Abstract
This paper analyzes different issues regarding gun control legislation and the impact they have on gun-related violence. It seeks to understand the correlation in different countries on how gun policies are compared to the simultaneous rates of crimes related to firearms. Due to various cases of mass shootings and debates on gun control, the paper discusses the different study cases to provide a cross-sectional analysis of how gun-related injuries and death are more prevalent due to lesser stringent gun control regulations. The casualty numbers and actions were taken by various nations, including the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Israel, are discussed. It discusses varied perspectives on gun control, that is, political and cultural on the impacts they have on gun violence-related deaths and injuries. The former is associated with fewer death rates by mass shootings and arms, while the latter shows an increase of the same. The paper concludes by providing an overall perspective on the gun legislation in the United States and the impact that has on gun violence.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, the surge of public mass shootings frequency and occurrences has been a severe challenge in the United States. The past five years have seen the incidences take a sharp trajectory. The issues of mass shootings are becoming a subject of speculation and discussions even to the national level to address the problem. Academicians, public health preparedness groups, disaster response, medical associations, public safety groups, police officer associations, local law enforcement, and federal agencies are all looking into the issues of mass shootings to better understand how the tragedy can be effectively prevented (O'Neal, 2019). During the mass shooting debates, there are always sides that are opposing each other. The offensive side is the status quo that is meant to protect the Second Amendment. It asserts that the United States' gun violence issue is mainly a cultural problem; hence needs situational factors such as the provision of security in schools and public places as an intervention. The defensive side entails those that call for more significant restrictions and more enforcement of restrictions to curb gun violence.
The United States’ Gun Violence Status
Violence, due to firearms, has been the leading cause of death in the United States for individuals aged between 18-25 years old. In 2019 alone, 67,622 deaths were resulting from firearms; thus, it constitutes a public health concern. The increased death rates are due to any intent of gun violence surged by 7.4 percent after remaining relatively constant after for many years. The data from the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that the firearms violence deaths accounted for more than 18 percent of deaths related to injuries in 2019. Homicides make up for 35 percent of these mortalities, whereas 65 percent of the deaths are due to suicide (Ryan, 2010). The Annual Review of Public Health reveals that there was an increased firearm-related violence mortality rate in 2019 that had significantly differed from the other etiologies. As much as there are a lot of efforts by put to reduce gun violence incidences through federal policies and public health interventions, the reduction is not being witnessed in the firearm injuries mortality rates, thus calling for more interventional strategies.
The United States is an outlier in the deaths that come about due to firearm-related injuries compared to other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). What is, however, exceptional is the high rates of suicide and homicide due to firearms. Several studies reveal that the risks to injury surged are due to the easy access to weapons. Firearms access is associated with related deaths according to a meta-analysis done in 2018 at the University of California, Berkeley. The research analyzed 17 observational studies to find out the likelihood of someone being a homicide victim and suicide due to firearms access.
Other consequences due to firearm-related injuries are reduced workers' productivity in the United States and elevated financial burden cast on the health care system. The medical costs of the people are established to be an average of $5,854 person and about $958.9 million for all the people as 2014, according to the NVDRS (National Violent Death Reporting System). Some survive the injuries that are firearm-related but need hospitalization. Gun violence also leads to cases where inpatient admission occurs and expenses pile up on lost wages and medication.
The Gun Violence Legislation
Federal Research Funding
The history of gun violence that relates to public health is under the docket of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The last two decades have seen delays in the research regarding federal firearm injury prevention due to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriation Act of 1996. The NRA convinced the congress to remove the budget of $2.6 million that was meant to oversee the research on gun violence. As such, there were funds to promote gun control or support injury control and prevention at the core place, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. These funds were consequently reallocated to traumatic brain injuries prevention hence stopping firearm-related research. Fewer significant causes of deaths were realized and recorded between 1991 to 2010 due to the limited number of studies and analyses on the same. This revealed the high detrimental result due to the banning of the funds meant for firearm-related research (Merino, 2013). In 2012, there was the expansion of CDC provision that included more departments in the agency hence diverting focus from gun control topic.
