The Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws in America
The topic of gun control laws has been a matter of debate for a long time in America. On one spectrum, those in support of the restriction of gun control laws are individuals who have noted the cultural, symbolic, and economic importance of guns within the United States context. The above is borrowed from valuing traditions of collecting guns and an appreciation of protection and security, sport shooting, and hunting. Nevertheless, the very fact that gun violence has recently gone out of control, particularly with the school shootings that have been witnessed, questions the narrative of lessening or restricting gun control laws. Given the recent gun violence events, there is a need for the imposition of stricter gun control laws in the view of reducing gun violence, closing the existent ‘terror gap’, fixing the United States wrecked background check system, and ending the legal immunity enjoyed by gun manufacturers.
Initial gun control laws have not been equal, as connoted by the increment in gun violence. This can be deduced from the military-grade firearms that have been utilized in mass shootings. Thus, there is a need to restrict the number of purchases of guns, as well as carry out background checks on all private sales in the heed of lowering gun homicide rates (Gregory and Wilson). Additionally, researchers have equally found certain links between the right to openly carry firearm laws which require the various bodies to issue permits for concealed carrying (Rosenberg). However, since the adoption of the laws ten years later, as researched in 2017 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, violent crime has risen by between 13% and 15% (Gregory and Wilson). Henceforth, this calls for the need for the abolishment of policies allowing the right to carry firearms. Further stringent measures should involve barring individuals deemed at risk from owning firearms. Not only has it shown that it has averted and reduced suicide, but it has also been shown to reduce vengeful tendencies and, thereof, homicides perpetrated using guns.
Current gun control laws do not contain any deterrence of preventing suspected or known terrorists from purchasing guns and conducting thorough background checks. The above is according to an observation done by Tanden et al. in their reports on gun violence published by the Center for American Progress. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office, as of the period between 2004 and 2010, noted that about 1,119 instances were recorded of suspected or known terrorists under the United States government terrorist watch list having purchased explosives or guns from dealers licensed under the federal government (Tanden et al.) Also, within the past two decades, numerous instances of terror attacks have been noted to occur which have involved firearms. Nevertheless, some plots have been successfully foiled (Cook). Nevertheless, there is a need to reconsider the move to block the sale of explosives and guns to individuals suspected to be terrorists (Sati). This should be administered through legislation of laws that will foresee the controlled sale of firearms as had initially been advocated under the bipartisan legislation sponsored by Peter King, the chair of house homeland security, and Senator Frank Lautenberg.
Many Americans contend with the fact that certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, such as drug abusers, violent criminals, violent domestic individuals, and the mentally ill, should not be allowed to own or purchase firearms (Sati). Under the law, such categories of individuals have, in fact, been barred from holding a firearm. However, the only way that it can be determined whether somebody has been prohibited from owning a firearm under federal or state law is through carrying out instant background checks (Tanden, et al.). While “… firearm dealers licensed under federal governments carry out routine checks, gun transfers by “private sellers” are not necessarily expected to carry out background checks…” (Tanen et al.). This is despite about an expected 40 percent of all gun transfers occurring per year within the United States originating from private sellers (Tanen, et al.). This lends an opportunity for dangerous persons ineligible under federal laws to own guns, thereby bypassing background checks.
In the year 2005, congress passed a law protecting or barring gun sellers and manufacturers legal immunity from any civil claims that would be laid against them (Gregory and Wilson). Despite the fact “…that frivolous lawsuits do not benefit anyone, holding sellers and manufacturers liable for the misuse of firearms would incentivize them to ensure that firearms are safer…” (Gregory and Wilson). Gregory and Wilson deduce that should certain innocent deaths be associated with a certain consumer product; it would be fixed, regulated, or banned. However, there is a lack of gun control laws to control this aspect of firearm sales and ownership.
