Specialisation: Gun Control

Gun Control in America and Mass Shootings


Mass shootings in the US are increasing, prompting discussions around gun control. On May 24, 19 children and two teachers lost their lives at the hands of a shooter at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Ten days earlier, in a similar incident, ten black people lost their lives in a racially motivated mass shooting in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY (Ogasa, 2022). On Monday 4th, July, seven individuals were shot dead in a mass shooting at a parade in Illinois. According to CDC data, approximately 40,000 individuals in America die from firearms annually. Although a small number of yearly firearm deaths link to the mass shooting, such eventualities attract vast public and media attention across the nation. This prompts conversations around legislative interventions for how better to restrict gun violence (Schildkraut et al., 2017). The issue of gun control and mass shootings impacts mental health. By participating in policy formulation, healthcare providers and leaders can collaborate with experts to determine the problem, identify the core risk factors, design evidence-based policies and programs, and promote effective implementation and evaluation. Through participation by healthcare providers and leaders, it is possible to develop effective and holistic policies that will help save lives and make gun violence a rare-case scenario. The healthcare system concerns itself with reducing and preventing injury, disease, and death and enhancing community health (Goldlist, 2019); instituting proper policies will be critical in achieving such an end.

Gun control and mass shootings impact the aspect of mental health. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill persons is necessary, providing grounds for balancing gun rights and gun control. Thus, the participation of healthcare providers and leaders in policy formulation will help them institute legislation that increases the government budget for improving mental health screening and treatment and enhancing gun violence prevention (Honberg, 2020). Therefore, improving the mental health system in the US can help prevent deaths associated with mass shootings.

My position on the issue

I believe a total gun ban in the US will help prevent mass shootings. Research indicates that a complete gun ban in Japan and Australia has restricted mass shootings. Similarly, the US requires drastic measures away from the current approach, which seeks to balance the gun rights of the public and their adverse impact on public members. An economic benefit prevails with a total gun ban. This is because the healthcare facility will spend limited resources on treating the injured. Mass shootings result in property destruction. Therefore, the total ban will prevent such damages, saving institutions the expense of reconstruction. The government will also allocate the budget to gun control policies in other priority areas. Losing people to gun violence results in the loss of productive individuals now and in the future, adversely affecting the country’s economy. The affected families also suffer financial loss treating the injured. With the total gun ban, they will not suffer such losses. The injured persons never attend work until they recuperate, resulting in economic loss. Thus, the total gun ban will be economically gainful.

Gun control presents an ethical debate. Gun control proponents are right to protect against loss of lives by restricting the number of persons carrying guns. Gun control advocates seek to maintain the values of life, family, and the desire to feel and stay safe. It is an ethical practice for policymakers to develop legislation that helps achieve a safe environment for all Americans. Exposing people to a mass shooting is more harmful than denying those wishing to own guns their rights (DeGrazia & Hunt, 2016). Therefore, policies must target saving the lives of citizens instead of focusing too much on the rights of gun holders.

What I can do and how

I would benchmark the current US policies against other developed countries towards establishing the trends in mass shootings concerning the existing laws. This would offer a clear picture of what policies effectively eliminate mass shootings. I will use the statistics to campaign against non-working policies and help policymakers design and implement alternative policies that will help the country stop the increasing number of mass shooting cases.

Concisely, gun control policies are a critical approach to restricting mass shootings. Such policies must engage health experts and their leaders to shape a comprehensive approach toward ensuring no guns fall into the hands of the mentally ill. Increased government spending on the mental health care system will be instrumental in ensuring that guns do not fall into the hands of the wrong people. However, borrowing from nations that have managed to eliminate the problem of mass shootings, the American government must consider a total gun ban. Such an approach will harbor economic, ethical, and practical benefits for the country.


DeGrazia, D., & Hunt, L. H. (2016). The rights-based case for gun control. Debating Gun Control, 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190251253.003.0014

Goldlist, G. I. (2019). Gun control: A health issue, a legal issue, or both. Canadian Medical Association Journal191(34), E948-E948. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.72602

Honberg, R. S. (2020). Mental illness and gun violence: Research and policy options. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics48(S4), 137-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520979414

Schildkraut, J., Elsass, H. J., & Meredith, K. (2017). Mass shootings and the media: Why all events are not created equal. Journal of Crime and Justice41(3), 223-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2017.1284689

Ogasa, N. (2022, May 26). Mass shootings and gun violence in the United States are increasing. Science News. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gun-violence-mass-shootings-increase-united-states-data-uvalde-buffalo

Gun Control

For a long time, firearm ownership and control have been conspicuous and, to a great extent, examined subjects in numerous nations across the world. This subject is effectively far from being concluded as there are several questionable assessments concerning it and is by and large why this point is of extraordinary interest to me. Gun Control refers to laws and guidelines governing firearm manufacturing, ownership, transportation, use, and other related issues within a specific enactment (Jacobs 19). This paper will address the controversial viewpoints of whether we should have gun control or not.