A change in direction was enacted when President Barack Obama, in January 2013, advised the Congress to allow for more money allocation for a better understanding of the roles that the firearms play in culminating violent death cases (Schildkraut, 2018). Also, in November 2015, the Gun Violence Research Act amended an act that would allow CDC to include gun violence-related cases such as injuries to be taken as an acceptable research area. The Act failed to pass up until March 2017 when it was reintroduced. The NIH also took charge and funded nine proposals meant to elevate research on gun violence and the ways that these can be prevented. The said program has, however, been suspended.
Regulations and Sales of Firearm
Twenty-eight million-gun buyers background checks were applied in 2016 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This check was a record high that has ever been conducted in the gun industry. As much as the number does not indicate the gross amount of guns that were sold that year, it is a good indicator to track their sales. The body, NICS, that was formed in 1998 advocates for gun buyers background checks. President George Bush amended it in January 2008. The initial aim was to mental health checks on the people who wanted to buy guns. These are individuals who are unable to own or purchase firearms. The sale of weapons seems to flow and ebb with the political climate changes. Some guns, such as automatic guns popularity has, however, remained constant.
The National Firearms Act has, since 1934, held that fully automatic weapons are illegal. Through the Assault Weapons Ban, the semiautomatic rifles were outlawed recently. The firearms that have become synonymous with assault weapons such as shotguns and military-style handguns are still illegal in the United States. The change in the laws since 2015 has led to the abolition of these laws where it is illegal to possess, transfer, manufacture, sell, import, or device a semiautomatic assault weapon. An unfortunate pattern has been developed over the years regarding the fact that it takes a mass shooting event to occur for attention to be put on the discussion on injury prevention and firearm-related violence (McGinty, 2019). The wake of 2012 witnessed the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting in Newtown, CT, where six teachers and 20 students lost their lives. The Consumer Product Safety Commission then reviewed the gun storage codes after President Obama ordered so. However, it is only 12 states that have taken the initiative to lock down the devices. The most stringent law in Massachusetts that requires all the firearms to be locked and stored. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois, Connecticut, and California all have varied on the maintenance of the firearms in private sales, accompany dealer supply, and ensuring that guns are left in locked states. The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Act (SAFE Act) got a lot of support after the massacre that took place at Sandy Hook. The bills gave provisions to the purchase of guns where those with mental illness and individuals convicted of crimes not having to purchase firearms. It would deter them from owning guns and impose huge penalties in case there is illegal use. The SAFE Act proves to be the United States' strictest ban on assault weapons. It was signed into law in January 2013 by Governor Cuomo after being passed by the New York Legislature.
The state regulates mandatory background checks, domestic violence convictions, high-risk individuals' gun possession, ban on high-capacity magazines, and AWBs. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, District of Columbia, Connecticut, and California gun laws are the strictest in the country. On the other hand, Montana and Idaho almost have no firearm laws except for the background checks due to the Brady Law (Barthelemy et al., 2012). President Obama, in 2016 advocated for the legislation that would lead to the renewal of assault-style high-capacity weapons after the nightclub shooting in Orland, Florida, where 49 people were killed. The bill did not gain traction due to the vaguely designed claims and plans that if such legislation is passed, then it will go against the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment
The second amendment in the constitution of the United States was meant to protect the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms. Also, an individual must not possess or carry unusual or dangerous firearms and is not limited to the right. The same laws also limit the local and state governments from infringing the rights the same as the federal governments. This paper discusses some of the features of the amendment, the importance, and brought about by the change. The Second Amendment was partially based on the bearing and keeping the arms from the English Common Law. The 1689 English Bills of Rights profoundly influenced its conception. The Supreme Court in 2008, for the first time, affirmed the right of an individual having the right of self-defense at home. This was in the District of Columbia v. Heller. This also included it as an assertion where the right does not preclude the existing prohibitions which forbid individuals from possessing firearms, especially when mentally ill. The United States constitution framers surely had it in mind that the "allowance" of the people arms could be monumental to the nation (Dittmer, 2015). This right of keeping and bearing arms was a way of allowing for the formation of "well-regulated militia." The first hearing of the Second amendment took place in 1886. Initially, the Supreme court purported that the Second Amendment kept the states from bearing and keeping firearms to allow the government to maintain public security. In 1929, United States v. Schwimmer cited that the amendment...
