm rifle (AK-74) was a semi-automatic and because the handgun had a high-capacity magazine, the gunman was able to take on a huge contingency of police officers. That lone shooter killed five police officers and injured eleven other people including civilian bystanders (Leefeldt, 2016). Domestic Violence According to journalists Gerney and Parsons on average five women die in the United States everyday as a result of gunshot wounds. A female in the United States who is involved in a domestic dispute is 500% more likely to be killed if there are firearms present in the home (Gerney & Parsons, 2014). Between 2001 and 2012, more than six thousand women died in the United States after being shot by their domestic partner or boyfriend (Gerney & Parsons, 2014). One case that can be offered up as an example of the threat associated with gun ownership and domestic violence is the Seal Beach California killings of 2011. In Seal Beach California, a mass shooting was a directly related to a domestic violence situation and a child custody dispute between a hairdresser and her ex-husband. In that case, the woman’s ex-husband showed up at her place of employment and shot nine people, killing eight. In an older study that was performed during the 1990s, 76% of women killed with a firearm involved an armed man that was known by the victim or an armed man who had been stalking the victim (McFarlane et al, 1999). Shootings in the context of interpersonal relationships marred by domestic violence have become so common that they been assigned an acronym. The acronym IPH stands for intimate partner homicide and is used commonly by academics and in Congress. In 2013, legislation was introduced at the state and federal levels to try to restrict the ability of domestic violence offenders to use and buy firearms. This push was an effort to reduce the gun deaths that occur because of IPH. Many of the initiatives presented during the in the 113th U.S. Congress sought to protect domestic violence victims. The range of issues that could prevent someone from legally buying a gun would have included a domestic violence restraining order (Webster & Vernick, 11). Laws that make requests for permit restrictions and suspensions a result of restraining orders, misdemeanor stalking, and a history of domestic abuse seem logical. Known abusers and stalkers should be denied gun purchase and ownership permits. However, the NRA has been successful in tabling most of this legislation. Notwithstanding the fact that there is widespread support for gun ownership restriction among victims rights group, the very nature of those groups – specifically that they are victims– has made it impossible to overcome the massive media and legal campaigns conducted by the NRA. There has been some movement in a handful of states to try to restrict access to firearms in IPH situations. One example is Utah’s restraining order related firearm restrictions. In Utah, men who have a record of harassing women with whom they have lived with, or sometimes merely dated, cannot buy firearms. Utah recognizes the danger posed to women by stalkers with access to guns (Webster & Vernick, 34). Minnesota is another example of a state that has enacted legislation requiring stricter gun permit regulations in known to be in IPH situations (Webster & Vernick, 34). Colorado is another example of a state that has increased the penalty for domestic violence crimes and made people who have been slapped with restraining orders ineligible to buy a gun. Connecticut implemented a firearm surrender program in the cases in which someone has had their permit revoked. The results of these laws are that many potential gun purchases have been prohibited and in some cases, people have been forced to surrender existing firearms (Webster & Vernick, 34). The few states that have passed laws making it harder to buy firearms have done so mainly in cases where domestic violence is a known element. Diversion programs that stop known abusers from buying firearms or that revoke existing permits have only been passed at the state level, not the federal level. The fact that a few state level laws make it harder for known lawbreakers to get firearms does undoubtedly stop some deadly shootings. A better set of laws would be those passed at the federal level to stop domestic abusers from buying firearms. Classifying domestic violence crimes as felonies instead of misdemeanors would go a long way toward reducing the ability of abusers to buy weapons. Overall, most states do not have a separate set of gun control laws. In most states, they rely on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System only.National Instant Criminal Background Check System The federal government points to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as a success. According to the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, NICS has been around since 1998. This