The circumstances surrounding firearm control in many nations across the globe are prohibitive. Most laws restrict the possession and use of firearms, making gun ownership advantageous—implying that only certain groups of ordinary people can purchase and use firearms. Notwithstanding, there are still a few nations with lenient firearm control systems. One such nation is the USA. Due to the country’s pioneer history, and the existing weapon culture, individuals in many U.S. regions have guns. That is why the discussion about weapon control is particularly significant and genuine in the USA. Now, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution secures the regular people’s gun possession privileges, which frequently fills in as the center of contention against weapon control laws in this country. In the interim, the individuals favorable to weapon control guarantee that the option to have and utilize guns isn’t limitless. Those specific limitations and legitimate strategies ought to be executed to confine explicit gatherings of individuals and spots (Hazell 55)

Weapons used in crime-related cases are obtained legally rather than from weapon sellers (up to 90% in the United States). Gun ownership increases the number of gun mishaps and aggressive behavior at home. The number of inhabitants in the USA is 319 million individuals, and the quantity of guns claimed by U.S. residents is 371 million. Thus, there are more guns than individuals.

Even though by 1970, the large-scale social struggle had died down, wrongdoing—and its solution—turned into a significant policy-centered problem. The core piece of the problem was due to weapons. Was there an addition to the crime percentage because of how simple we made it for crooks to threaten their casualties, or has it lessened wrongdoing by providing honest residents with the method for self-protection due to the broad accessibility of firearms, especially handguns? (Hazell 63) At the beginning of the 1970s, advocates of weapon control started to zero in on cheap, frequently shoddy handguns. The advocates contended that these modest firearms furnished crooks with a prepared weapons stockpile. However, proponents of gun freedom have argued that prohibiting small-caliber firearms would deprive poor people of the resources they need to protect themselves from lawbreakers, although they live in areas with the least reliable police protection and the most dangerous neighborhoods. The very thought that firearms were a viable method for safeguarding against lawbreakers would raise doubts. Donald T. Reay and Arthur Kellerman concluded in a 1986 paper published in the Journal of Medicine New England that a weapon kept in the house was many times more likely to be used to kill a relative or companion than to kill an intruder criminal (Hazell 63)

President Joseph R. Biden called for stricter weapon laws to decrease mass shooting savagery because of the deadly shootings on March 16 in Atlanta, and March 22, in Boulder. He said, “I don’t have to stand for one more moment, not to mention 60 minutes, make rational strides that will save lives later on, and ask my House and Senate partners to act.” (Henigan 50) Specifically, Congress was then asked to establish more tight limitations on attack weapons and enormously large limits on magazines. Research for the Reduction of Gun Violence, led by individuals from Columbia University’s Scientific union (Columbia SURGE), has been identified by President Biden’s proposed measures. Remembering the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban and effects of state firearm laws, the impact of openness to firearm savagery on kids, and the utilization of high-limit magazines in high-casualty shootings (Henigan 50)

Charles Branas and Paul Keeping, in a recent report from the University of Pennsylvania, partners at Boston University and Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, tracked down by the U.S., distributed in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Countries with more tolerant firearm laws experience mass shootings at an essentially higher rate than states with prohibitive weapon laws. In particular, the investigation discovered that “a 10-unit expansion in state weapon law leniency was related to a critical 11.5 percent higher pace of mass shootings.” (Henigan 50)

Louis Klarevas of Columbia University, Teachers College, directed research for his book “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings” viewed the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban during the 10-year time frame (1994-2004). In comparison to the ten years preceding the government boycott, there was a 43% decrease in high-casualty mass shootings and a 37% decrease in the high-casualty mass shooting occurrences in the United States. Quickly following the government boycott’s lapse, a 239 percent increment in high-casualty mass shooting deaths and a 183 percent increment in high-casualty mass shooting episodes were encountered in the U.S. An additional study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2019 discovered that high-casualty mass shootings utilizing large-capacity magazines resulted in a 62% increase in passing, compared to occurrences that did not include magazines holding more than ten projectiles. They likewise tracked down that, after representing the populace, purviews that didn’t have LCM boycotts set up encountered a 206 percent increment in the casualty pace and an expansion of 129 percent in the frequency of mass shootings with a high casualty (Henigan 51)

The ramifications of administrative limitations are likewise huge in networks and schools’ battles for the prosperity and well-being of youngsters, with implications of openness to weapon brutality right after these latest mass shootings. A recent report by Charles Branas and the SURGE associates highlighted the effects of brutality on kids’ advancement. In their investigation, they recognized the fundamental significance of expanding access to parents. For children, the impact of weapon viciousness was both direct and indirect (Henigan 51)

One review, looking at just shootings in which the firearm was to be stored in the home, showed that weapons in the house were more likely to be engaged in mishaps than be utilized to harm or kill justifiably. Self-destruction, a core yet frequently underemphasized part of the weapon viciousness issue, also happens to a great extent in the home. A milestone study by Arthur Kellermann and his associates showed that the danger of self-destruction is increased multiple times for a weapon in a home. The majority of those suicides are committed by discouraged teenagers, with weapons left unattended by grown-ups. Without a doubt, guns are the most well-known self-destruction technique among teenagers, representing 60% of self-destruction passing among youth younger than nineteen. The danger of accidental shootings and juvenile self-destruction could be considerably decreased by well-being preparation, underscoring the expanded threat of weapons in the home and the components of safe dealing with and capacity rehearsing (Henigan 62)

