Free Essay: Strict Gun Laws and Mass Shootings

Today, the world seems to be in the agony of a plague of mass shootings. According to Bagalman, Caldwell, Finklea, and McCallion (2013), mass murders using guns reasonably draw a lot of attention and criticism, eclipsing other kinds of homicide that happen more often. Voices of reason continue to grow louder in the aftermath of these increasing shootings calling for immediate action. Moreover, the latest media surveys suggest most countries champion the passing of stricter firearm regulation laws. This paper investigates the connection between mass shootings and gun control laws, particularly in the United States (U.S.). It examines the viability of current firearm control laws and how citizens react to them. Furthermore, the paper provides proof that gun control laws can have a debasing effect on the public, for instance, exposing lawful citizens to harm, and thus, they do not necessarily decrease mass shootings. Rather than pinning the increasing murders to the present firearm regulation policies, the paper investigates the fundamental cause of the problem. Although all concur dire advances should be taken to stop mass shootings, a genuine question as to what extent firm gun control laws alone can reduce the shootings remains.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Common knowledge is that a policy of stricter gun control would reduce mass murders. Notwithstanding, persuading experimental proof that the appropriate solutions lie in more stringent gun control laws alone is very scanty. Discussions about the productivity of gun control in reducing mass shootings remain one of the most broadly contemplated, and generally dubious debates in human behavior science research. As per Luca, Malhotra, and Poliquin (2016) reports on the adequacy of gun control to decrease violent crime is uncertain. Additionally, Bagalman et al. (2013) report that even after the enactment of gun control policies, no state data indicates that the systems reduce crime levels. On the contrary, Knoll, James, and Annas (2016) proposed that the privilege of gun ownership is linked to low crime rates. This way, it becomes difficult to make determinations about the effectiveness of firearm control.

Background of Gun Control and Mass Shootings

Violent crime in the U.S. continues to increase despite the presence of firm gun control laws that seek to lower the rates. Today, firearm control in the country is in its disputable stage, with the ascent of the mass shooting cases calling for changes in the gun control approaches. Gun definition in this paper is restricted to those that are easily accessible by the public, for instance, long firearms, hand firearms, self-loaders, and machine guns. Next, to that, the paper discusses suicidal, murder, burglary, and assault crimes, all of which are conceivable with or without arms.

According to Follman, Aronsen, and Pan (2012), the genesis of gun control laws in the U.S. dates back to the early twentieth century, when the rules were aimed at keeping the firearms out of reach to the African-Americans population. They add that the second gun-control Act called the National Firearms Act of 1934 demanded the registration of guns under specific prerequisites. This gave a superior control on the sorts of firearms sold and assigned the capabilities of the individuals who buy and claim them. Since then to date, the gun control Act changes based on the various mass shooting and gun crime-related events in the U.S. that prompt an adjustment in the enactment. Restricting gun ownership might be viewed as the best and least difficult approach to taming the steadily rising crime rates. Nonetheless, strict laws on gun possession will certainly not remedy the problems of the increasing insecurity, but may instead cause more significant issues.

Part of the explanation behind the differing results on firearm control lies in the estimation of factors. Numerous examinations on the viability of gun control incorporate a wide range of firearm-related deaths, such as suicide and coincidental shootings. However, not these classes are precisely proportional. These sorts of firearm occurrences have diverse directing and interceding factors that make considering firearm control a problematic issue. For example, there is scarce motivation to accept that the control factors affecting suicide are like the controls for mass homicide. There are subjective contrasts between the various types of gun brutality, and they ought not to be conflated in experimental examinations on firearm control. Possibly the significant fluctuation in discoveries can be at any rate incompletely credited to the changing impacts of firearm control enactment on various types of gun violence.

Very few studies have explicitly coaxed out the connection between firearm control enactment and mass homicide through shooting. Some of these involve researching the relationship outside of the United States. For instance, Chapman, Alpers, Agho, and Jones (2015) analyzed the impacts of Australia's quick-firing guns, siphon activity shot firearms, and rifles boycott, authorized after a mass shootout that took thirty-five lives. They noticed that following the enactment, no episodes of mass slaughtering happened in Australia. They inferred that firearm control was in charge of the decrease, although they could not give proof of the causal relationship.

A recent report analyzed gun-related public mass murders in a cross-national investigation of a hundred and seventy-one countries. The researchers reasoned that countries with high gun proprietorship are exceptionally powerless to mass shootings, taking note of that the U.S. which had the highest gun possession rates and the most mass shootings. Although India came second, it did not make it to the top five worldwide for mass shootings. There are numerous other potential clarifications for a lessening in gun brutality as a reaction to expanded firearm control.

