Are America's Gun Laws Effective? A Policy Re-Assessment

Introduction: A History of U.S. Gun Legislation

Signed into law on October 22, 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is largely considered to be the first significant attempt at controlling not only interstate firearms commerce, but also firearm ownership. Prior to this legislation, other gun-control laws had been passed, including the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. These earlier laws did not, however, sufficiently put in place a mechanism for the effective regulation of firearm owners and the firearms industry. With the assassinations of both Martin Luther King Jr. and President John F. Kennedy, there was a clear need for interventionist measures in the realm of gun politics.

Today, gun control remains a divisive issue in American politics. Given an escalation in mass shooting incidents, it may be time to re-assess the effectiveness of existing gun-control laws. Stricter gun control laws should be enacted.

The Second Amendment Debate

It is important to note that both opponents and proponents of gun control argue that their position is firmly rooted in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those in support of stricter laws contend that the framers of the Constitution had militias in mind when drafting the Second Amendment, while others are convinced that owning guns is an inalienable constitutional right. With regard to the latter perspective, Hayes (2016) points out that gun ownership is considered a longstanding tradition of American society and one that has the backing of the U.S. Constitution. It therefore follows that gun control laws that are inherently restrictive would go against not only the very fabric of society, but also against the supreme law of the land. As stated in the Second Amendment: "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" (Hayes, 2016, p. 33).

Several court rulings appear to reinforce this perspective, including McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) (Johnson, Kopel, and Mocsary, 2017). On the other hand, proponents of stricter gun control laws often cite the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008) to advance their position that unlimited rights to gun ownership have no basis in the Second Amendment. In that ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." (Cole, Smith, and DeJong, 2016, p. 105).

In seeking to assess the need for stricter gun control laws, it is also prudent to examine whether gun policy in the United States reflects a need for robust checks and balances. Some argue that stricter gun control laws and regulations would grant the government too much power, potentially leading to human rights abuses and tyranny. Others fear that such measures would leave citizens vulnerable to criminals and other outlaws. According to Cole, Smith, and DeJong (2016), micro-stamping and background checks have also been opposed in some quarters and branded an affront on the right to privacy.

Gun Violence, Public Safety, and the Case for Stricter Laws

However, there is also the perspective that loose gun control laws have wreaked havoc in American society — especially with regard to increased instances of gun violence (Webster and Wintemute, 2015). Every year, thousands of people succumb to injuries sustained as a consequence of firearm-related violence, while others are maimed for life. These are the costs of gun violence at the individual level. At the societal level, the government incurs substantial costs related to the loss of productive citizens — a significant economic burden — as well as costs associated with criminal justice and law enforcement responses.

It therefore follows that effective checks and balances are needed with regard to gun ownership, particularly concerning the assessment of the mental states of prospective gun owners and the conduct of comprehensive background checks. This would mean that persons with criminal records or those who exhibit signs and symptoms of mental illness would be prohibited from owning guns. As Webster and Wintemute (2015) note, "some prohibitions for high-risk individuals and procedures for checking for more types of prohibiting conditions are associated with lower rates of violence" (p. 23). Furthermore, the banning of high-capacity magazines ought to be considered alongside the banning of assault weapons.

Conclusion: The Need for Stronger Gun Control

Hayes, V. (2016). Gun control in the United States. Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 4(2), 33–39.

Johnson, N. J., Kopel, D. B., & Mocsary, G. A. (2017). Firearms law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, rights, and policy. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Joslyn, M., Haider-Markel, D., Baggs, M., & Bilbo, A. (2017). Emerging political identities? Gun ownership and voting in presidential elections. Social Science Quarterly, 98(2), 382–396.

Webster, D. W., & Wintemute, G. J. (2015). Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 21–37.