As many more Americans die due to gun violence, the debate around stricter control of guns rages on. This follows the fact that the violence, mass murders, and crimes committed with these guns are so frequent. The varsity of these heinous crimes is so vast that a large number of them are not mentioned within mainstream media outlets. It is only those who are heinous or massive enough to gain the attention of these media outlets. As the debate rages on, there is a need to minimize the powers of the National Rifle Association. This is connoted by the fact that many politicians of both the major parties in the United States fear retaliation from the association. It is in this view that most have refused to enact constitutional and reasonable measures, which are currently favored by many Americans. This is through the expansion of background checks for every gun purchased, as well as the reinstatement of a ban by the federal government on assault weapons (Gregory and Wilson). Henceforth, politicians should be accorded more powers with respect to dealing with associations such as the National Rifle Association. This is in the view of passing laws and policies that favor Americans and which will have the impact of limiting the control laws surrounding gun ownership, as well as the purchase of these weapons.
There should also be the establishment of a board that can help research or better look into gun control laws in America. This follows from the fact that the current boards have failed to effectively handle the problem or conduct insight into the best or appropriate laws for gun ownership and purchases. This followed the 2003 research by the CDC and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Upon its examination, the board found that bans, background checks, waiting periods, as well as other imposed restrictions were not effective enough (Cook and Goss). The argument reached is that most of the people who own guns were doing so for their own self-dense. Out of this, the CDC found out that people were using guns to save lives by a rate of 16 in comparison to 100 times in taking lives. Five years later, the Supreme Court also ruled on the need to bear and keep arms as vested in the Second Amendment of the Constitution (Sati). The court noted that the right was for protecting the rights of Americans to bear arms. However, despite there being some facts in the above sentiments, there is still a need for gun control laws that are stricter. This can only be implemented through a national board that can help spearhead the move. This is done by giving true insight and research on the current problem around guns. Also, the board should further the discussion by showing how effective it would be to bring into effect certain gun control laws.
Previous attempts to enact strict gun control laws have fallen short of their intention. This can be gathered from previous laws that were bolstered for additional regulations. This has been foreseen borrowed from lax enforcement of some of the provisions provided by legislations (Tanden, et al.). This is whereby the law has been made effective, especially in punishing ineligible individuals who had purchased a firearm instead of preventing them from getting one. In this view, the law should be tough on the legislation enacted to ensure that they prevail and have an oversight committee that will oversee their action.
The lack of stricter gun control laws could foresee the scourge of gun violence and mass shootings rising further. However, this can only be curbed by imposing stricter gun control laws than the ones in place. This move should be supported across the board in the view of reducing gun violence, closing the existent ‘terror gap’, fixing the United States wrecked background check system, and ending the legal immunity enjoyed by gun manufacturers, as detailed above.
Works Cited
Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. “Gun Control in America.” The Gun Debate, 2020.
Gregory, Sean, and Chris Wilson. “6 Real Ways We Can Reduce Gun Violence in America.” TIME, 22 Mar. 2018, time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/.
Rosenberg, Karen. “Stricter State Gun Laws Improve School Environment and Perceptions of Safety.” AJN, American Journal of Nursing, vol. 119, no. 7, 2019, p. 62.
Sati, Priya. “The Solution to America’s Gun Problem Is Noncooperation.” Foreign Policy, 20 Apr. 2021, foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/20/america-gun-problem-solution-slavery-racism/.
Tanden, Neera, et al. “Preventing Gun Violence in Our Nation.” Center for American Progress, 12 Jan. 2013, www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2013/01/12/49510/preventing-gun-violence-in-our-nation/.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
The Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws in America
In this assignment, you will compose an argument about a current controversy of your choice while advocating for support of this topic. Your argument must be supported by research. In this paper, you will make a claim and build an argument to support it, using a minimum of FIVE credible sources to demonstrate that you understand other perspectives concerning your topic and to support your own claim.
Requirements:
Create a clear thesis that summarizes the controversy and states your argument.
Frame and define your controversy.
Make sure the paragraphs have clear main ideas that are supporting your thesis.
Support your claims with evidence from credible research. *NOTE* Only about 10 – 15% should be information you’ve gained from research — the other 85 – 90% needs to be your interpretation of and analysis of that research.
Demonstrate that you understand, through responsible research, points of view that are different than—even in opposition to—your own.