Legislative issues in the 1990s appeared to be described by outlining many issues that concerned children. Since individuals care profoundly about their (and others’) youngsters, this might be a key legislative issue. However, pundits contend that it advances a genuinely misshaped way to deal with the unveiling strategy. With concern to weapons, the discussion centers around the potential for accidental or deliberate shootings in the home, the mass shooting episodes in schools and jungle gyms, and the simple access of firearms to kids (for example, the 30 injured and five kids killed in 1989 in Stockton by Patrick Purdy or the 15 shot in 1999 in Columbine High School in Littleton). Every day, 13 young people younger than 19 die from gunfire. Crime is the following core reason for death for adolescents 10–19 years of age. It’s the No. 1 reason for death for black American young men of this age. Most youth manslaughters are done with handguns, mainly. It is obviously in light of a legitimate concern for kids and families to diminish weapon brutality in the United States (Hazell 61)

Although the government’s “Gun-Free School Zones Act” bans weapon ownership close to and in schools, there are a lot of strategies and laws that preclude understudies and other people from bringing firearms onto school property. The discussion over savagery in schools includes firearm access and the impact of violent films, T.V. shows, and P.C. games, just as parental disregard. Although the vast majority favor more grounded firearm control, there is widespread support for guidelines, including the media and its advertising practices (Jr. and Pollack 59)

There is a firearm emergency in the United States. From 1933 to 1982, almost 1 million Americans were killed by guns in murders, suicides, and mishaps. Around 1960 alone, the more significant part of 1,000,000 passed on due to firearm wounds. In 1992, somewhere around 35,000 were killed by gunfire. Today, among all consumer items, just vehicles outperform firearms for fatal injury, and weapons will probably pass them by 2002. Violence Policy Center, 1998, much of the firearm control banter has zeroed in on required trigger locks and safe stockpiling. Weapon controls like these are pointed toward forestalling gun mishaps. To be sure, weapon control advocates habitually underscore that the family gun represents a danger to its inhabitants, particularly kids (Jacobs 4). A high number of connections were found between firearm possession and weapon-related brutality and all-out self-destruction and crime rates. More firearms generally mean more survivors of self-destruction and manslaughter (Squires 181)

However, there are those of a contrary opinion. They believe that firearm control measures don’t reduce crime, passing’s, suicides, or mass killings. They have confidence in the motto, “Firearms don’t kill individuals; individuals do.” It is one of their plans to pass on the possibility that weapons are essentially lifeless things that are not hazardous except if and until they come into contact with people. A supporter of weapons hardliners has said, “I’ve never seen a firearm get up off a table and discharge itself.” The trademark mentions that weapons are ethically impartial. They are not risky by themselves. They become dangerous simply because they are in the hands of a cruel, upset, or reckless individual. As one Idaho weapon vendor put it, “Guns are not at fault for wrongdoing; the gun’s people are at legitimate fault for accomplishing something with it.” Numerous firearm owners have seen that they have had weapons for a long time and that none of their weapons have ever been used in wrongdoing or other rough demonstration. Smash hit creator Tom Clancy has called attention to the fact that “no gun has killed anybody except if coordinated by an individual who acted either from noxiousness, frenzy, or foolishness.” They look to demonstrate that there is no weapon issue. It is just a group issue. For the weapon hardliner, the core laws to look into are those aimed at how people use firearms rather than at the weapons themselves. How does this speculation fit with how we treat other “lifeless things” that will more often than not become hazardous just when they come into contact with people? Is it safe to say that we are content essentially to rebuff the individual who abuses the item? Or, on the other hand, would we say we are intrigued additionally by putting boundaries between the object and those who are probably going to abuse it? (Henigan 51)

The conversation about firearm control is a controversial one. America ought to authorize laws that will require weapon proprietors to register their guns. Individual verification of each resident bearing a weapon is fundamental so that firearms don’t land in the arms of criminals and the deranged. The facts confirm that guns are used for self-preservation and safety in the right hands. Therefore, we should attempt to place these weapons in the right hands. In any case, firearm control isn’t the only remedy. It is critical to educate the populace about the dangers of possessing firearms, train them on the most proficient method to use them, and request that they dispatch the weapons at their discretion.

Work Cited

Hazell, Paul. The Story of the Gun: History, Science, and Impact on Society (Springer Praxis Books). 1st ed. 2021, Springer, 2021.

Henigan, Dennis. “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People”: And Other Myths About Guns and Gun Control. Beacon Press, 2016.

Jacobs, James. Can Gun Control Work? (Studies in Crime and Public Policy). Oxford University Press, 2004.

Jr, Lott John, and Andrew Pollack. Gun Control Myths: How Politicians, the Media, and Botched “Studies” Have Twisted the Facts on Gun Control. Independently published, 2020.

Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society. 1st ed., Routledge, 2000.