Health of Society and Firearms

How will the 2nd amendment propose challenges to gun control efforts, and how has society responded to countless mass shooting.  Also, how will technologies, and gun statistics point toward a future were gun violence will be an uncontrollable tragedy.  Also, what steps can be taken to reduce gun violence in the future without implementing more gun control laws?

Introduction: Health of Society and Firearms

Campaigns to put an end to injury, death, and crime related to firearms have exceeded any other needed interventions throughout the U.S.  The efforts to the success of these campaigns have been constantly fought against by organizations like the “NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation” (Vernick 1).   The National Rifle Association (NRA) has tried to “portray the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as a significant obstacle to effective gun control legislation” (Vernick 1).  There is no doubt that gun related crimes, injuries, and deaths are prevalent health issues of massive proportion.  In the US “firearms are involved in about 34000 deaths annually” (Vernick 1).  In response to the continuously growing epidemic of gun violence throughout the US, many laws have been set into motion in an attempt to reduce the problems associated with firearms.  Although there have been numerous efforts to introduce harsher gun laws, they have constantly been fought against by the NRA and other gun supportive organizations though use of the 2nd Amendment.  As a result gun laws have been kept basic, which allows for loopholes and easier access.  The constant battle between gun control advocates and non-supporters, along with new technological advances in 3-D printing has risen another question: Will harsher gun control laws and restrictions benefit society by decreasing the amount of crime, injury, and death related to firearms.

The 2nd Amendment

The second Amendment is the backbone defense for gun advocates everywhere.  Although these advocates may think they maintain control due to the second amendment, they do not.  Due to the rule in America known as the “rule of adherence to precedent (known as stare decisis)…at any given time, a law means precisely what the courts have said it means” (Vernick 2).  As of now, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has not created any interferences in the implementation of gun control laws at any level of legislation (Vernick 2).  In other words, the government has interpreted the 2nd Amendment in a way that allows for the use of necessary gun control policies needed to maintain order federally and locally.  Although the interpretation of the Amendment leaves room for gun control policies, the rules set in place are not enough to put a complete end to gun violence.  Without the complete ban of firearms among the U.S., they will continue to pose an enormous threat to society.

Tragedy and Society’s Response

        In 2010 “more than 31,000 Americans died by gunfire” (Brent 333).  Of these deaths “mass shootings account for only 1 in more than 500 of the firearm homicides and suicides that occur in the United States every year” (Brent 333).  On December 14, 2012 a shooting occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut leaving “20 children and six educators” (Johnson 1) dead.  This shooting made society realize that extreme acts of gun violence were becoming a major problem within the United States, with “fifteen of the most recent 25 mass shootings recorded worldwide occurred in this country” (Brent 333).  Following the massacre, the NRA “said it was prepared to offer meaningful contributions” (Wilkie 1).  Although the NRA came out and wanted to help with the situation they became a target for criticism by gun control advocates everywhere.  This doesn’t come as a surprise because the NRA is “the nation’s largest pro-gun lobbying group” (Wilkie 1).  Shortly before the Newton tragedy, on April 17, “the bill to expand background checks on gun buyers failed in the sensate” (Macgillis 2-3).  This was a huge defeat for gun control advocates everywhere, but what these people didn’t know was that tragedy was just around the corner.  The Newtown massacre changed the game and at last “a viable movement for gun regulation emerged” (Macgillis 3).  After a long fight for gun control with little to back up the argument, gun control advocates finally had what they were looking for.  The original thought after the shooting in Newtown was to go after assault weapons, but after further research it was clear the real issue was regarding background checks (Macgillis 5).  This became relevant after talking to the police chief who said “40 percent of sales are made without them” (Macgillis 5).  This means 40 percent of people are who buy weapons are buying them without having to go through a background check.  This means anyone from criminals to mentally unstable people are able to purchase weapons which poses a huge threat to society.  In the eyes of gun advocates everywhere, this was the start to something great, but to organizations like the NRA, it was the start of a much more difficult battle.          

For years many people have relied on the 2nd amendment to insure their right to bear arms.  Although this is a reality for many, others find that gun laws are too lenient and need to be stricter.  The second amendment clearly states that people of the United States have the right to bear arms, and that this right will not be infringed upon.  Due to this amendment, people seeking harsher gun laws have seemed to fail.  Due to the rising belief that more gun laws would decrease the rate of violent crime involving firearms, another theory has risen.  Will harsher gun laws really decrease crime rates, or will these rates stay the same only creating a more dangerous environment when purchasing these weapons illegally?   For example, many drugs have been made illegal after deeming them a risk to one’s health.  Making these drugs illegal has proven ineffective and in most cases more dangerous.  To be specific, marijuana is an illegal drug in most states and is still very easily accessible.  These transaction pose risk to the buyer and the dealer, when instead these drugs could be bought in a store where there is no danger.  This reality will become the same for guns if harsher laws regarding the purchase and ownership of these guns become a reality.  In other words, guns will be sold like drugs, and there will be no way to track the purchase resulting in a more dangerous environment.