system, they claim, has saved lives and they credit these checks for stopping violent criminals from buying guns. The way the system is supposed to work is that cashiers who are about to sell someone a gun call an FBI phone number to make sure the potential buyer does not have a criminal record that would bar him or her from getting a firearm permit. The FBI claims that it has run 230 million background checks in this way since the inception of the program and denied 1.3 million potential sales (Nakashima, 2015). Obviously, this NICS system is not stopping the wrong people from buying weapons. The recent news headlines reveal multiple mass shootings in the United States including multiple ambush-style shootings of police officers. The NICS system has major gaps, is poorly funded, and tends to breakdown. In addition, according to the FBI, state and local law enforcement agencies do not send in the required updates to NICS. People with criminal records have received clearance from NICS to buy firearms including semi-automatic and weapons quickly converted to automatic with high-capacity magazines. Additionally, NICS is operating under the burden of permissive gun ownership laws. For example, a conviction for possession of narcotics does not disqualify someone from buying a firearm. If a person racks up enough drug convictions they theoretically should be barred from buying a firearm, but such is not the case. Dylan Roof, for example, committed mass murder at a church in South Carolina in 2015 with a firearm he purchased after passing a NICS screening. Roof had a long arrest record, mostly drug convictions, that did not stop him from buying the gun because of the gaps and problems in the NICS background-check. According to the FBI, if NICS was better funded it would operate more efficiently (Nakashima, 2015). In the case of Roof, for example, his drug crime record would have activated a report that would have automatically rejected his gun purchase. However, it did not happen that way because NICS is not properly maintained or used, its criminal-record and background databases are out of date and lack technological integrity.
Conclusion It is vital that gun buyers pass stricter registration laws. Strengthening the gun laws in the United States and reducing the number of guns in circulation is the only way to reduce gun-related killings and violence. The United States needs to increase funds to public agencies that are in charge of monitoring gun sales. These laws will need to be passed at the federal level and the federal government needs to override objections by the NRA and their lobbyists. Many countries in the world have strengthened gun control; the United States is the exception. United States laws are insufficient when it comes to reducing the number of unregistered guns in circulation and restricting new sales. In the future, the strength of new gun control laws will be the mechanism for reducing gun-related crimes in the United States.
Works Cited
Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons, "Women under the Gun: How Gun Violence Affects Women and 4 Policy Solutions to Better Protect Them," www.americanprogress.org, published online June 2014. [accessed July 25, 2016].
CDC, "Data & Statistics (WISQARS)," wisqars.cdc.gov. [accessed July 25, 2016].
Cook, Philip J., and Ludwig, Jens. (2014). Gun Violence. Cary, US: Oxford University Press (US), 2000.
Cummings, P. and T.D. Koepsell, D.C. Grossman, J. Savarino, R.S. Thompson, "The Association between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide," American Journal of Public Health, June 1997.
Follman, Mark and Gavin Aronsen, "'A Killing Machine': Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines, Mother Jones published Jan. 30, 2013. [accessed July 25, 2016].
Harris, David. "Official: FDLE to wrap up Pulse shooting investigation within month". Orlando Sentinel. Published July 14, 2016. [accessed July 24, 2016].
Leefeldt, Ed. "Dallas shooting rifle: a "curio or relic," but still deadly". Published July 11, 2016. [accessed July 24, 2016].
Nakashima, Ellen. “National Security: FBI: Breakdown in background check system allowed Dylan Roof to buy gun.” The Washington Post, July 10, 2015. [accessed July 24, 2016].
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. "The Connection between Domestic Violence and Weak Gun Laws," www.ncdsv.org, Feb. 27, 2013. [accessed July 25, 2016].
Soraghan, Mike. “Signal Sent On Gun Control Colo., Ore. Efforts Embolden Supporters.” Denver Post, Washington Bureau, 2000.
Webster, Daniel W., and Vernick, Jon S. Updated Evidence and Policy Developments on Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014.
McFarlane, Judith M. and Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Susan Wilt, et al, "Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide," Homicide Studies, www.victimsofcrime.org, 1999. [accessed July 25, 2016].
