Charleston, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine. These are all well-known tragedies in the recent history of the United States. However, they do not constitute the vast majority of gun related deaths in the nation. According to data collected by Politifact on the article, “15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year,” from The Trace, “From 2005-2015, 71 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. 301,797 were killed by gun violence during the same period.” This ongoing epidemic needs to be controlled through much-needed legislation. Gun control is not designed to stop only mass shootings, but also to decrease the total amount of crime that is performed with the use of firearms. With stricter gun control, the federal government has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of gun-related deaths in the United States.
There has been an ongoing battle between the parties at the federal level over gun control, and most of it has been thrown out or it is continuously debated. However, at the state level, gun control has been anything but stagnant. The Lancet, a British journal, collected the data from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, that, “20 states have strengthened gun laws related to domestic violence and at least 19 states, including Florida and Massachusetts, have passed laws aimed at improving databases used in background checks. ‘Since Sandy Hook in 2012, there have been 138 new gun laws in 42 states. This is unprecedented momentum at the state level’, Allison Anderman, staff attorney at the law centre, told The Lancet” (Sharmila). Much like other progressive movements in United States history, such as slavery, civil rights, and gay marriage rights, as Sharmila mentioned, it takes time for nation-wide issues to become a part of the federal agenda. The two main tragic events that have recently driven the gun control movement are the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. However, Sharmila recognizes that these events don’t encapsulate the entirety of movement for gun control when she states that, “Of the 90 deaths a day in the USA caused by gun violence, some two-thirds are suicides. ‘Everyday violence doesn’t make the headlines. As much as events such as Orlando elevate the epidemic of gun violence to the broader public, the process of social and legislative change is incremental’, Ted Alcorn, research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a grassroots organisation seeking to end gun violence, told The Lancet.” During this past presidential election, there was talk of gun control by both parties, but when gun control was advocated, only those two incidents were mentioned most often, because the candidates knew that the public would want to hear about these infamous events, so as to get the attention they want. However, opposition found it easy to counter this argument because they simply stated that they wouldn’t want to impose more gun control on everyone as a result of the actions of only a few people. There has been some progress in the battle toward gun control in early 2016, but it is certainly not enough to win the war. The article in the New Scientist, “Tighter Gun Control,” describes the accomplishment of President Obama’s campaign for gun control that, “currently, anyone who wants to buy a gun from a licensed store must pass a background check.” However, even though Obama had further plans to cut off the loophole that allows someone to purchase guns without background checks from private sellers, but after the recent inauguration of President Trump, these efforts are likely to be squandered.
So why hasn’t gun control been a heated topic until recently? According to Emily Underwood, a writer for Science journal, in her article, “Gun Control Agenda Is a Call to Duty for Scientists,” stated that the, “CDC was pursuing a gun control agenda rather than unbiased science, former U.S. Representative Jay Dickey (R–AR), who described himself then as ‘NRA’s point person in Congress,’ convinced the House to cut $2.6 million from the CDC budget: the precise amount that the agency’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control was slated to spend on gun violence research that year.” After nearly twenty years, President Obama in 2013 told the CDC and other agencies to resume their studies. Because there was no data concerning gun violence with suicides, homicides, and mass shootings, “academic papers published on gun violence fell by 60%” (Underwood). With no academic papers, there was no way for much needed information about gun control to reach the public with the exception of news about mass shootings reaching national television. The United States has been long overdue for gun control legislation.
It also seems that even though there is wide approval in the public over gun control laws, there has been little action at the national level concerning this issue. A 2013 article, “The Gun Control Paradox,” by Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser, discusses the data collected in a survey about the public’s opinion of possible legislation that would require a permit approved by police to own a gun. The two writers begin with the statement that, “historically, despite considerable public outcry immediately following these horrific events, attention to gun control quickly fades” (Schuman and Presser 68). However, this phenomenon is counterintuitive to the majority opinion about the proposed legislation. Schuman and Presser utilize a survey conducted by SurveyUSA in 2011, which concluded that, “57 percent favored a gun permit requirement, and 43 percent were in opposition” (Schuman and Presser 68). The writers analyzed the data to understand why no action was being done at the national level for gun control. They observed that even though individuals supporting gun control overall had more “intensity of opinion”, the “centrality of opinion”, which is the likelihood that a constituent would vote for a representative who supports their opinion, went to the gun rights side. It was also apparent that, of the people who took the survey, a very slim percentage of individuals took action to either write a letter to an elected official or donate money to a cause. This lack of public action left political groups, especially the National Rifle Association (NRA) to influence the continued rejection of gun control legislation. Schuman and Presser arrived at the solution that, “if proponents of gun control legislation want to succeed, they must counter their opponents with letter writing campaigns of their own, with financial support for appropriate organizations, and with protests, showing that they are committed enough to act on the issue” (Schuman and Presser 69). The politics of gun control is essentially one-sided, and for any legislation to be put through, the public will have to care enough to make the change in politics concerning gun control.
Gun control has had much attention in politics for more than a century, yet there hasn’t been much legislation to produce the results that everyone has been looking for. Members of Congress who represent the NRA have prevented the research by the CDC on gun violence. There is wide approval of gun control legislation, yet little is done by the public to voice their opinions about this issue. Lastly, there are several theories in support and against gun control. These theories cannot be proven on the national level until nation-wide legislation allows us to see the benefits and faults of the specific type of gun control laws that are being put in place.
Works Cited
Devi, Sharmila. “The Long Road to Gun Control in America.” The Lancet. 388.10041 (2016): 224-225. Print.
Mascia, Jennifer. “15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year.” The Trace. N.p., 28 Jan. 2017. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
Schuman, H, and S Presser. “The Gun Control Paradox.” Contexts. 12.2 (2013): 68-69. Print.
“Tighter Gun Control.” New Scientist. 229.3055 (2016). Print.
Underwood, E. “Public Health. Gun Control Agenda Is a Call to Duty for Scientists.” Science (new York, N.y.). 339.6118 (2013): 381-2. Print.