Lemieux, Bricknell, and Prenzler (2015) used cross-national data from the United Nations and electronically accessible journals reports to compare gun-related murder rates in countries identified as having both restrictive and permissive gun control laws. Notwithstanding contrasts in gun deaths between countries, they found just a powerless, negative connection between firearm control and demise by guns. In a little segment on mass homicide, Lemieux et al. (2015) noticed that while the U.S. outperformed all other mechanical countries in occurrences of mass shootings, paces of exploitation will, in general, be lower.

As effectively noted, contrasting the impacts of weapon control enactment crosswise over countries is a questionable recommendation because of a heap of social contrasts. Given the high number of factors influencing violent crime rates, it is hard to unravel every one of them adequately to ascribe recorded impacts of firearm control. Contrasts in poverty rates, population density, and law enforcement could all affect gun-related crime rates. An expanding section of researchers on mass murder in the U.S. have widely concentrated on comprehending accelerating factors that lead to mass murders. Such examinations are enlightening but do not aim to give observational proof as to if gun control is linked to the decrease in mass homicide.

Moreover, given some studies express uncertainty on the possibility of gun control laws lowering the frequency of mass shootings, it may be conceivable to utilize firearm enactment to lessen the quantities of casualties of mass killings. The impressive social arrangement has as of late focused on constraining ammo as a way to decrease the number of unfortunate injuries during mass-murdering episodes. In any case, very little research has been done on the adequacy of this methodology in reducing either number of rates of firearm brutality or number of deaths. This ought to be a prompt concentration for social researchers.

It is hard to comprehend the basics of a problem when researchers fail to concur on the definition of a term. Most researches of mass homicide incorporate the execution of at least four people in broad daylight or private areas and are not restricted to firearm crimes. There likewise appears to be division regarding what establishes a gun-related mass homicide. Some reports have inquisitively rejected situations where shootings have occurred in private homes. Others reject cases where all the victims share a common link. However, as noted by Fox and DeLateur (2014), such incidents still represent a mass shooting.

The Efficiency of Current Gun Control Laws in the U.S.

Firearm control laws in the U.S. differ among the various states, but government laws direct the sale, ownership, and utilization of firearms and ammo. Nonetheless, there are situations where state gun laws are fundamentally less prohibitive than government gun laws, demonstrating the irregularity of gun control laws among states. The recent public shootings in the U.S. have called for a prerequisite of a more noteworthy control of firearms.

Despite the execution of different efforts to avert mass shootings, the viability of these particular gun control laws seems irrelevant. They could not have halted the shooting episodes or decreased the losses of life in any capacity. As per Follman et al. (2012), the efforts included "limitations on firearm shows, youngster availability aversion laws demanding to lock up weapons and bans on weapons." The laws could not have allowed the casualties to respond to the situation, but only to act as an anticipation technique for gun violence. This demonstrates the viability of current weapon control laws as it just intends to anticipate firearm savagery that is not helpful because of widespread firearm proprietorship in the nation.

People Reaction to Current Gun Control Laws

The increasing crime rates in the U.S. have caused a lot of worry to the citizens. As per Wallace (2015), despite the government's attempt to compromise between the essential firearm control laws, people question if law-abiding citizens are being protected by their government and are pushing for firmer guidelines against firearms and crime. In any case, this issue is intricate on numerous levels, with an expected measure of over two hundred million firearms in private hands, legitimately or non-lawfully. The degree of firearm proprietorship in the U.S. is at a phase that it will be difficult to change the current firearm control laws.

Majority American citizens are firearm control promoters, and some are even backers of a flat-out gun boycott. They would like to see their country with lesser guns per head and ensure all guns are registered with the federal government. Nonetheless, there are other people who accept the need of firearms in private hands, exclusively for self-preservation which had been the standard in the U.S. In spite of various perspectives and sentiments, natives should feel agitated realizing that it is an issue in the nation that is not anything but difficult to fathom.

Effects of Stricter Gun Controls Laws

Stricter firearm regulation laws will not only reduce the crime rates but also expose citizens to danger and worsen the situation. Statistics from many American states indicate that stricter firearm control laws do not reduce crime rates. As per Knoll et al. (2016), although some states in the U.S. embraced firmer gun control laws, crime rates in those states remained high. However, in other states with relaxed gun control laws, mass shootings were low. This indicates that states with more gun owners and friendlier firearm control laws experience lesser mass shootings. This is supported by Wallace (2015) who states that, "mass shootings handgun-prohibiting U.S. cities such as New York are far higher than in states like Pennsylvania, where handguns are lawful and broadly claimed.